US casts sole vote in UN to continue the annihilation of Gaza
Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL ,10 Dec 23
December 8th now makes 2 consecutive calendar Days of Infamy for America. But this one, coming 92 years and a day after the first, is not from an attack on America. It comes from America’s descent into madness, enabling and supporting Israel’s genocidal ethnic cleansing of Gaza after the October 7th Hamas attack on Israel.
The UAE sponsored the UN Security Council resolution demanding an immediate humanitarian ceasefire in Gaza. Within 24 hours they garnered nearly a hundred co-sponsors from the UN’s 193 members. UN Secretary-General Antonio Gutierrez invoked rarely used Article 99 of the UN Charter to bring the resolution to the Security Council for immediate consideration over “threats to international peace and “humanitarian catastrophe in Gaza”.
But the US blocked the resolution with a dastardly veto. Thirteen other members voted for it, including some of America’s staunch allies. Even our most lockstep ally Britain abstained. The US now stands alone in supporting Israel’s campaign making Gaza uninhabitable.
Ministers from Egypt, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey came to D.C. to plead with Secretary of State Anthony Blinken to support the ceasefire. But Blinken put them off till after the after the UN vote.
When questioned about the devastation in Gaza, Biden, Blinken just nod and mutter something about imploring Israel to try harder not to annihilate all the Palestinians there. Meanwhile Netanyahu tells his war cabinet “We need 3 things from the US: munitions, munitions, and munitions.” And he gets them PDQ
How bad is that annihilation? Roughly 70% of the 70,000 deaths and injuries are women and children. UN chief Gutierrez cited Article 99 for the first time since 1971 in calling the emergency session to address the “humanitarian nightmare Gaza is facing.” He cited endless bombings that have hit 339 schools, 26 hospitals, 56 health care facilities, 88 mosques and three churches.
Besides Gaza being destroyed, President Biden is ensuring that America’s standing in the world is being destroyed as a beacon of peace and freedom.
Yes, mark December 8th on the calendar as another American Day of Infamy.
Besides Gaza being destroyed, President Biden is ensuring that America’s standing in the world is being destroyed as a beacon of peace and freedom.
Yes, mark December 8th on the calendar as another American Day of Infamy.
Is Biden taking the Iran nuclear deal off life support?
If the JCPOA really is dead, as a top State Department appointee declared last week, that’s an own goal for the US and a huge risk for regional security
ELDAR MAMEDOV, DEC 12, 2023, Responsible Statecraft
When Joe Biden was running for U.S. president, he promised to reverse many of his predecessor’s decisions on foreign policy, generally hewing towards more restraint and diplomacy, and less bluster, militarism, and unilateralism. That included restoring the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) from which Donald Trump withdrew in 2018 — despite evidence, shared even by his own officials, that the deal was delivering on its core objective to block Iran’s pathways to a nuclear weapon. On December 7, 2023, Biden’s nominee for deputy secretary of state, the current National Security Council Coordinator for Indo-Pacific Affairs, Kurt Campbell, effectively declared the JCPOA dead………………………………..
Although the prospects for a revived JCPOA have been dim since at least 2022 — for which Iran carries a fair share of blame — officials from the Biden administration until now have largely refrained from using such threatening language against Iran. Conclusively abandoning any effort to revive the JCPOA does not serve U.S. interests and is in fact counterproductive.
Addressing students at Tehran University a few days after Campbell’s Senate testimony, Iranian Foreign Minister Hossein Amir Abdollahian downplayed the relevance of the JCPOA by reportedly saying that the “more we move forward, the more JCPOA becomes pointless. We will not force ourselves to remain in the narrow tunnel of the JCPOA forever.”
So, the Biden administration finds itself in the rather awkward position of effectively agreeing with Tehran, but this was a self-inflicted problem: by refusing, for three years now, to engage with its critics and the broader public on the agreement’s benefits to the U.S. and global security, it has allowed the notion that the JCPOA was some kind of reward for Iran, rather than a deal that strictly curbed Tehran’s nuclear ambitions, to become conventional wisdom. As is evident in Abdollahian’s remarks, Iranians today certainly do see the JCPOA as a “narrow tunnel” that limits their options………………………………………….
If ever there was a mechanism that would prove effective in preventing Iran from acquiring a bomb, it was the JCPOA. In light of Abdollahian’s remarks (which clearly reflect a growing skepticism about the JCPOA in Iran), the Biden administration, by publicly disowning the deal, is in fact removing obstacles to further Iranian nuclear escalation.
Unless Biden is prepared to accept the advice of the late international relations scholar Kenneth Waltz, who, in an influential 2012 Foreign Affairs article, argued that an Iranian bomb would stabilize the Middle East, it is not clear what his administration would do in place of a revived JCPOA to check additional Iranian nuclear advances.
Campbell emphasized the “current environment” as an additional factor rendering a JCPOA revival infeasible. In fact, if he was referring to the Israel-Hamas war in Gaza, then it is precisely such a conflict that makes some sort of a direct dialogue between Washington and Tehran — on nuclear, but also regional security issues — all the more urgent if a wider war is to be avoided. Substituting such a dialogue with military threats at a moment when the U.S. is providing Israel virtually unconditional support, including the lavish replenishment of its arms stocks, the deployment of marines and two aircraft carrier task forces to the region, and the veto of a U.N. Security Council Resolution calling for a ceasefire, could do more to incentivize Iranians to seek a nuclear deterrent than anything else.
Vows to isolate Iran “internationally and diplomatically” are also unwarranted as Iran, despite its rhetorical support for Hamas, has so far demonstrated considerable restraint. While hardline ideological hostility to Israel is wired into the Islamic Republic’s identity, the actual position Tehran adopted towards the Israel-Palestine conflict is much more nuanced, more in line with the Arab and Islamic (and indeed broad international) mainstream consensus that insists on a viable two-state solution. Instead of building on these shifts, however modest and tentative, Washington seems to prefer to double down on confrontation.
The sad irony is that this explosive situation could have been avoided had Joe Biden had the courage and wisdom to deliver on his own election campaign promise to restore the nuclear agreement with Iran. ………. https://responsiblestatecraft.org/biden-iran-nuclear-deal/
Americanization of International Law: Legitimizing Palestinian Genocide and Promoting Nuclear Self-Defence
Nafees Ahmad, DECEMBER 10, 2023 Edited by: Hayley Behal | U. Pittsburgh School of Law, US https://www.jurist.org/commentary/2023/12/nafees-ahmad-americanization-international-law/
Nafees Ahmad, Ph.D., LL.M., Associate Professor, Faculty of Legal Studies at South Asian University, New Delhi, India, discusses the failure of international law and policy to address the sitiation in Palestine and Israel…
The 21st century is marked by globalization and Americanization, with transnational law under US dominance and a strong American influence on human rights. This Americanization of international law often conflates with modern neoliberal hegemonies, which downplay historical arrangements and change rights and injustices. The evolution of international law in this era differs from previous generations, and hegemonic international law has emerged as the primary language for asserting dominance. Studying the Americanization of international law is crucial, as discussions have recently emerged regarding actions taken by the US on behalf of NATO and Israel that seem to violate international law. Israel’s 55-year-long occupation of the Palestinian Territories is a saga of occupation to annexation that subjected the Palestinians to colonialism, apartheid, the legitimacy of occupation, and possible international criminal culpability. The harsh reality of Palestinians living under Israeli occupation for an extended period has a direct and tangible influence on international legal frameworks and legal obligations.
Travesty of Liberal International Order
The liberal international order (LIO), which has influenced US international relations since World War II, is declining due to President Biden’s rejection, criticism of US allies, and support for authoritarian leaders. The order has deteriorated for at least 15 years, with Russia and China aiming to challenge it through substitute regional organizations and alternative standards. Weaker states seek security cooperation and patronage from non-member countries like Saudi Arabia and China, which lack the same liberal political and economic conditions as the US and its democratic allies. A new wave of transnational networks emphasizing nationalism, illiberalism, and right-wing principles is also challenging the LIO. The Biden presidential campaign slogan, “Let’s finish the job,” accelerates these processes, undermining the US’s global standing.
Accountability for International Humanitarian Law
The use of force by Israel on Gaza is considered genocide and a grave international crime. More than 9,800 people have died in the ongoing Israel-Palestine conflict, including 8,306 Palestinians and 1,538 Israelis. Tel Aviv has struck at UN buildings, schools, hospitals, medical convoys, refugee camps, and religious facilities. The UN has ordered the forced evacuation of 1.1 Palestinians from the northern region of Gaza, treating those unable or unwilling to flee as supporters of Hamas. The destruction inflicted upon Gaza is astounding, with an estimated 2.3 million Palestinians navigating dangerous waters for 16 years to survive the harsh economic and social blockade since 2007. Israel’s targeting of forbidden locations and the use of incendiary phosphorus bombs in heavily populated civilian areas are war crimes. Western leadership fails to convince the world that adherence to its rules-based order has anything to do with the UN Charter or international humanitarian law (IHL), demonstrating a calculus of friends and enemies. Occupation situations are officially classified as international armed conflicts under IHL, which is another way of saying they are armed confrontations between two or more states. Human rights law is still relevant in occupation settings in addition to IHL. As a result, an Occupying Power is required by international law to guarantee the local populace’s access to the full range of human rights. The West Bank has been classified as occupied territory under the Fourth Geneva Convention and the Hague Regulations by the UN Security Council, the Supreme Court of Israeli, and the International Court of Justice (ICJ).
Whither Responsibility to Protect and US Culpability?
The Palestinians have been denied legal redress, and the UN should bear more responsibility for implementing the partition plan and Security Council Resolution 242, which demanded the departure of the Israeli military presence. The UN can report on moral and legal wrongdoing but cannot carry out its recommendations without a Security Council resolution. The UN General Assembly can only make recommendations with a two-thirds majority vote, and the global legal system’s remedies are futile if the US culpability does not exempt Israel from accountability under international law. Despite having the law on their side since 1948, Palestinians have been subjected to Israel’s lawlessness for years. The UN’s policy processes can be effectively employed if there is political will. The Responsibility to Protect (R2P) standard was established after the 1999 Kosovo War, requiring UN accountability in situations like Gaza. In 2011, NATO countries turned a limited humanitarian mandate into a regime-changing intervention, leading to the execution of a leader and worsening the situation in Libya. Effective UN action without political will could exacerbate the problem. Israel has never stopped using excessive force, and the international community has not warned or pressured it to leave the occupied Palestinian territories. The UN’s responsibility to protect R2P is to address the suffering of Gazans by establishing a peace force. This force could potentially halt Israeli aggression, strengthen protection for Palestinians, and maintain peace. The Palestinians are currently the most vulnerable people in need of international forced protection. However, the UN cannot stop Israeli brutality without the political will of the five permanent members of the Security Council. Under the current Israeli administration, operationalizing R2P is unfeasible due to the complex context of the situation.
Western Media Defending Israeli War Crimes?
The Western media, particularly in the US and UK, has a biased stance toward Israel’s ongoing violence, supporting Israel’s claim to eradicate Hamas and find its leaders. This divide has led to a lack of proper protection for Palestinians. However, the footage of Israeli aggression toward women, children, and injured individuals has partially removed the mask of state propaganda. Under IHL, Israel is the Occupying Power and defines Gaza as an occupied area, which is irreconcilable with Israel’s discretion. 2.3 million innocent civilians living in Gaza, with 76% either refugees or descendants of refugees, were denied their international legal right of return. Despite attempts to challenge this right, violent Israeli suppression often occurs. This extra-legal impunity leaves Palestinians with no recourse for proper protection.
Ukraine-Palestine: The Crisis of Morality in International Law
There is significant humanitarian hypocrisy in the Western response to the Israeli attack on the Gaza population and the Russian attack on Ukraine. Israel enjoys impunity, while Russia is held responsible for NATO’s double standards and moral and legal dishonesty. This shows that international law is a manipulated set of standards that suit geopolitical players’ goals and frequently conflicting strategic objectives rather than a framework for governing nations on the premise of sovereign equality as essential to the international rule of law. Industrialized countries have no inherent incentive to abide by international law; instead, all international law is constrained by the logical decisions of self-serving parties. This argument dictates that efforts to enhance international collaboration must yield; governments cannot bootstrap cooperation by passing laws and enacting regulations, even though these measures may produce better results. States that find it advantageous to uphold international law tend to act quite haughtily when denouncing those who violate it. However, suppose it serves their interests to condone these grave breaches of IHL. In that case, they will either remain silent or, in this instance, provide unconditional and primarily, but not entirely, indirect support to the government and nation that is engaging in these egregious abuses. Such a dualistic view of international law undermines any argument that it is authoritative and worthy of respect, mainly concerning peace and security. It can be used as a tool of aggressive lawfare against enemies and legalistic evasion for strategic partners and friends. When international law is broken, enemies are hunted out and punished, but vital allies are given a shot of impunity.
Arming Israeli Self-Defense with Nuclear Weapons
The five most powerful nations in the world, who also happened to be the winners of World War II and the first five to develop nuclear weapons, were granted veto power since the UN was intended to be weak in this area. The significance and efficacy of the veto force lie in giving these most potent and dangerous nations, led by the US, the unbridled ability to disregard international legal obligations for nuclear weapons and the UN Charter. Whenever a proposed UN Security Council action conflicts with their strategic objectives, these five deinstitutionalize and defunct international law institutional framework against the very principles and purposes of the UNO. The ICJ ruled that nuclear bomb use is not reconcilable with IHL. However, the ICJ couldn’t make a definitive decision on the legitimacy of the state using nuclear weapons in self-defense situations. Several nuclear-armed states, including the US and the UK, claimed that treaty rules didn’t regulate or prohibit nuclear weapons use when hostilities rules were fully codified in 1977 in the First Protocol Additional to the Geneva Conventions.
Several legal authorities support varying interpretations of what is permissible because the boundaries of self-defense with nuclear weapons are hotly debated in international law. However, it is prohibited to attack a hostile civilian population with excessive force. Over the years, Israel has been guilty of using military force in many ways that, under any circumstances, whether or not justified and rationalized, would not be allowed as exercises of self-defence and would, therefore, constitute war crimes. This use of force in Gaza during the past few weeks has been particularly spectacular. Beyond this, it is debatable if Israel may legitimately rely on self-defence in Gaza, an occupied territory governed by Geneva Convention IV limitations. It is not reasonable for Israel, the Occupying Power, to assert that it is protecting itself against itself. Accepting this mishandled interpretation of the concept of self-defense in the context of an opponent society’s belligerent occupation—in whole or in part—by the international discourse is genuinely puzzling.
War Crimes Trial in International Criminal Court
At least 1,400 persons in Israel and 5,000 in Palestine have died since Hamas began its onslaught in Israel on October 7, 2023, which prompted an immediate and forceful military retaliation from Israel. Although Hamas militants carried out the first crime, the hospital explosion’s cause is yet unknown. The International Criminal Court (ICC) may look at potential war crimes in Israel and Palestine. Palestine joined the court in 2015. Recent appeals have also been made for the US to ratify the ICC treaty. The ICC faces challenges due to its inaction and political weakness in holding powerful Western nations accountable, particularly Israel. The lack of political will to prosecute Israel makes its practical application improbable. Despite not being signatories to the Rome Statute, the ICC has jurisdiction to investigate, indict, and bring charges against anyone who claims to be a victim of crimes committed on its territory. Palestine is one of the ICC Statute’s parties. Following the current wave of unchecked violence, attempts will be made to strengthen the ICC in light of geopolitics. While it would be unrealistic to expect accountability from Israel’s authorities, the desire to present evidence and accusations of Israeli wrongdoing would be persuasive to public opinion outlets and criminalizing civil society activists. In symbolic politics, proving or disproving the veracity of assertions has a significant political impact, and mere submission plays a crucial role.
Way Forward
The UN, governments, and people worldwide are facing a crisis due to the extreme abuse of state power, resulting in one of the most severe instances of genocide since 1945. Observers argue that Israel is using force against Gaza in an ongoing genocide, which is considered the most serious international crime. Preventing genocide is a shared responsibility of all governments, and establishing a Peoples Tribunal on Genocide Prevention in Gaza or on Israel’s War Against the People of Gaza can contribute to a world governed by law. The 1948 UN Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide has been extensively approved, including by parties involved in the bloodshed in Gaza and its diplomatic interactions.
Nafees Ahmad, Ph.D., LL.M., is an Associate Professor, Faculty of Legal Studies at South Asian University, New Delhi, India. Professor Ahmad teaches IHRL, IRL, CCL, and International Media Law.
Ralph Nader on Israeli Government’s War Crimes – Enabled & Defended by Biden & Congress
By Ralph Nader / Nader.org, more https://scheerpost.com/2023/12/10/ralph-nader-on-israeli-governments-war-crimes-enabled-defended-by-biden-congress/
The humiliation of the U.S. government, which is actively complicit in providing the weaponry, funding, and UN vetoes backing the Israeli government’s attack on the civilian Palestinians/Arabs in tiny Gaza, is in plain view daily. All in the name of the unasked American people and taxpayers.
Earlier this week, at a House of Representatives’ hearing, Trump toady Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) repeatedly assailed three University presidents with the question of would they discipline students calling for the genocide of Jews, without any evidence that this hateful speech is prevalent on campus.
Pursuing her fulminations, Stefanik was cruelly oblivious to the real ongoing genocide in Gaza with her support of unconditional shipment of American F-16s, 155mm. missiles and other weapons of mass destruction used to kill children, women and the elderly who had nothing to do with the preventable October 7th Hamas violence.
Meanwhile, a State Department spokesman continues to say that the Israeli government does not intentionally target civilians. With U.S. drones over Gaza daily, Secretary of State Antony Blinken has visual proof that the overwhelming bombing on civilian structures is killing innocent civilians.
The evidence is in the rubble of hospitals, health clinics, ambulances, schools, libraries, places of worship, marketplaces, water mains, homes, apartment buildings, and piles of unburied corpses being eaten by stray dogs. All this information is in the possession of bomber Biden’s regime.
The Bidenites and their bloodthirsty cohorts in Congress were forewarned when the Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Galant and other Israeli officials on October 8th shouted these chilling genocidal orders to their army: “No electricity, no food, no fuel, no water.… We are fighting human animals and will act accordingly.” (See, Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide). Add an already illegal 16-year Israeli blockade of 2.3 Palestinians suffering from dire poverty, with 40% of their children down with anemia.
Now, about half of Gaza’s population are children, 85% of the entire population is homeless, wandering helplessly into nowhere, afflicted with pending starvation, sickened by spreading infectious diseases and dirty drinking water. There is little or no medicines for diabetics and cancer patients. No surgery, no anesthesia, no emergency transport, no shelter from cold weather, only American-made bombs and missiles blowing up Palestinians into bits with Israeli snipers everywhere.
The Palestinians cannot flee from their open-air prison. They cannot surrender – the Israeli government wants them gone. Bear in mind, the population that is not yet blown up is sick and dying, denied needed outside humanitarian aid. Defying feeble Biden’s wishes, Netanyahu only allows a trickle of aid trucks to enter Gaza, and those that do enter can scarcely reach their destinations.
All this raises the issue of the gross undercount of casualties. The Hamas Health Authority has restricted its count to the names of the deceased and injured supplied by hospitals and morgues. These locations are now largely rubble or inoperative. Bodies under the rubble, many of them children, can’t be counted. Thousands of missing people cannot be counted. The Ministry’s suspended count is over 17,000 fatalities, plus 45,000 injuries. With the far larger carnage unable to be tabulated, the actual fatality toll may reach 100,000 soon.
Nonetheless, about two weeks ago, the New York Times reported the death undercount of children in Gaza in two months was ten times greater than the deaths of Ukrainian children in nearly two years of Russian bombings. One of its headlines – “Smoldering Gaza Becomes a Graveyard for Children.”
There are about 50,000 pregnant women in Gaza and about 5,500 of them are due to give birth. Where are they going to do that? How can they be cared for and be nurtured? These mothers are sick and starving. Add the babies to the terrorists toll.
Gaza’s area is about the size of Philadelphia. How many dead, injured, and dying people would there be if 20,000 bombs were dropped on civilians and civilian structures in Philadelphia? Philadelphians trapped without food, water, medicine or any escape route. Imagine 85% of 1.5 million residents homeless, wandering in the streets and alleys. And with virtually no humanitarian aid coming from outside the city. There wouldn’t be any fire trucks or water to extinguish spreading fires.
There are courageous Jewish groups (e.g., Jewish Voice for Peace and If Not Now) and rabbis calling for an end to the slaughter, demanding a ceasefire. There are protestors at all of Biden’s public events/trips reminding him of next November.
Veterans for Peace and other veteran groups are engaged in non-violent civil disobedience in front of the Scranton, Pennsylvania factory producing 155mm missiles for Israel. (Scranton is Biden’s hometown.) Public opinion is turning against the Biden/Israel war without limits on the Palestinians.
Biden wouldn’t want to poll the American people about his $14.3 billion genocide tax, charging American taxpayers to further prosperous Israel’s war of extermination in Gaza. They’ll likely tell Biden that poor children, unaffordable health facilities and other necessities in America need that money first.
There are some 30 Democratic Senators demanding that this Biden bill contain conditions and safeguards so that the money is not used to blow up more Palestinian children and women. But what else are these funds for other than to expand Israel’s military budget? The Israeli extremist ruling coalition under Netanyahu has made no secret of wanting to take over all of remaining Palestine as part of their “Greater Israel” mission to include what they call Judea and Samaria. As Israel’s Founder, David Ben-Gurion, frankly declared referring to the Palestinians, “We have taken their country.” (As quoted in The Jewish Paradox(1978) by Nahum Goldmann.)
It is a cruel irony of history that Israeli state terrorism is producing a Palestinian Holocaust. Netanyahu’s regime has killed over 60 journalists—three of them Israelis—120 United Nations relief workers and instituted total blackouts to keep the grisly events in Gaza out of the news in real time. Netanyahu, to shield his colossal failure to defend Israel on October 7thand to keep his job, is making sure that his country joins the world community of savage, slaughtering regimes, exemplified by the Bush/Cheney unlawful criminal destruction of Iraq and Afghanistan, followed by Hillary Clinton toppling Libya into permanent violence and chaos since 2011. (Obama later called his conceding to Hillary’s demands as his worst foreign policy decision).
Capitol Hill and the White House don’t wait for any blood-guilt to be recognized. That will surely come later with the judgment of history and the nightmarish visions of innocents being vaporized because of Washington’s unconditional backing of the Israeli blitzkrieg against what the Israeli newspaper Haaretz has repeatedly called the “totally defenseless people” of Gaza.
Iran Dismisses Fears Over Its Nuclear Program
Iran has dismissed global concern over its “peaceful nuclear program, claiming it poses “no threat” and does not require a new treaty deal.
Iran International 12 Dec23
Foreign ministry spokesman Nasser Kanaani spoke of Iran’s “commitment to peaceful endeavors within international frameworks” in response to rising international concern over the Islamic Republic’s nuclear activities.
He told a press briefing in Tehran: “This has been recognized and confirmed in fifteen reports by the IAEA [International Atomic Energy Agency], highlighting Iran’s missile activities as part of its deterrent capabilities. Our activities in this regard are transparent and pose no threat to anyone.”
Kanaani rejected suggestions that the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) nuclear treaty should be revived, saying: “Iran no longer considers the JCPOA necessary.”
Addressing Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu’s “robust disapproval” over Iranian President Ebrahim Raisi’s recent unannounced visit to Moscow, Kanaani said: “We do not pay attention to the statements of specific parties in bilateral relations between Iran and friendly countries. Such statements will not affect our efforts to deepen relations with partners in various fields.”………………………. https://www.iranintl.com/en/202312114383
What Do COP28 Double Down, Triple Up & Nuclear Commitments Mean?
The pledge and discussions around it have continued to focus on the likely dead end of small modular nuclear reactors and more Gen IV technologies and designs, indicating that the nuclear industry and countries engaged in it haven’t internalized the lesson that innovation and nuclear generation scaling aren’t compatible.
COP28 has some good news stories to go with the bad. Prominent among the good news was the Double Down, Triple Up pledge pushed by the Global Renewable Alliance and signed onto by almost 120 countries. A somewhat similar pledge related to nuclear is receiving a lot of media coverage as well. But what do these pledges mean, how likely are they to come to fruition and what countries are missing in action?
Let’s start with nuclear, as it’s much less likely to bear significant fruit. What’s the pledge? To triple nuclear generation capacity by 2050. There are about 440 nuclear reactors in operation today, most of them aging out with significant retirements over the next 20 years eliminating most of them without significant refurbishment costs. There are fewer nuclear reactors in operation today than there were in 2005, and the next decade will see that trend accelerate. 2050 would an achievable time frame if all current nuclear generation countries launched a Nuclear New Deal right now and mobilized their government and industry for a significant scale up. Is that occurring or likely to?
How many countries signed up for it? Only 22, which is interesting, as there are about 30 countries with commercial nuclear generation at present. The full list per the US DOE is the United States, Bulgaria, Canada, Czech Republic, Finland, France, Ghana, Hungary, Japan, Republic of Korea, Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco, Netherlands, Poland, Romania, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Ukraine, United Arab Emirates, and United Kingdom.
What major nuclear generation countries are missing from the list? China and India. What does that mean? It’s somewhat difficult to tell. China has the world’s biggest nuclear program today, but it’s been struggling. It didn’t meet its 2020 targets. It’s very unlikely to meet its 2025 targets. It peaked in 2018 with seven GW-scale reactors, averaged three reactors per year since, and this year has only put one GW scale reactor and one 210 MW small Gen IV developmental reactor into commercial operation. The growth trend isn’t positive. Meanwhile, renewables, storage and transmission are seeing exponential growth rates. More on that later. Perhaps China doesn’t think it can actually triple nuclear or perhaps it thinks relying on what actually has proven to be very effectively scalable is more sensible.
India is interesting in a different way. They were the only country to build almost entirely small reactors, 300 MW CANDU designs. They pivoted to GW scale reactors in the past couple of decades for the same reason everyone else did, thermal efficiencies that emerge at scale that allow electricity to be relatively cheap. But they’ve run into the same problems as most western countries in the past 30 years, significant budget and schedule overruns. They’ve been electrifying and building renewables successfully, so perhaps they don’t want to overcommit, or simply realize that they don’t have the conditions for success.
The countries pledging to triple nuclear generation have some other oddities. France is already at 75% of annual generation from nuclear. While electricity demand is going to increase, is France really expecting to 225% of current electricity demand from a single form of generation? It’s already a more heavily electrified economy than many European ones because of its nuclear fleet. Similarly, most of the smaller eastern European countries already get 20% to 33% of electricity from nuclear plants, so tripling relatively inflexible capacity is questionable.
What non-nuclear countries are pledging to become nuclear countries? Ghana, Moldova, Mongolia, Morocco and Poland. What does tripling of nuclear capacity mean in countries which have no nuclear reactors at all? Poland and Mongolia are the two most developed economies but the remainder do not have the in-country economies and technical skills for a nuclear generation program.
What would be required for tripling of nuclear capacity? Each country would have to create a national high-priority deployment program. They’d have to pick a single, GW scale and proven design and actively prevent engineers from tinkering with it. They would have to have military alignment and discipline with the expectation of creating at least the potential for nuclear weapons. The countries would have to have crash human resource development and security clearance programs. They’d have to build two or more dozen of the same reactors in a 20-40 year time frame to preserve the knowledge of the master builders, construction and regulatory approval teams. As I’ve noted, successful nuclear generation programs are governmental programs with corporate junior partners, not free market friendly deployments.
Do any of the countries who are signatory to the non-binding pledge have the conditions for success? Not right now, and it’s difficult to see them achieving them. Part of the reason I’m tracking the natural experiment of nuclear vs renewables in China is that it’s one of the few countries that could create the conditions for success, and it hasn’t. The big thing it’s failed at is sticking to a single, GW scale reactor design. It now has I believe nine different designs in operation. I ascribe that to industrial export policy trumping nuclear generation policy. China could fix that, but it’s unlikely that they will as they want to sell what countries are interested in buying, and country preferences are all over the map.
The pledge and discussions around it have continued to focus on the likely dead end of small modular nuclear reactors and more Gen IV technologies and designs, indicating that the nuclear industry and countries engaged in it haven’t internalized the lesson that innovation and nuclear generation scaling aren’t compatible.
All in all, this non-binding pledge doesn’t seem like that big a deal to me. And while I put nuclear at 5% of the global energy mix in the end game, up in absolute and relative terms, I don’t consider that the OECD Nuclear Energy Agency and World Nuclear Association’s analysis showing it’s a requirement for net-zero to be much more than self-serving assessments. As I noted on a call to global institutional investors recently, there will be nuclear generation in the mix for a variety of reasons unrelated to it being necessary.
The tripling up and doubling down pledge, on the other hand, is a big deal. The best count I’ve seen is that 118 countries have signed up to triple renewables generation capacity and doubling the rate of efficiency programs by 2030. This is also non-binding, and also has some nuances and headwinds, but it’s much more achievable and likely…………………………………………………………………………………………………… more https://cleantechnica.com/2023/12/10/what-do-cop-28-double-down-triple-up-nuclear-commitments-mean/
White House Says No Deadline for Israel to End Gaza Onslaught
Gaza’s Health Ministry says over 17,000 Palestinians have been killed.
By Dave DeCamp / Antiwar.com, https://scheerpost.com/2023/12/09/white-house-says-no-deadline-for-israel-to-end-gaza-onslaught/
US Deputy National Security Advisor Jon Finer said Thursday that the Biden administration has not set a deadline on Israel’s war in Gaza and reiterated US opposition to a ceasefire.
“We have not given a firm deadline to Israel, not really our role. This is their conflict. That said, we do have influence, even if we don’t have ultimate control over what happens on the ground in Gaza,” Finer told the Aspen Security Forum.
Financial Times reported last week that the Israeli onslaught is expected to last over a year. US officials told CNN that they expect the current phase of the war, which involves constant airstrikes and a ground operation, would continue into 2024, and then Israel would narrow down its targeting to specific Hamas members, possibly by January.
Finer said the US supports Israel’s goal of ensuring that “Hamas can no longer govern,” although Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has repeatedly stated his objective is the elimination of Hamas altogether. Finer said the US is “not in place yet of asking Israel to stop or for a ceasefire.”
There’s no indication that Israel is successfully taking out Hamas fighters, as its bombardment has incurred a massive civilian death toll. Gaza’s Health Ministry said Thursday that 17,177 Palestinians have been killed since Israel unleashed its campaign on October 7, and about 70% of the dead are women and children.
Boastful International Atomic Energy Agency – announces a “Nuclear Energy Summit” like a climate event, for 2024
COP28: Leaders Announce Nuclear Energy Summit for 2024 more https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/multimedia/videos/cop28-leaders-announce-nuclear-energy-summit-for-2024
A first-of-its-kind nuclear energy summit will be held next year, it was announced at COP28 today. Leaders from around the world will gather in Brussels in March 2024 to highlight the role of nuclear energy in addressing the global challenges to reduce the use of fossil fuels, enhance energy security and boost economic development.
4 east African countries are going for nuclear power – why this is a bad idea
The Conversation, Hartmut Winkler, Professor of Physics, University of Johannesburg, 8 Dec 23
The east Africa region has the fastest growing population in Africa. Between 2013 and 2017, its growth rate was twice the African average. The region is also experiencing strong economic growth. It’s sub-Saharan share of GDP has risen from 14% in 2000 to 21% in 2022.
Such growth translates to higher electricity demand. Among a variety of new energy proposals is building nuclear power plants. Earlier this year, Uganda announced plans to construct a 2,000MW nuclear plant 150km north of Kampala, with the first 1,000MW operational by 2031. Rwanda also recently signed up to a deal to build a nuclear reactor, while Kenya and Tanzania have made more or less similar announcements.
It is in many ways tempting for these countries to pursue a nuclear power plant build. Even a single large-scale nuclear reactor would typically double national electricity generation capacity. In addition, it is technology that is – in theory at least – able to provide a constant electricity output independent of weather, season or time of day.
Another factor that motivates many potential entrants to nuclear power is that it has historically been perceived in many quarters as confirmation of high technological status and proof of national respectability. This is despite many of the world’s technologically and economically strongest nations now having shut down their nuclear plants. Germany and Italy are examples.
But there are several risks of choosing the nuclear path. The biggest in my view is financial. The costs of constructing, maintaining and later decommissioning a nuclear plant make this one of the most expensive forms of electricity generation. The actual cost is invariably a lot higher than originally announced.
Along with that, the construction period is usually many years longer than declared at the start.
In addition, safety issues can never be discounted when dealing with nuclear energy, as the 2011 Fukushima disaster in Japan amply illustrated………………………………………………………………………………..
East Africa’s likely future energy mix
In view of the financial risk and high cost, and as global experience has shown that it typically requires ten or more years to set up a new nuclear plant from project approval to electricity production, east African countries should pursue alternatives for electricity production.
New medium-scale solar, wind and geothermal power-generating facilities would likely dominate the expansion of east African electricity generation capacity in the coming decade as they are cheap in comparison. Typical construction timescales are also much lower than nuclear or hydro megaprojects.
………………………………………………………………… Given all these factors, investing in a large and expensive nuclear build with uncertain completion timeframes that may end up being way more expensive than projected is ultimately simply not worth it.
https://theconversation.com/4-east-african-countries-are-going-for-nuclear-power-why-this-is-a-bad-idea-218046
Nuclear lobby gets EU approval as ‘strategic net-zero’ technology: its next battle is to get EU funding
EU countries reinstate nuclear among ‘strategic’ net-zero technologies
By Paul Messad | EURACTIV.fr | translated by Daniel Eck 8 Dec 23
Following in the footsteps of the European Parliament last month, EU member states in the Council have also included nuclear energy alongside renewables among the technologies promoted by the EU’s Net-Zero Industry Act (NZIA).
…………………….As a result, nuclear power will benefit from streamlined licensing procedures: a one-stop-shop in each EU country and full digitisation of procedures to ensure that authorisations can be obtained within nine to 12 months………………..
France and eight other EU countries – Bulgaria, Croatia, Czechia, Hungary, Poland, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia – submitted a joint declaration before the meeting reiterating the importance of supporting nuclear power and its financing at the EU level.
On the German side, the pill is harder to swallow…………………
As for other nuclear technologies that are not on the list of “strategic” technologies, these have been retained as “net zero” technologies and, as such, enjoy certain advantages.
Next battle: Financing
The key remaining battle now for pro-nuclear countries is to secure financing at EU level.
“Technological neutrality must also apply to financing,” French Industry Minister Roland Lescure told the Council, even though the NZIA “is not a financing text but a regulatory text,” as his office pointed out.
Indeed, “there are no financial provisions in the text, except that it does not contain any financial provisions, which Germany was keen to point out,” Lescure’s office added.
Germany, meanwhile, is leading the opposition.
“EU funds cannot be used for technologies that are not supported by all member states,” Giegold said. “It was, therefore, crucial for us to exclude funding issues from the NZIA and to leave existing European rules untouched,” he added.
The NZIA will, therefore, have no impact on whether or not EU funds can finance nuclear power or not.
But according to Lescure’s office, the status quo on this point is not a problem for now. Indeed, the door is still open for nuclear technologies to be financed by the European Investment Bank (EIB) and other upcoming EU funds, possibly the Strategic Technologies for Europe (STEP) platform for example, which is currently under discusssion.
“EU funds that do not finance nuclear power should do so in the future,” said a declaration adopted in July by the French-led Nuclear Alliance of 14 EU countries, which called for “impartiality” between nuclear power and renewables when it comes to EU funding.
In addition, the European Parliament’s position proposes that 25% of the revenues from the EU carbon market should be earmarked for financing the technologies listed in the NZIA.
The Council did not take up this possibility, which will be discussed at the forthcoming trilogue talks scheduled on 13 December.
“We can now begin negotiations and complete them before the European elections,” said Christian Ehler, Parliament’s rapporteur on the NZIA, on X.
[Edited by Frédéric Simon/Alice Taylor]
UK preparing to push Ukraine toward peace talks – media
https://www.rt.com/news/588565-uk-ukraine-peace-talks/ 6 Dec 23
The West is reportedly disappointed with Kiev’s failed counteroffensive and doubts its ability to score a victory against Russia
British diplomats may soon start to put pressure on Ukraine to hold peace negotiations with Russia, Politico’s UK editor has suggested, citing “chatter” in diplomatic circles. Wider media reports suggest that the West has grown concerned at Kiev’s ability to score a battlefield victory.
Speaking on Monday on the latest episode of the ‘Politics at Jack and Sam’s’ podcast, Jack Blanchard noted that “Ukraine’s big counteroffensive was not anything like the success people hoped, and that is raising big questions about Ukraine’s ability to win this war in any meaningful military way.”
In light of this, Blanchard claimed that there are rumors in British “diplomatic circles” about “putting pressure on Kiev to sit down and negotiate.”
His comments come on the heels of a Washington Post article claiming that Ukraine ignored a counteroffensive strategy devised by American and British officers that recommended a focused attack on a single sector of frontline in April, and that it chose to delay the operation until June, and to spread its forces along multiple axes.
“Nothing went as planned,” the Post stated, adding that Ukraine’s insistence on following its own tactics and timeline generated “friction and second-guessing between Washington and Kiev.”
According to the latest figures from the Russian Defense Ministry, Ukraine has lost 125,000 service personnel and 16,000 pieces of heavy equipment in the six months since its counteroffensive began.
Blanchard is not the first journalist to claim that Kiev’s patrons are ready to push for peace. Last month, German tabloid Bild alleged that the US and Germany are rationing their weapons deliveries to Ukraine in a bid to nudge Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky into talks with Russia, without explicitly asking him.
The US State Department dismissed Bild’s report, with spokesman James O’Brien stating that the decision of when to sue for peace “is a matter for Ukraine to decide.”
Speaking at the Halifax Security Forum in Canada several days before that report was published, Aleksey Danilov, the secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, said that “Ukraine is concerned by the fact that discussions among certain partners have intensified regarding the need for negotiations…with the Russians.”
Danilov insisted, like Zelensky repeatedly has since the start of the conflict, that “Ukraine and the Ukrainian people will fight to the end. We are sure of our victory.”
We will be paying for these crumbling dangerous nuclear monoliths for generations
Interesting graph from above article shows that Europe and N America now have the legacy of hundreds of nuclear power station either decommissioned or due to be decommissioned. It takes about 100 years to clear a nuclear site depending on the tech used.
We will be paying for these crumbling dangerous monoliths for generations
Chinese Nuclear Weapons and Canada: An Uncivil-Military Connection
The United States should take action to ensure that domestic and foreign actors are not boosting the nuclear programs of adversaries.
by Henry Sokolski, https://nationalinterest.org/feature/chinese-nuclear-weapons-and-canada-uncivil-military-connection-207727 6 Dec 23
For decades, the Defense Department made little or no connection between China’s civilian nuclear power program and its military nuclear weapons buildup. No longer.
For the last three years, the Pentagon has explicitly linked Beijing’s “peaceful” fast reactor power program to China’s ramped-up weapons plutonium efforts and the projection China will acquire more than 1,000 nuclear warheads by 2030. In its latest annual China military power report, the Defense Department went further and revealed that China is using its civilian nuclear reactors to produce tritium to fuel its thermonuclear weapons.
China is doing this by placing lithium rods in power reactors and bombarding the rods with neutrons. This produces tritium, which subsequently is separated, much like how America makes its weapons tritium. It’s unclear if China uses all its power reactors—American, Canadian, Russian, French, or Chinese-designed—for this purpose.
The Pentagon report, however, notes that China uses a tritiated heavy water extraction process to cull tritium produced when hydrogen atoms absorb neutrons and become tritium atoms. The only reactors in China that use heavy water are located in Haiyan and operated by China National Nuclear Power Corporation (CNNC)—Beijing’s premier nuclear weapons contractor.
Canada supplied these reactors through Atomic Energy of Canada Limited (AECL), a Canadian government-owned firm. In addition, AECL agreed to work with CNNC on advanced heavy water reactors and related technologies. In 2011, AECL sold its heavy water reactor business to SNC-Lavalin Inc. (recently renamed AtkinsRealis). AtkinsRealis continues to collaborate with CNNC on its heavy water reactors.
However, Canada’s nuclear transfers to China aren’t limited to reactors. In late October, the Canadian firm Cameco, one of the world’s largest uranium suppliers, announced it had contracted to sell more than 97,500 metric tons of uranium to CNNC. Cameco says it will send the CNNC more than 12,700 metric tons annually for the next four years. 12,700 metric tons is roughly 200 to 300 metric tons more than China’s entire civilian sector consumes annually. The 200-to-300-ton surplus alone could fuel as many as 100 bombs each year.
This should raise eyebrows. With poor domestic uranium resources, China insists it’s only building up its uranium reserves for future nuclear power use. Perhaps, but there is no agreed way to verify this. The same is true with tritium. Currently, there are no effective controls on either nuclear substance to assure their peaceful end-use. Both, however, are critical to making nuclear weapons, and CNNC, China’s top weapons vendor, controls these materials.
What should be done?
First, our government needs to name and shame firms exporting critical nuclear materials and technologies to America’s nuclear-armed rivals. This would require spotlighting Canada’s Cameco and AkinsRealis. It also would require listing France’s nuclear firm, EDF, which this spring announced it would work with CNNC in developing advanced spent fuel recycling, a process critical to producing weapons plutonium. Yet, another entity that deserves dishonorable mention is Rosatom, Russia’s prime nuclear weapons developer, in addition to firms in business with the company. The House has already spotlighted Rosatom as a bad actor, asking the White House to sanction it for assisting China’s fast reactor program.
To expose these entities further, the Departments of Defense and the Intelligence Community should produce an unclassified annual report clarifying which domestic and foreign firms might be transferring nuclear materials and technologies to hostile states’ nuclear weapons entities.
Second, the U.S. government should prohibit government purchases and subsidies to these firms. Congress and the White House may be reticent to sanction firms for trading with hostile states’ nuclear weapons entities. But our government should, at least, not buy goods from such firms or subsidize them.
Finally, the United States and other like-minded nations should call on the International Atomic Energy Agency to track and safeguard tritium and unenriched uranium to prevent their diversion to make bombs. Fortunately, there is little commercial demand for tritium. Most of what is produced is then extracted from reactors for occupational safety reasons and is accounted for.
Similarly, most uranium ore is used to fuel legitimate civilian reactors. Yet, it too is critical to make nuclear weapons, and it is not currently tracked or safeguarded. Given that the government already tracks and sanctions certain oil and gas transfers—a daunting task—it’s difficult to understand why we don’t do the same for uranium and tritium. In the lead-up to the next Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty Review Conference in 2026, the United States should close this gap.
Henry Sokolski is the executive director of the Nonproliferation Policy Education Center in Arlington, Virginia, and the author of Underestimated: Our Not So Peaceful Nuclear Future (2019). He served as deputy for nonproliferation policy in the office of the U.S. Secretary of Defense during the George H.W. Bush administration.
How’s the nuclear ban treaty doing?
Dr Kate Hudson, CND General Secretary, https://cnduk.org/hows-the-nuclear-ban-treaty-doing/ 4 Dec 23
CND’s Chair, Tom Unterrainer, attended the recent meeting at the UN in New York, of states that back the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons. Here Tom writes a guest blog about the event.
The non-nuclear majority met in New York between 27 November and 1 December for the Second Meeting of States Parties (2MSP) to the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW). This coming together was not simply ‘non-nuclear’ but decidedly anti-nuclear in outlook and approach. The TPNW represents many things: a ‘work in progress’, a part of international law, a mechanism for the eventual abolition of nuclear weapons and similar. What it represents politically, at the time of coming into force and since, is a full-frontal rejection of ‘nuclearism’ and a challenge to the nuclear-armed world. 2MSP saw discussion and decision making on how to embed this aspect of the Treaty.
Between 15 and 27 October 1953, the British government carried out ‘Operation Totem’ over an area in Southern Australia. Totem I and Totem II were atmospheric nuclear tests and together with five additional ‘non-critical’ tests, Britain delivered death and catastrophe on the First Nations people inhabiting the area. These people “felt the ground shaking and the black mist rolling”, as Karina Lester put it on the floor of 2MSP. “We know our lands are poisoned”, she went on, clearly stating that “we want governments to recognise what they have done.” What the British government did in 1953 was to consign a people and their land to death, destruction and continuing – intergenerational – harm.
The British government has refused to recognise or make recompense for what it did over seventy years ago and recently affirmed that it would not do so now. This roadblock to justice must be challenged, as should the other roadblocks to peace and justice that are erected by nuclear-armed states. The Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament has been engaged on the question of Britain’s legacy of nuclear colonialism and recently agreed a resolution at our 2023 Policy Conference to enhance this work. The message coming loud and clear from 2MSP is that this aspect of our work is urgently necessary and incredibly important. Even in states like the UK which possess nuclear weapons and which take a hostile approach to the TPNW, the overall message and intent of the Treaty has universal applicability.
The theme of ‘universalisation’ was prominent at 2MSP, with a series a working papers, proposals and speeches made to address the concept. In an early ‘thematic debate’, a representative of the International Committee of the Red Cross outlined some of what this could mean. For example, highlighting and embedding the anti-nuclear consensus that any nuclear use would have an enormous humanitarian impact; being clear that nuclear possession is “not exceptional” and does not stand above and beyond international law.
A working paper submitted by the government of Austria goes into more detail, with specific reference to concepts of security: “the argument that opponents of the Treaty frequently employ in their criticism of the Treaty is that it ‘does not take today’s security environment into account’ or that ‘the security environment is not conducive to nuclear disarmament.’” In response to these ‘arguments’, Austria is clear that “there has been little readiness by opponents of the Treaty, especially by the nuclear-armed States, to engage constructively with the legitimate security concerns formulated in and through the Treaty.” What does this mean? That State Parties to the TPNW are not simply rejecting nuclear-weapon possession for the obvious moral and ethical reasons but because they fully reject the ‘security’ arguments of nuclear-possessor states and are clear that the destructive humanitarian impact of any nuclear use must be fully recognised and accounted for.
There were many similar contributions and discussions at 2MSP, both on the floor of the meeting and in a series of lively side events. These events ranged from addressing the issues of ‘nuclear secrecy’ to more in-depth discussions and seminars on nuclear risks and global politics.
What is clear is that the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament can and will play an important role in pressing forward with ‘universalising’ anti-nuclear ideas, including those embodied in the TPNW. It is also clear – and this is one of the more positive aspects of such international meetings – that CND and our supporters are the representatives of majority non-nuclear and anti-nuclear thinking in the UK. Given Britain’s nuclear-armed status and nuclear alliances, our work – and the work of the TPNW community globally – is as important as ever.
Here Are Details of Burns-Zelensky Meeting That You Won’t See on Mainstream Media
CIAGATE, DEC 2, 2023, https://ciagate.substack.com/p/here-are-details-of-burns-zelensky?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=1685806&post_id=139329769&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&utm_medium=email
The issue to carry on providing military and financial support to Ukraine remains one of the hot topics on Capitol Hill. And if the aspirations of the Democrats to give the American taxpayers’ money to Zelensky remain stable (more than 75%), the voices inside the Republican Party about the need to finally end it are increasingly heard.
Regular postponements of the voting dates in the U.S. Congress on the allocation of billions of dollars for the provision of “emergency assistance” to Ukraine reflect serious inter-party contradictions on this matter. Thankfully, the Democrats have not been able to gain any advantages to date.
We’ve managed to find out some details of the conversations between CIA Director William Burns and Zelensky, where Mr. Burns personally warned the
Ukrainian president about the “upcoming financial difficulties” that Kyiv will face shortly.
Burns mentioned that the Democratic Party is going through a tough time, and Biden needs to focus on the presidential election now. In this regard, the CIA Director hinted to Zelensky that more funds allocated to Ukraine must be transferred back to the United States “to ensure democracy’s triumph.” He recalled that if Trump wins the presidency, the financial assistance may end by the beginning of 2025.
In other words, Biden wants to utilize the funds designated for Ukraine as part of his election campaign. Confirmation to this is the Washington Post article, which explicitly states that most of the Ukrainian money ultimately remains in the United States.
Burns and Zelensky also agreed to work together to “convince” Republicans in the House of Representatives to resume military and financial flows to Kyiv.
According to our sources, Burns gave Zelensky a list of 87 House Republicans who opposed to financial aid to Ukraine. Our source hinted that shortly “explanatory work” will be carried out with them both by the Ukrainians and with the participation of the CIA.
We had to find indirect confirmation of this information. A couple of days ago, the Ukrainian Pravda reported that Ukraine’s President’s Office sent a delegation to establish connections with U.S. Republicans.
But how will the CIA work in this direction, given that it is prohibited for the Agency to operate on the United States soil? Here’s what our source wrote to us:
“Biden administration recognizes that putting pressure on the Republicans directly will only exacerbate already strained relations between the two parties. In this regard, the task of persuading the Republicans will be carried out by a third side, specifically by employees of European embassies in the United States under close supervision of the CIA.”
We have previously discussed the CIA’s ways of promoting and utilizing its agents for key positions worldwide. Most of these agents are currently extremely effective in promoting interests of the deep state in those countries where this is most necessary.
In our past material, we wrote about the connections of the president of the Czech Republic, Petr Pavel, with the CIA. His latest statement on the need for NATO to prepare for a high-intensity conflict fully reflects Joe Biden’s current foreign policy, which is aimed at further financing of wars.
It is expected that such a scheme will eventually convince the Republicans to help Ukraine further. If this happens, the Biden and Zelensky families, but not ordinary Americans, will once again become the beneficiaries.
Here’s the full CIA list of “objectionable Republicans”:
1. Ben Cline, VA
2. Eric Crawford, AR
3. Scott Franklin, FL
4. Kay Granger, TX
5. Alexander Mooney, WV
6. August Pfluger, TX
7. Guy Reschenthaler, PA
8. Chris Stewart, UT
9. Jodey Arrington, TX
10. Ron Estes, KS
11. John Moolenaar, MI
12. Nathaniel Moran, TX
13. Jason Smith, MO
14. Lisa McClain, MI
15. Brian Babin, TX
16. Troy Balderson, OH
17. Jim Banks, IN
18. Aaron Bean, FL
19. Andy Biggs, AZ
20. Dan Bishop, NC
21. Lauren Boebert, CO
22. Josh Brecheen, OK
23. Tim Burchett, TN
24. Michael Burgess, TX
25. Eric Burlison, MO
26. Kat Cammack, FL
27. Jerry Carl, AL
28. Michael Cloud, TX
29. Mike Collins, GA
30. James Comer, KY
31. Elijah Crane, AZ
32. Warren Davidson, OH
33. Byron Donalds, FL
34. Jeff Duncan. SC
35. Chuck Edwards, NC
36. Mike Ezell, MS
37. Pat Fallon, TX
38. Brad Finstad, MN
39. Michelle Fischbach, MN
40. Scott Fitzgerald, WI
41. Russel Fry, SC
42. Russ Fulcher, ID
43. Matt Gaetz, FL
44. Bob Good, VA
45. Lance Gooden, TX
46. Paul Gosar, AZ
47. Marjorie Greene, GA
48. Michael Gest, MS
49. Harriet Hageman, WY
50. Diana Harshbarger, TN
51. Kevin Hern, OK
52. Clay Higgins, LA
53. Erin Houchin, IN
54. Wesley Hunt, TX
55. Ronny Jackson, TX
56. Mike Johnson, LA
57. Jim Jordan, OH
58. John Joyce, PA
59. Doug LaMalfa, CA
60. Anna Paulina Luna, FL
61. Morgan Luttrell, TX
62. Tracey Mann, KS
63. Thomas Massie, KY
64. Mary Miller, IL
65. Carol Miller, WV
66. Cory Mills, FL
67. Barry Moore, AL
68. Gregory Murphy, NC
69. Troy Nehls, TX
70. Ralph Norman, SC
71. Andrew Ogles, TN
72. Scott Perry, PA
73. Bill Posey, FL
74. Mattew Rosendale, MT
75. Chip Roy, TX
76. George Santos, NY
77. Keith Self, TX
78. Pete Stauber, MN
79. Elise Stefanik NY,
80. Greg Steube, FL
81. Thomas Tiffany, WI
82. William Timmons, SC
83. Jefferson Van Drew, NJ
84. Beth Van Duyne, TX
85. Randy Weber, TX
86. Roger Williams, TX
87. Ryan Zinke, MT
1 This Month
10 June – Assessing Canada’s Investments in Small Modular Nuclear Reactors – https://zoom.us/meeting/register/IiqHA5feRhaEBycOLNTJlA#/registration
Cuba Is Not a Failed State – It Is a Besieged State
PETITION: “Global Appeal to Endorse Palestinian Right of Return of Refugees”
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- June 2026 (68)
- May 2026 (306)
- 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)
-
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 