Walt Zlotow: Biden seeks $14 more billion to complete destruction of Palestinians in Gaza.
Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL 7 Feb 24
The genocidal madness of President Biden has no limits.
For 123 days he’s been in near total support of Israel’s genocidal ethnic cleansing of 2,300,000 Palestinians in Gaza. He’s given them over 20,000 tons of war material to kill tens of thousands of Palestinians, destroy three quarters of their housing, send two million fleeing US bombs just to be blasted by more US bombs while on the run. Most hospitals and schools are gone under US bombs. Hundreds of thousands are starving or dying from lack of medicine.
In addition, he’s given them public support and a veto protection at the UN Security Council which called for ceasefire. He’s dismissed the Court of International Justice genocide hearing on Israel’s genocide as “meritless.” Biden and his Israeli counterpart Netanyahu are joined at the bombsight in their combined genocide in Gaza. US deserved to be joined in the dock with Israel in the ICJ hearing.
Now Biden demands $14 billion more to complete the grotesque project he could have stopped on Day 1 simply by denouncing Israel’s genocidal ethnic cleansing in Gaza, and cutting off every bloody dollar of aid.
Half of Americans polled say Israel has gone too far. Fully a third call it genocide. Biden calls it ‘helping our best ally.’ On Genocide Day 100, he honored Israel without a single mention of the 2,300,000 Palestinians whose lives were being degraded, if not destroyed with his help.
Joe Biden has supported every failed US war of world dominance for half a century. He won’t admit it, but the Israeli war to cleanse Gaza of Palestinians may already have failed. Palestinian resistance and worldwide revulsion and condemnation may bring about the downfall of Israel as well as Gaza.
Joe Biden is the 45th man to occupy the White House. He’s earning the dubious distinction of becoming the first Genocide President.
Western officials in protest over Israel Gaza policy
BBC, By Tom Bateman. BBC State Department correspondent, 3 Feb 24
More than 800 serving officials in the US and Europe have signed a statement warning that their own governments’ policies on the Israel-Gaza war could amount to “grave violations of international law”.
The “transatlantic statement”, a copy of which was passed to the BBC, says their administrations risk being complicit in “one of the worst human catastrophes of this century” but that their expert advice has been sidelined.
It is the latest sign of significant levels of dissent within the governments of some of Israel’s key Western allies.
One signatory to the statement, a US government official with more than 25 years’ national security experience, told the BBC of the “continued dismissal” of their concerns.
“The voices of those who understand the region and the dynamics were not listened to,” said the official.
“What’s really different here is we’re not failing to prevent something, we’re actively complicit. That is fundamentally different from any other situation I can recall,” added the official, who spoke on condition of anonymity.
The statement is signed by civil servants from the US, the EU and 11 European countries including the UK, France and Germany.
It says Israel has shown “no boundaries” in its military operations in Gaza, “which has resulted in tens of thousands of preventable civilian deaths; and… the deliberate blocking of aid… putting thousands of civilians at risk of starvation and slow death.”
“There is a plausible risk that our governments’ policies are contributing to grave violations of international law, war crimes and even ethnic cleansing or genocide,” it said.
The identities of those who signed or endorsed the statement have not been made public and the BBC has not seen a list of names, but understands that nearly half are officials who each have at least a decade of experience in government.
One retired US ambassador told the BBC that the coordination by dissenting civil servants in multiple governments was unprecedented.
“It’s unique in my experience watching foreign policy in the last 40 years,” said Robert Ford, a former American ambassador to Algeria and Syria.
He likened it to concerns within the US administration in 2003 over faulty intelligence leading up to the invasion of Iraq, but said this time many officials with reservations did not want to remain silent.
“[Then there were] people who knew better, who knew that intelligence was being cherry-picked, who knew that there wasn’t a plan for the day after, but nobody said anything publicly. And that turned out to be a serious problem,” he said.
“The problems with the Gaza war are so serious and the implications are so serious that they feel compelled to go public,” he said.
The officials argue the current nature of their governments’ military, political or diplomatic support for Israel “without real conditions or accountability” not only risks further Palestinian deaths, but also endangers the lives of hostages held by Hamas, as well as Israel’s own security and regional stability.
“Israel’s military operations have disregarded all important counterterrorism expertise gained since 9/11… the [military] operation has not contributed to Israel’s goal of defeating Hamas and has instead strengthened the appeal of Hamas, Hezbollah and other negative actors”.
The officials say they have expressed their professional concerns internally but have been “overruled by political and ideological considerations”.
One senior British official who has endorsed the statement told the BBC of “growing disquiet” among civil servants.
The official referred to the fallout from last week’s preliminary ruling by the UN’s International Court of Justice in a case brought by South Africa which required Israel to do all it can to prevent acts of genocide.
“The dismissal of South Africa’s case as ‘unhelpful’ by our Foreign Secretary puts [the international rules-based] order in peril.”
We have heard ministers dismiss allegations against the Israeli Government seemingly without having received proper and well-evidenced legal advice. Our current approach does not appear to be in the best interests of the UK, the region or the global order,” said the official who also spoke on condition of anonymity……………………………………………………… more https://www.bbc.com/news/world-us-canada-68177357
U.S. admits it hasn’t verified Israel’s UNRWA claims, media ignores it
the media coverage, which is, once again, treating Israeli allegations as proven facts. Nor could you tell by the U.S. response. Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated, “We haven’t had the ability to investigate [the allegations] ourselves. But they are highly, highly credible.”
That is a stunning statement. They are simply taking Israel’s word for it, and on that basis, they are suspending aid to nearly two million people who need that aid more than anyone in the world.
Secretary Blinken admits that the U.S. has been unable to investigate the “evidence” presented by Israel claiming 13 of UNRWA’s 13,000 Gaza employees participated in October 7. Biden took Israel’s word for it anyway.
In the latest demonstration of the boundless cruelty of U.S. President Joe Biden and his despicable administration, they have turned the backbone of what little aid Palestinians in Gaza receive into a political football, to be toyed with and batted around while jeopardizing that support for people who are already near the edge of what any human, however brave, can possibly endure.
It’s the latest in what feels like an eternal cycle of the United States and Israel beating up on the UN Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA) for political gain. There have been many hearings on Capitol Hill over the years bashing UNRWA and calling for either a complete structural overhaul of the agency or its dismantlement and absorption into the larger United Nations High Commission for Refugees (UNHCR).
The root of the attacks, prior to October 7, 2023, has been UNRWA’s unique mission which is to provide humanitarian assistance — including food, housing, medical aid, and the role that has taken up the bulk of its budget for years, education — to Palestinian refugees exclusively. Because of this mandate, Israel and its supporters blame UNRWA for the definition of “refugee” in the Palestinian context, which includes not only those made refugees by the 1948 and 1967 wars, but also their descendants born into refugee status.
Many on the pro-Israel and Israeli right and center believe doing away with UNRWA would essentially allow Israel to do away with Palestinian refugees because they believe UNRWA is the only thing maintaining that generational definition.
They’re wrong, of course. International law is clear on this point, as the UN states: “Under international law and the principle of family unity, the children of refugees and their descendants are also considered refugees until a durable solution is found. Both UNRWA and UNHCR recognize descendants as refugees on this basis, a practice that has been widely accepted by the international community, including both donors and refugee-hosting countries. Palestine refugees are not distinct from other protracted refugee situations such as those from Afghanistan or Somalia, where there are multiple generations of refugees, considered by UNHCR as refugees and supported as such. Protracted refugee situations are the result of the failure to find political solutions to their underlying political crises.”
There’s no ambiguity there, but that hasn’t stopped the controversy. ……………………………
Israelis have always known that they need the agency, despite all their hateful rhetoric about it. For years, Israel would bash UNRWA mercilessly in the media, but would always tell the United States that its operations were necessary, especially in Gaza. Without UNRWA, Israel would be expected to ensure that a humanitarian catastrophe did not ensue, so Israel needs the agency.
In 2018, emboldened by a reckless U.S. administration under Donald Trump, Netanyahu suddenly changed that position and called for the U.S. to dramatically cut its support of UNRWA. Trump eagerly did so. When Netanyahu made that sudden shift, it surprised and disturbed many in his own government who disagreed with the decision. Just about the only positive step Joe Biden took when entering office was to restore UNRWA’s funding. But Trump’s action made the question of UNRWA’s funding even more politically charged than it had always been.
Unable to investigate
The old cycle seems to be playing out again, but this time, the highly charged politics in Washington are more intricate.
On January 26, Israeli allegations against a dozen UNRWA employees surfaced. The agency immediately fired nine of them and said that two others were dead, hoping their swift and pre-emptive action would stave off rash U.S. actions. Nonetheless, the United States and a host of other countries immediately suspended funding for UNRWA, over the actions of 12 of over 30,000 employees, 13,000 of whom are in Gaza.
It’s worth pausing over that last fact for a moment. Twelve out of 13,000 Gaza employees have caused all of this, and it’s based on evidence that has not been made public. You’d never know that from much of the media coverage, which is, once again, treating Israeli allegations as proven facts. Nor could you tell by the U.S. response. Secretary of State Antony Blinken stated, “We haven’t had the ability to investigate [the allegations] ourselves. But they are highly, highly credible.”
That is a stunning statement. They are simply taking Israel’s word for it, and on that basis, they are suspending aid to nearly two million people who need that aid more than anyone in the world.
Recall that Israel, in October 2021, labeled six Palestinian organizations as being connected to “terrorist groups,” specifically referring to the Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine (PFLP). The “evidence” Israel presented was so threadbare that European countries dismissed it as baseless, and even the Biden administration, which has repeatedly supported Israeli claims based on no evidence that turned out to be false, could not accept the Israeli charges, though it avoided explicitly calling out Israel’s attempted deception.
Yet now, Israel has presented a “dossier” that contains its case against the twelve UNRWA workers. The actual evidence has not been made public, and even the United States, as noted above, has admitted it can’t verify the Israeli claims. But the U.S. suspended UNRWA’s funding anyway and led seventeen other countries to follow suit. …………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Biden’s incompetence and mindless cruelty
For Biden, the hearings, as well as the general tone and tenor in Washington after years of bashing UNRWA, present a problem. If he doesn’t restore UNRWA’s funding, conditions in Gaza will grow much worse very quickly, and calls for a ceasefire will be overwhelming, as will Biden’s downward trend in polls. If he restores UNRWA’s funding, he will find himself under attack from Republicans as well as some Democrats.
In the wake of the hearing this week, one of Israel’s leading advocates in Congress, Brad Schneider (D-IL), bluntly stated, “We have to replace UNRWA with something else. I support getting rid of UNRWA.”………………………………….
Had Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken not reacted in knee-jerk fashion to the unsubstantiated Israeli allegations, this would be less of a problem. They could have noted that UNRWA immediately fired the workers in question, that it had launched an investigation, and that its work was needed now more than ever. Biden could then have talked about reviewing UNRWA over the coming weeks and months, and made some political show of it without jeopardizing the aid to Gaza, which even the Israeli government doesn’t want to see cut………………………..
Even government officials from both the Biden administration and the Netanyahu government have been forced to acknowledge the crucial role UNRWA plays. That this has become a political hot potato is not just a testament to Biden’s incompetence, but also to his mindless cruelty and unquenchable hostility to the Palestinian people. https://mondoweiss.net/2024/02/u-s-admits-it-hasnt-verified-israels-unrwa-claims-media-ignores-it/—
French firm EDF shows its power over the UK govt – no judicial review now required over fish protection from Hinkley nuclear cooling system.
In 2021, EDF was formally told it must fit an acoustic fish deterrent
(AFD) system to the massive seawater intakes of the cooling system. It was
considered necessary to “protect the marine life of the Severn Estuary
catchment area and its nine great rivers: Parrett, Avon, Severn, Wye, Usk,
Ebbw, Rhymney, Taff, Ely and their tributaries where many fish species go
to breed”.
Without AFD it is estimated that 22 billion fish would be
ingested over the planned 60-year life of the plant, of which half would be
killed in the process.
Not so final. EDF appealed against this but in 2022
the then environment secretary, George Eustice, refused the appeal in
definitive terms: “The decision on this appeal is final [and] can only be
challenged in the courts by judicial review.”
Final? EDF, which has been
running rings around the government and bullying ministers (Eyes passim)
since it bought the British nuclear fleet in 2008, simply went
regulator-shopping on the basis that energy ministers are more likely to be
sympathetic. And so it proves: the Department for Environment, Food & Rural
Affairs (Defra) has been reduced to the role of consultee on the “final
final” decision, which will now be taken elsewhere – with no judicial
review required.
Private Eye 2nd Feb 2024
https://www.private-eye.co.uk/sections.php?issue=1616§ion_link=columnists
EDF’s Hinkley Point woes pile pressure on global nuclear push.
When in 2016 France’s EDF signed up to build Britain’s first new
nuclear power plant in two decades, defenders of the costly Hinkley Point C
project included Emmanuel Macron, then economy minister. “If we believe
in nuclear power, we have to do Hinkley Point,” France’s now president
told a parliamentary enquiry, rejecting some lawmakers’ concerns that
state-backed EDF, which was already struggling to deliver a new French
prototype plant in Normandy, may not have the financial bandwidth to take
on the British site, originally estimated to cost £18bn.
Eight years on, with cost overruns surging at Hinkley due to repeated delays and EDF on the
hook for at least another £5bn on top of previous budget revisions,
Macron’s government is on a mission to ensure the French nuclear operator
can indeed withstand the fallout — and keep on top of ballooning
investments and orders at home.
French ministers are trying to get the British state to stump up some support for the soaring Hinkley bill, which could reach a total of £46bn at today’s prices for the two reactors,
people close to the talks have said.
That would be roughly double the original budget in 2015 prices, compared with an EDF project in Finland that ended up costing more than twice what it was supposed to and a plan
for one reactor at Flamanville in France that is running four times over
budget, at €13.2bn.
But the Hinkley setbacks have also revived a core
strategic question that is becoming more pressing than ever for EDF, a
former French electricity monopoly that operates Europe’s biggest fleet
of 56 domestic reactors: whether it is equipped to handle multiple projects
at once, internationally and at home, and financially as well as from an
industrial perspective. Already an issue in 2016, when French labour unions
at the group opposed the Hinkley plans on the basis that the financial
set-up was risky, this tension now has a different edge to it.
FT 29th Jan 2024
https://www.ft.com/content/d401e42b-d953-4ef0-b3ea-ed80e974249a
The feckless four – hypocrisy of the nuclear weapons nations
What do governments led by Rishi Sunak, Vladimir Putin, Emmanuel Macron and Kim Jong-un have in common?
Inside Story NIC MACLELLAN ,2 FEBRUARY 2024
Just three days before Christmas, the UN General Assembly adopted a resolution designed to assist survivors of nuclear testing and restore environments contaminated by nuclear weapons testing and use. Jointly developed by Kiribati and Kazakhstan, the resolution won overwhelming support, with 171 nations in favour, six abstentions and just four votes against.
It’s little surprise that five of the six abstentions came from nuclear weapon states: the United States, China, Israel, Pakistan and India (joined, oddly, by South Sudan). But in a dismaying display of power politics, France and Britain voted with Russia and North Korea to oppose assistance to people and landscapes irradiated during decades of nuclear testing.
Diplomats representing Western powers are prone to talk about “the international community,” “the rules-based order” and “democratic versus authoritarian states.” But on this occasion the jargon was undercut by the willingness of London and Paris to line up alongside Moscow and Pyongyang to avoid responsibility for past actions and to limit reparations.
With the International Court of Justice debating genocide in Ukraine, Myanmar and Palestine and UN agencies seeking to defend international humanitarian law, the hypocrisy of major powers has been polarising international opinion. Developing nations are increasingly challenging an international order that sanctions official enemies, at the same time as absolving major powers of the responsibility to deal with their own breaches of international law.
Over the past three years, ambassadors Teburoro Tito of Kiribati and Akan Rakhmetullin of Kazakhstan have coordinated international consultations on how the nuclear assistance provisions of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, or TPNW, should be implemented. Articles 6 and 7 of the treaty, which entered into force in January 2021, include unprecedented obligations on parties to the treaty to aid nuclear survivors and contribute to environmental remediation.
Kiribati and Kazakhstan might seem an unlikely couple, but they have bonded over a common twentieth-century legacy. Both nations’ lands, waters and peoples have been devastated by cold war nuclear testing, and in each case the responsible countries refuse to take responsibility. Britain and Russia have bonded, too, but in their case, they’re united in their refusal to assist their former colonies.
After conducting twelve atmospheric atomic tests in Australia in 1952–57 — at the Monte Bello Islands, Emu Field and Maralinga — Britain sought a new location for developing and testing more powerful hydrogen bombs. During Operation Grapple, the British military conducted nine atmospheric thermonuclear tests at Malden and Christmas (Kiritimati) islands in the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony, which is today part of the Republic of Kiribati.
Just as Britain chose the “vast empty spaces” of the South Australian desert and the isolated atolls of Kiribati for its tests, Moscow sought similar expanses within the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. Over more than four decades, it held 456 nuclear tests in the Semipalatinsk region of Kazakhstan. The history of Soviet testing in the Central Asian republic and its radioactive legacies, spread across more than 18,000 square kilometres, has been documented by Kazakh scholar Togzhan Kassenova in her compelling 2022 book Atomic Steppe.
Once the TPNW was adopted, Kiribati and Kazakhstan led efforts to develop mechanisms for dealing with the health and environmental effects of radioactive fallout. After seeking technical advice from survivors, nuclear scientists and UN agencies, they developed a set of proposals for action and a UN resolution seeking international support.
Now adopted by the UN General Assembly, that resolution proposes bilateral, regional and multilateral action and the sharing of technical and scientific information about nuclear legacies, and “calls upon Member States in a position to do so to contribute technical and financial assistance as appropriate.” It requires UN secretary-general Antonio Guterres to seek members’ views and proposals about assistance to nuclear survivors and report back to the General Assembly…………………………………………………. more https://insidestory.org.au/the-feckless-four/
France seeks loan guarantees from UK over Hinkley Point C nuclear plant
French officials look for funding options for the EDF project as UK ministers insist they will not shoulder any costs.
Annabel Cossins-SmithFebruary 1, 2024 https://www.power-technology.com/news/france-loan-guarantees-from-uk-over-hinkley-point-c/?cf-view&cf-closed—
rance’s Government is putting pressure on UK ministers to provide loan guarantees for the drawn-out construction of its Hinkley Point C nuclear plant in an attempt to ease the financial burden on French state-owned utility EDF.
EDF, which also owns and operates the UK’s current active fleet of nuclear reactors, is paying for most of Hinkley Point C’s construction.
The company said last week that costs for the project are expected to rise again, the second announcement of a major cost increase in less than a year. The cost of completing Hinkley is now expected to be between £31bn (€36.29bn) and £34bn, although if completion is delayed to 2031, costs may rise to £35bn.
These figures from EDF are based on 2015 price values. In today’s terms, once inflation is taken into account, numbers become significantly higher. Less than a year ago, documents revealed that EDF executives were already expecting costs for the project to rise to up £33bn.
EDF also pushed back its completion date last week to 2029 at the earliest, or 2031 in an “unfavourable scenario”. This is more than a decade later than the original deadline of 2017 given in 2007. It is also four years later than the previous deadline of 2027 given in 2022.
Under a contract drawn up a decade ago, before costs had spiralled, the financial burden of any overruns in construction falls on EDF rather than the UK Government. However, French ministers are now demanding state guarantees from the UK, the Financial Times reports. Assurances would allow EDF to issue project-level debt and relieve pressure on the company’s finances, which took a major hit in 2022 after electrical output from the company’s ageing nuclear fleet in France nosedived.
China’s General Nuclear Power Group (CGN) holds a 33% stake in Hinkley Point C. Under the companies’ agreement, EDF can ask CGN to pump more capital into Hinkley if costs rise, but a spokesperson for EDF said last year: “The probability that CGN will not fund the project after it has reached its committed equity cap is high.” CGN has since stopped paying for overruns, so EDF is left shouldering all additional costs.
The UK Government insists it will not cover any costs. “Hinkley Point C is not a government project and so any additional costs or schedule overruns are the responsibility of EDF and its partners and in no way will fall on taxpayers,” a spokesperson said.
According to sources familiar with the matter, the proposal being pushed by French officials is similar to an initial offer from the UK Government when the Hinkley contracts were first negotiated in 2014, in which British ministers offered EDF a loan guarantee of £10bn for the project. However, this offer was withdrawn in 2016 when a final investment decision was taken because ministers already had concerns about soaring costs.
Another proposal from France involves changes in contract terms for the construction of the UK’s other flagship nuclear project, Sizewell C, also being built by EDF. Funding for Sizewell differs to Hinkley because it is being part-funded by the public purse, with the UK government also looking to raise £20bn in outside private investment.
The provisional measures of the International Court of Justice
by Thierry Meyssan, VOLTAIRE NETWORK | PARIS (FRANCE) | 30 JANUARY 2024, Translation
Roger Lagassé
The International Court of Justice has just taken provisional measures to protect the Gazan population from possible genocide. This decision is nothing new, but provides legal support for the political position of the United States. This decision in no way prejudges the judgment on the merits, which would condemn Israel if it were made, but probably never will be. International justice is still in its infancy, and is still struggling to apply the law.
The International Court of Justice, presided over by former U.S. State Department official Joan Donoghue, has issued a protective order in the case between South Africa and Israel. Unsurprisingly, the Court took exactly the same decision as the United States: Israel must do everything in its power to prevent genocide, while continuing its war against Hamas.
INTERNATIONAL JUSTICE IS STILL IN ITS INFANCY
The Court is an embryo of international justice within the United Nations. It replaces the Permanent Court of International Justice, which was created in 1922 within the League of Nations. The system is only a century old. Its aim is to ensure that each State applies the commitments it has entered into. However, since 1942, the Anglo-Saxons, who accepted this court in 1945, have been seeking not to apply international law, but to establish their governance over the world. When they signed the Atlantic Charter, British Prime Minister Winston Churchill and US President Franklin D. Roosevelt asserted, in the name of their states, that they alone should decide disputes between states in the post-war world. This was the original cause of the Cold War and today’s conflicts.
Consequently, contrary to the image we have of it, the International Court of Justice is not a finished court, but a battlefield where the Anglo-Saxon unipolar project of the world confronts the multipolar project of most other states. This is how we should interpret the Gaza massacre order.
The only means of pressure on governments available to the Court is not an army, but public opinion in each country. No government accepts the idea of being presented to its people as a criminal. It is therefore particularly important to understand the Court’s decisions.
MAGISTRATES HAVE TO SAY WHAT’S RIGHT, BUT THEY’RE NOT ALL THAT INDEPENDENT
The Court’s fifteen permanent magistrates are nominated by their own governments and elected by all. They must use legal reasoning to justify their decisions. However, their decisions generally reflect their national prejudices. It is very rare for judges chosen by their own government to rule against it. Two additional magistrates are appointed by the two parties to the conflict. They come to defend their country and look for legal arguments to back up their case……………………………………………………………………………………………………….
First of all, no one has asked the Court to judge the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and international law has nothing to do with politics. Secondly, South Africa was careful not to accuse Israel of genocidal intent, but it did cite enough genocidal statements by Israeli leaders to call for provisional measures, an argument which the Israeli judge considered valid. Finally, let’s come to the last point: the absence of Hamas from the proceedings cannot authorize Israel to allow genocide to be perpetrated…………………………………………………….
The Court did not rule on South Africa’s other demands, which could not be dealt with as a matter of urgency, but exclusively on the merits: reparation measures for Palestinian victims and the condemnation by Israel of individuals guilty of genocide. Above all, it did not say that “the Israeli State must immediately suspend its military operations in and against Gaza”……………………………………………………………
PROVISIONAL ORDER DOES NOT PREJUDGE JUDGMENT ON THE MERITS
The Court’s order is binding not only on Israel and South Africa, but also on the 151 other States that have signed the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide. Depending on their situation, each of them is obliged to associate itself with the provisional measures. Some could interpret this as justifying an embargo on all armaments, or prohibiting their dual nationals from taking part in this potentially genocidal war.
………………………………………… there is already a case in the Northern California District Court between Defense for Children International and Joe Biden, Antony Blinken and Lloyd Austin, and another in London between Global Legal Action Network and the British government. Both are based on the premise that supplying arms to Israel at this time is participation in the massacre in Gaza. They now have a chance to succeed.
It could also be brought before the International Criminal Court, which could be called upon to judge certain Israeli leaders. Several countries have already referred the case to the Court.
Moreover, this order is only precautionary until the Court has ruled on the merits of the case. However, we must not dream: the Court may shy away and declare itself incompetent. In that case, there will never be a ruling on the merits of the case, and the protective measures will lapse.
This is the most likely outcome. Yet the Court itself has already dismissed the argument that South Africa’s previous approaches to Israel would not have given it time to respond. It could still nitpick over “genocidal intent”. In the event of the complaint being deemed inadmissible. The massacre could resume.
We must not delude ourselves about the International Court of Justice. It represents a major step towards international law, but is still a long way off. https://www.voltairenet.org/article220359.html
States defunding UNRWA may be violating genocide convention: expert
https://www.newarab.com/news/gaza-defunding-unrwa-may-be-violating-genocide-convention 31 Jan 24
A number of countries – including Australia, Britain, Finland, Germany and Italy – on Saturday followed the lead of the United States in pausing UNRWA funding.
A UN expert warned Sunday that countries defunding the UN agency for Palestinian refugees were breaching a court order to provide effective aid inGazaand could be violating the international genocide convention.
A number of donor countries – including Australia, Britain, Finland, Germany and Italy – on Saturday followed the lead of the United Statesinsuspending additional funding toUNRWA (UN Relief & Works Agency).
That came after Israel alleged that several of the UN agency’s staff members were involved in Hamas’s 7 October attack. The Israeli allegations were based on confessions obtained in interrogations and have not been independently investigated. Israel has killed more than 150 UNRWA staff in Gaza since the start of its latest offensive on Gaza.
Francesca Albanese, the UN special rapporteur for the occupied Palestinian territories, warned that the decision topause funding to UNRWA “overtly defies” the order by the International Court of Justice to allow effective humanitarian assistance” to reach Gazans.
“This will entail legal responsibilities – or the demise of the (international) legal system,” she wrote on X, formerly Twitter.
UNRWA reacted to the allegations by firing several staff and promising a thorough investigation into the unspecified claims, but Israel has nonetheless vowed to stop the agency’s work in Gaza after the war.
The row between Israel and UNRWA follows the UN’s International Court of Justice ruling on Friday that Israel must prevent possible acts of genocide in the conflict and allow more aid into Gaza.
Albanese, who is an independent expert appointed by the UN Human Rights Council, but who does not speak on behalf of the United Nations, highlighted the timing of the defunding decisions in a separate post on X:
“The day after ICJ concluded that Israel is plausibly committing genocide in Gaza, some states decided to defund UNRWA. By doing so, countries are collectively punishing millions of Palestinians at the most critical time, and most likely violating their obligations under the Genocide Convention.”
Hamas’s 7 October attack on Israel resulted in about 1,140 deaths, according to an AFP tally of official figures. Emerging evidence indicates that both Palestinian militants and Israel were responsible for civilian deaths.
Militants also seized about 250 hostages and Israel says around 132 of them remain in Gaza, including the bodies of at least 28 dead captives.
Israel’s ensuing military offensive has killed at least 26,422 people, most of them women and children, in Gaza, according to the health ministry in the coastal enclave.
A Radically Different World Since Assange’s Indictment
Biden would have hell to pay from the DNC and the C.I.A. if he dropped the case.
Still, he’s probably not so foolish to want a shackled journalist showing up on U.S. shores to stand trial in the midst of his re-election campaign.
Leniency towards Assange would win back some respect the United States has lost, which would mean it couldn’t suffer another blow and had finally woken to the new world it inhabits. Crushing him would be yet another step towards its demise.
The Assange case is a centerpiece of an emerging, global challenge to U.S. dominance that did not exist in 2010 when the U.S. began its legal pursuit of the publisher, says Joe Lauria.
By Joe Lauria, Consortium News, 29 Jan 24
The world has changed dramatically since the United States began its legal pursuit of WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange, bringing new risks to the U.S. if it persists in pursuing him to the end.
The geo-strategic situation and the state of the media are today nearly unrecognizable from 2010, when the U.S. empaneled a grand jury to indict Assange. Conditions have changed significantly since even 2019, when he was dragged from the embassy and the indictment was unveiled.
The United States is in the midst of suffering its third major, strategic defeat since the process against Assange began, bringing potentially significant consequences for the U.S., the world and possibly Assange.
In just the past three years, the United States has experienced humiliating defeats in Afghanistan, Ukraine, and now Gaza.
Afghanistan hurt Americans’ sensitivities about their precious “prestige,” which American elites care so much about. The rest of the world takes it into its geo-strategic calculations.
The U.S. instigation of war in Ukraine, intended to weaken Russia and bring down its government, has instead turned into a debacle for the United States and Europe of world historical proportions.
A new commercial, financial and diplomatic system has emerged in opposition to the U.S.-dominated West. This had been slowly developing but was accelerated by Washington’s provocation in Ukraine. It is a way more serious problem for the United States than the mere loss of “prestige.”
Add to this the worldwide disapproval and condemnation the U.S. is facing for its blatant complicity in Israel’s ongoing genocide in Gaza during a war the U.S. and Israel are not winning. The result is U.S. legitimacy has significantly weakened around the world. And at home.
Is this the moment to bring a journalist to the United States in chains to stand trial for publishing truthful material that exposed earlier crimes by the United States?
The risks of doing so at this moment — a very different moment from 2010 — are serious for the U.S, at home and abroad. Domestically the Bill of Rights is at risk. Internationally the bully is losing credibility.
This is seen in the forthrightness of some world leaders, particularly in Latin America, who in the spirit of this new, non-U.S. world, have confronted the United States on its treatment of Assange and have demanded his release.
The established media, which by definition runs cover for the U.S. to commit crimes and abuses wherever its interests are challenged, is suffering its own precipitous loss of legitimacy. The spectacular growth of both social and independent media’s influence since 2010 has helped create a worldwide movement in defense of Assange and the basic principle of a free press.
The question is how aware is the Biden administration of this new world and how will it react?
At a certain point U.S. hubris and intransigence would seem to be headed for collapse. But until then, Washington will no doubt double down in denial and in vengeance. It’s not giving up in Ukraine nor in Gaza — the neocon grip on power in Washington over the realists remains. Will the extremists remain ascendant on Assange too?
In December 2010, Vice President Joe Biden told the television news show Meet the Press that the Obama administration could only indict Assange if they caught him red-handed stealing government secrets and not receiving them passively as a journalist. The Obama administration concluded he was acting as a journalist, even if they refused to call him one, and didn’t indict him.
So what changed for Biden? Why does he persist in this prosecution begun by his mortal enemy Donald Trump and Trump’s C.I.A. director, Mike Pompeo?
The indictment until today still only deals with events in 2010. Nothing has changed legally. But everything changed politically for President Biden, the head of the Democratic Party, with the 2016 DNC leaks, and the C.I.A. Vault 7 releases the following year.
Biden would have hell to pay from the DNC and the C.I.A. if he dropped the case.
Still, he’s probably not so foolish to want a shackled journalist showing up on U.S. shores to stand trial in the midst of his re-election campaign. The High Court here in London has been good at dragging things out and could easily do so until after November.
The Assange case is a centerpiece of this global challenge to U.S. dominance that did not exist in 2010.
To the extent that U.S. leaders are aware of what is happening to U.S. standing in the world, their propensity is to lash out with the only argument they have left – lethal force. In Assange’s case it is legal force, with lethal consequences.
Leniency towards Assange would win back some respect the United States has lost, which would mean it couldn’t suffer another blow and had finally woken to the new world it inhabits. Crushing him would be yet another step towards its demise.
The U.S. does not really need him. It has enough blood on its hands.
This is the text of an address Joe Lauria made by video on Monday to a conference in Sydney, Australia.
Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former U.N. correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, and other newspapers, including The Montreal Gazette, the London Daily Mail and The Star of Johannesburg. He was an investigative reporter for the Sunday Times of London, a financial reporter for Bloomberg News and began his professional work as a 19-year old stringer for The New York Times. He is the author of two books, A Political Odyssey, with Sen. Mike Gravel, foreword by Daniel Ellsberg; and How I Lost By Hillary Clinton, foreword by Julian Assange. He can be reached at joelauria@consortiumnews.com and followed on Twitter @unjoe
What Happens Now That the ICJ Has Ordered Israel Not to Engage in Genocide?
The ICJ ruling was a victory for Palestinians and for international law. Here are possible avenues for enforcement.
By Marjorie Cohn , TRUTHOUT, January 29, 2024
What comes next, now that the International Court of Justice (ICJ), also known as the World Court, has handed down its near unanimous ruling that South Africa presented a “plausible” case that Israel was violating the Genocide Convention?
The January 26 provisional ruling – which was a landmark victory for the Palestinian people, and indeed, for international law itself — now goes to the United Nations Security Council for enforcement. It would be within the Security Council’s purview to order economic or trade sanctions, arms embargoes, travel bans or even military force.
But in the likely event that the United States vetoes enforcement measures from the Security Council, the UN General Assembly can still act independently in materially significant ways.
The ICJ’s final decision in this case could take several years. But given the urgency of the mass death and humanitarian crisis currently unfolding, the court has in the meantime ordered six “provisional measures” to protect the Palestinians in Gaza from genocidal acts while the court finishes considering the merits of the case.
In its ruling, the court said it is “acutely aware of the extent of the human tragedy that is unfolding in the region and is deeply concerned about the continuing loss of life and human suffering.” It described the civilian population in Gaza as “extremely vulnerable,” noting “tens of thousands of deaths and injuries and the destruction of homes, schools, medical facilities and other vital infrastructure, as well as displacement on a massive scale.” The court added that the “operation is ongoing” and that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu had stated it “will take many more long months.” The court noted, “At present, many Palestinians in the Gaza Strip have no access to the most basic foodstuffs, potable water, electricity, essential medicines or heating.”
Provisional Measures the ICJ Has Ordered Israel to Immediately Implement
The ICJ ordered Israel not to commit genocidal acts against Palestinians in Gaza immediately, even as the ICJ continues its slow process of officially considering the merits of the genocide case.
The court concluded that “the catastrophic humanitarian situation” in Gaza “is at serious risk of deteriorating further before the Court renders its final judgment.” Moreover, the court said that the right of the Palestinians to be protected against genocidal acts and South Africa’s right (as a party to the Genocide Convention) to ensure Israel’s compliance with the convention could be safeguarded by provisional measures.
The ICJ found “a real and imminent risk that irreparable prejudice will be caused to the rights found by the Court to be plausible.” The court wrote, “It is therefore necessary, pending its final decision, for the Court to indicate certain measures in order to protect the rights claimed by South Africa that the Court has found to be plausible.” They are:
- Israel shall take all measures within its power to prevent the commission of all genocidal acts, particularly (a) killing members of the group; (b) causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group; (c) deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part; and (d) imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group.
- Israel shall ensure with immediate effect that its military does not commit any acts described in point 1 above.
- Israel shall take all measures within its power to prevent and punish the direct and public incitement to commit genocide.
- Israel shall take immediate and effective measures to enable the provision of urgently needed basic services and humanitarian assistance to address the adverse conditions of life faced by Palestinians in Gaza.
- Israel shall take effective measures to prevent the destruction and ensure the preservation of evidence.
- Israel shall submit a report to the Court on all measures taken to give effect to this Order within one month from the date of this Order.
The court affirmed that “all parties to the conflict in the Gaza Strip are bound by international humanitarian law.” It said it is “gravely concerned about the fate of the hostages abducted during the attack in Israel on 7 October 2023 and held since then by Hamas and other armed groups” and called for “their immediate and unconditional release.”
Votes on the provisional measures were 15-2 or 16-1. Ugandan Judge Julia Sebutinde dissented from all of them. Israeli ad hoc Judge Aharon Barak dissented from all except the measures requiring Israel to prevent and punish incitement to commit genocide and to allow humanitarian aid into Gaza.
Now that the ICJ has ordered provisional measures, how will its order be enforced?
Actions the UN General Assembly Can Take If US Vetoes Enforcement by Security Council
If the U.S. vetoes enforcement actions via the Security Council, the General Assembly can convene under Uniting for Peace, a resolution passed by the General Assembly to bypass the Soviet Union’s veto during the Korean War. The General Assembly can recommend that its member states impose arms and trade embargoes on Israel and organize a military force to intervene in Gaza. The General Assembly could also suspend Israel from its ranks. These decisions would require a vote of two-thirds of the 193 member states of the General Assembly…………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………more https://truthout.org/articles/what-happens-now-that-the-icj-has-ordered-israel-not-to-engage-in-genocide/#:~:text=The%20General%20Assembly%20can%20recommend,states%20of%20the%20General%20Assembly.
How France left the British taxpayer on the hook as Hinkley costs go nuclear
the Government will have to
put more taxpayer cash in and guarantee the debt.
Sizewell C was also likely to be put on ice unless British ministers came up with a big extra dollop of taxpayers’ money.
A series of cost overruns and delays are undermining the UK’s nuclear power revival
Jonathan Leake, 28 January 2024
For the future of Britain’s energy security it was a crucial decision,
and one that lay in the hands of France’s biggest power supplier.
However, not a single minister or civil servant was present when the
directors of EDF decided the fate of the UK’s two biggest nuclear
projects in their Paris boardroom on Tuesday. The finances of Hinkley Point
C and Sizewell C, the nuclear power stations which might one day supply
14pc of Britain’s electricity were top of the agenda. Shortly after the
meeting ended, Luc Remont, EDF’s managing director, and his colleagues
summoned their media managers to organise a briefing for analysts and
journalists.
Hinkley Point C, they were told, stood no chance of firing up
in 2027, as once promised. Its first reactor would come online around 2031
while the second has no date promised at all. Costs have surged again to
£46bn, a far cry from the £9bn EDF suggested when pushing the idea to
politicians around 2007 or the £24bn proposed when contracts were signed
in 2016.
Sizewell C was also likely to be put on ice unless British
ministers came up with a big extra dollop of taxpayers’ money.
Meanwhile, as EDF’s directors and French civil servants decided Britain’s nuclear
future in Paris, Andrew Bowie, the minister responsible for new nuclear
projects, was on his feet in parliament, talking up the UK’s prospects.
For Claire Coutinho, the Energy Secretary, the news was infuriating. Not
only had a decision vital to the UK been taken in Paris but it came just
days after she unveiled the Government’s long-awaited Nuclear Roadmap. A
statement rushed out that evening made clear that Coutinho blamed the
French for Hinkley’s extra costs and delays. “Hinkley Point C is not a
government project and so any additional costs or schedule overruns are the
responsibility of EDF and its partners and will in no way fall on
taxpayers,” a spokesman for her department said.
The comments irritated the French enough to hold a second round of media briefings, this time involving EDF’s owners, the French government. The UK, it was made clear,
would have to offer up billions of pounds more in taxpayers’ money if
Sizewell C was ever to be built. Coutinho subsequently pledged an extra
£1.8bn of taxpayers’ money for the project.
Meanwhile, EDF has refused
to up its stake from 20pc and Bowie has admitted he now needs to raise
£20bn of private finance, most likely meaning the Government will have to
put more taxpayer cash in and guarantee the debt.
Simon Taylor, professor of finance at Cambridge University, who specialises in the economics of nuclear energy, believes EDF’s reactor designs have some fundamental
flaws. “The EPR or European Pressurised Reactor were designed to be
incredibly safe, and to reassure people, after the Chernobyl disaster of
1986 but have turned out to be just much more difficult to build than
anyone had expected,” he says.
Amid a blame game between France and the
UK, the biggest loser remains the British taxpayer. They now face several
more years of reduced energy security and the prospect of power bills hikes
to raise the £20bn-plus bill for Sizewell C.
Telegraph 28th Jan 2024
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/business/2024/01/28/edf-hinkley-point-c-costs-go-nuclear-uk-taxpayer/
Are the French going cold on UK nuclear?
‘It would be madness to give Sizewell C the final go-ahead while the questions of whether Hinkley C can be finished, and who pays, are not resolved. Sizewell C is bound to take longer and cost more, but this time it would be we consumers who would bear the risk and pay the price through the “nuclear tax” on our energy bills.’.
The French government, which was previously relaxed about EDF’s forays into UK nuclear, now wants its energy company to work on projects back home in France.
So far, Britain has put £2.5billion into the project in total and taxpayers are the biggest shareholders. Campaigners who vehemently oppose the project are alarmed by the recent comments from Paris, pointing out that if the French back off from Sizewell, taxpayers could be on the hook for huge extra amounts of cash via their bills.
By FRANCESCA WASHTELL , 28 January 2024, https://www.thisismoney.co.uk/money/markets/article-13015713/Are-French-going-cold-UK-nuclear.html
Our nuclear industry is reawakening,’ energy secretary Claire Coutinho
declared in a Government strategy document published earlier this month. In
between invoking Winston Churchill’s enthusiasm for nuclear power and its
ability to help the UK reach net zero, Coutinho added that setting up new
plants would ensure our energy security ‘so we’re never dependent on the
likes of [Vladimir] Putin again’. Fighting talk. But in the space of a
fortnight, Coutinho’s gung-ho attitude has already been dented as a
diplomatic row brews over who should pay for the controversial power
stations.
French state-owned energy company EDF last week lit the blue
touchpaper with the revelation the UK’s flagship Hinkley Point C nuclear
plant in Somerset would be delayed until 2029 at the earliest. The cost, it
added, could spiral to as much as £46billion, from initial estimates of
£18billion.
Few in the industry will have been surprised, particularly as EDF has experienced delays on similar projects in Finland and France. But what was a shock were some incendiary remarks from the French government.
The Elysee Palace began pressing the UK to help plug a funding gap at Hinkley and for good measure cast doubt over its commitment to Sizewell C, the next nuclear power station in the pipeline.
A French Treasury official suggested the Government was trying to leave EDF in the lurch on Hinkley.
The official added that it cannot, at the same time, abandon the French firm to ‘figure it out alone’ on Hinkley and also expect it to plough money into Sizewell. It is, the official said, ‘a Franco- British matter,’ and not one for the French to resolve single-handedly.
This is a bad moment for two critical new nuclear plants – and our broader energy security – to be dragged into a cross-Channel tussle.
The French government, which was previously relaxed about EDF’s forays into UK nuclear, now wants its energy company to work on projects back home in France.
Well-placed UK sources deny the French claims that EDF has been left to shoulder the financing burden alone at Hinkley, or that it has been jettisoned by the British state.
They point to the fact EDF has all along had contractual obligations to shoulder the costs at this stage of the project. The early stages of developing Hinkley were undertaken by EDF along with China General Nuclear.
The Chinese firm has fulfilled its part of the bargain, leaving the onus on the French. ‘It’s all down to the French state,’ a senior industry source told The Mail on Sunday. ‘It’s tough, but they’ve not managed it at all well.’
A Department for Energy Security and Net Zero spokesman said: ‘The Government plays no part in the financing or operation of Hinkley Point C. The financing of the project is a matter for EDF and its shareholders.’
As well as backing Hinkley, EDF several years ago began serious talks with the Government over Sizewell C in Suffolk. Each could power an estimated 6 million homes for 60 years, meaning the two projects are linchpins for meeting future energy demand.
The French group is due to take a 20 per cent stake in Sizewell. The Government has previously indicated it will take 20 per cent. It was hoped the rest would be funded through money from the private sector, such as pension funds and sovereign wealth funds.
So far, Britain has put £2.5billion into the project in total and taxpayers are the biggest shareholders. Campaigners who vehemently oppose the project are alarmed by the recent comments from Paris, pointing out that if the French back off from Sizewell, taxpayers could be on the hook for huge extra amounts of cash via their bills.
The new type of funding structure for Sizewell C means consumers will already face an added tax to help pay for the plant.
Alison Downes of the Stop Sizewell C campaign group said: ‘It would be madness to give Sizewell C the final go-ahead while the questions of whether Hinkley C can be finished, and who pays, are not resolved. Sizewell C is bound to take longer and cost more, but this time it would be we consumers who would bear the risk and pay the price through the “nuclear tax” on our energy bills.’
And another area of the industry is watching the fracas with mounting frustration.
Companies vying to build ‘mini’ stations known as small modular reactors (SMRs) hope this prompts the Government to commit instead to their projects, which are quicker to build and cheaper [?]
The firms include Rolls-Royce SMR, which has already received significant funding from the Government. New nuclear plants of whatever size will almost certainly be part of the UK’s energy mix in the years to come.
The sector had already been championed by Boris Johnson before soaring oil and gas prices in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine highlighted Britain’s dependence on overseas energy.
Any fisticuffs with France over Hinkley and Sizewell would strain the sector and could fatally damage the level of public. Industry figures are urging ministers to resist stumping up cash the French had agreed to pay.
One senior source said: ‘I hope the Government doesn’t lose its nerve, though there’s no sign of that at the moment. It would be a terrible precedent.’
.
Hinkley Point C woes threaten to break UK and France’s nuclear fusion
Two former EDF executives told the Guardian the odds were stacked against Hinkley from the start. “I would have bet at the time that we would see the costs we have today. And I think they’ll climb higher too,” said one.
Cross-Channel dream is turning sour as EDF’s costs mount and Britain faces a long wait for the power to come on
Jillian Ambrose, 27 Jan 24, https://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2024/jan/27/hinkley-point-c-woes-threaten-break-uk-france-nuclear-fusion
rench trade unions wield significant political clout. But in the summer of 2016 there was little they could do to stop the French government from investing in what would soon become the most expensive power station in the world.
All six trade union representatives on the board of Électricité de France (EDF) voted against a deal to build a nuclear power station in the UK. It was just weeks after its finance chief, Thomas Piquemal, resigned from the company over fears that Hinkley Point C in Somerset was too great a risk. The project was approved by 10 in favour and seven against.
In the last seven years these fears have proved well founded. EDF revealed this week the latest delay to Hinkley, which may not now open until 2031, well beyond its original decade-long schedule. Its costs have climbed to £35bn in 2015 prices, almost double the original forecast of £18bn in 2016. In today’s money Britain’s first new nuclear plant in 30 years could cost £46bn. The spiralling costs were blamed on inflation, Covid and Brexit.
Hinkley was meant to represent a nuclear renaissance on both sides of the Channel, and further the nuclear ambitions of China. It was an opportunity for EDF, once the world’s leading nuclear developer, to secure a future for its reactor designs in a low-carbon world.
For the UK, the first new nuclear power plant in a generation marked the start of the government’s campaign to replace its ageing fleet of reactors. And China saw it as a way to showcase its nuclear expertise, furthering its ultimate aim of building its homegrown HPR1000 nuclear reactors at Bradwell in Essex.
The deal was struck in 2016 just weeks after the Brexit vote, making Hinkley an opportunity to forge fresh ties between old friends – and create opportunities for new economic alliances too. China General Nuclear Power Group (CGN), a state-run energy company, agreed to take on a third of the project as the first step in a plan to roll out a string of nuclear plants in the UK built with its own reactor design.
The chancellor at the time, George Osborne, argued that Britain should “run towards China” to help boost the UK economy. Within months of the Hinkley deal the French president, Emmanuel Macron, and his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, began talks on strengthening ties between the two nations. These led to trade deals worth about $15bn (£11.8bn) and an order from Beijing for 300 aircraft from Airbus worth tens of billions of euros.
But the rationale for all three nations now looks precarious. Hinkley’s costs have climbed as diplomatic relations between China and the west have soured. By the time the former UK prime minister Boris Johnson vowed to purge China’s Huawei from the UK’s telecoms network over security fears, the notion of Chinese-built nuclear reactors powering British homes had become politically unthinkable. CGN has ruled out any further investment in Hinkley – leaving French taxpayers to pick up the tab.
Two former EDF executives told the Guardian the odds were stacked against Hinkley from the start. “I would have bet at the time that we would see the costs we have today. And I think they’ll climb higher too,” said one.
Philippe Huet, a former head of EDF’s internal auditing in Paris, said the deal was based on political strategy rather than a commercial rationale. The British government offered EDF a contract that would guarantee payment of £92.50 for every megawatt hour of electricity generated by the nuclear plant. It was criticised for being both eye-wateringly expensive for UK bill payers but not nearly enough to cover the risks of constructing the project.
“At the time that it was agreed it was already known that EDF’s estimates understated the cost and schedule of the project. Key decision-makers chose to ignore this because it was too important strategically. As they would say, if a project cannot be profitable it must at least be strategic,” Huet said.
Hinkley is one of many costs facing the French taxpayer after the government renationalised EDF last year. The company’s future investments – in maintaining its existing fleet of nuclear reactors, building new ones, and investing in renewable energy – could exceed €20bn (£17bn) a year, according to Agnès Pannier-Runacher, the country’s energy transition minister.
The French government is reportedly calling on the UK government to provide financial help for both Hinkley and the next planned plant, Sizewell in Suffolk, to keep the struggling nuclear revival afloat. The UK government has been quick to quash any suggestion that Hinkley’s financial fallout will be borne by UK taxpayers. A spokesperson said the government “plays no part in the financing or operation of Hinkley Point C”, which was a matter for EDF and its shareholders.
Huet has predicted that EDF may even try to renegotiate its contract with the government. He estimates it could seek to raise how much it charges per megawatt hour of electricity produced by about 15% to make Hinkley a worthwhile venture.
International Coalition to Stop Genocide in Palestine Welcomes World Court’s Order
By the International Coalition To Stop Genocide In Palestine, Popular Resistance., January 26, 2024 https://popularresistance.org/international-coalition-to-stop-genocide-in-palestine-welcomes-todays-icj-order/—
Demands Its Implementation.
The ICGSP encourages governments and global social movements to demand that provisional measures are enforced immediately.
In its provisional ruling issued today on the South African Genocide Convention case against Israel, the International Court of Justice (ICJ—also known as the World Court) demanded Israel stop killing civilians and destroying civilian infrastructure and medical facilities; prevent and punish incitement to genocide by its top officials; and permit the delivery of humanitarian aid to Gaza. The International Coalition to Stop Genocide in Palestine (ICSGP) applauds the Court’s Order as a crucial first step toward forcing Israel and its primary sponsor and strongest political ally—the United States—to end the months-long brutal assault on Gaza, and the decades-long denial to Palestinians of their rights to self-determination and return.
However, the ICSGP also recognizes that Israeli and U.S. government officials have made repeated official declarations in the past week making clear their plan to ignore the ICJ’s legally binding ruling and rejecting the Court’s process as illegitimate, and that the U.S. has been threatening world governments with sanctions and war—a promise it is making good on already by bombing Yemen—for opposing the ongoing genocide. The ICSGP also recognizes that numerous powerful state allies of the U.S. and Israel, including Germany and Canada, have already made clear their intent to back Israel against an ICJ finding of genocide. The dangerous rejection by the United States, Israel and their allies of this process—which was set up through the United Nations precisely to prevent genocide—undermines the legitimacy of that institution and in particular the U.N. Security Council, where the U.S. has long used its veto power as a tool to promote war and genocide. The ICSGP calls upon social movements to demand that world governments uphold international law and protect the integrity of the United Nations by ensuring that the ICJ’s provisional measures are immediately enforced, and to hold Israeli war criminals and their powerful U.S. accomplices accountable for genocide.
The ICSGP stands in full solidarity with its Palestinian coalition members, who have emphasized in their own statements today the need for governments and social movements around the world to double down in their efforts to bring the ongoing genocide in Gaza to an end. Dr. Luqa AbuFarah, North America Coordinator for the Palestinian Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions National Committee (BNC), an ICSGP member organization, states:
“It’s clear we have a moral obligation to take action and end our government’s complicity with Israel’s Gaza genocide. We must have the courage to speak out and take action to advance the struggle for justice. We must end US military funding to Israel which at $3.8 billion USD a year could instead provide more than 450,000 households with public housing for a year or pay for 41,490 elementary school teachers. I also hope that every person outraged with the blatant disregard for Palestinian life will join and escalate our BDS Campaigns and make sure companies know that complicity with Israeli apartheid and genocide is unacceptable. We must take action now more than ever!
ICSGP, together with numerous legal and human rights organizations including coalition members The PAL Commission on War Crimes and The Global Legal Alliance for Palestine, held press conferences in New York and Chicago following the Court’s Order on the request for the indication of provisional measures this morning, expressing gratitude to South Africa for its steadfast support, and calling on all organizations and countries to support South Africa’s legal actions against the Israeli military campaign.”
Lamis Deek, cofounder the PAL Commission on War Crimes and convener of the Global Legal Alliance for Palestine, states:
“This historic decision changes international and domestic approaches—military, legal, and political—to stopping the genocide in Palestine. This verdict profoundly reshapes the geopolitical and legal topography, regardless of whether Israel complies or not. Following the Court’s decision we must issue calls on state parties to the ICJ and the Genocide Convention as regards their compliance obligations, and address our legal colleagues and our communities regarding the next steps we think will be most critical on the heels of this decision.
The brutal Israeli genocide and torture in Gaza, alongside the targeted assassinations, destruction of civilian infrastructure including all of Gaza’s hospitals and universities, blocking of aid, and use of starvation and spread of disease as a war tactic, constitute a grotesque series of the highest war crimes. We commend the Court’s positive decision. The question now is how to deal with the anticipated US-Israeli obstruction of that decision.”
1 This Month
of the week– Nuclear Reactor Information Task Force
14 May – online event From Bombs to Data Centres: the Face of Nuclear Colonialism
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- May 2026 (102)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (268)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (376)
- September 2025 (257)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
-
Categories
- 1
- 1 NUCLEAR ISSUES
- business and costs
- climate change
- culture and arts
- ENERGY
- environment
- health
- history
- indigenous issues
- Legal
- marketing of nuclear
- media
- opposition to nuclear
- PERSONAL STORIES
- politics
- politics international
- Religion and ethics
- safety
- secrets,lies and civil liberties
- spinbuster
- technology
- Uranium
- wastes
- weapons and war
- Women
- 2 WORLD
- ACTION
- AFRICA
- Atrocities
- AUSTRALIA
- Christina's notes
- Christina's themes
- culture and arts
- Events
- Fuk 2022
- Fuk 2023
- Fukushima 2017
- Fukushima 2018
- fukushima 2019
- Fukushima 2020
- Fukushima 2021
- general
- global warming
- Humour (God we need it)
- Nuclear
- RARE EARTHS
- Reference
- resources – print
- Resources -audiovicual
- Weekly Newsletter
- World
- World Nuclear
- YouTube
-
RSS
Entries RSS
Comments RSS
nuclear-news 