Jeffrey Sachs: Beyond the Neocon Debacle in #Ukraine
October 4, 2023 https://consortiumnews.com/2023/10/04/jeffrey-sachs-beyond-the-neocon-debacle-in-ukraine/
Four events have shattered NATO’s drive for enlargement eastward. Now, decisions by the U.S. and Russia will matter enormously for the entire world’s peace, security and wellbeing.
By Jeffrey D. Sachs, Common Dreams
We are entering the end stage of the 30-year U.S. neoconservative debacle in Ukraine. The neocon plan to surround Russia in the Black Sea region by NATO has failed. Decisions now by the U.S. and Russia will matter enormously for peace, security, and wellbeing for the entire world.
Four events have shattered the neocon hopes for NATO enlargement eastward, to Ukraine, Georgia, and onward.
The first is straightforward. Ukraine has been devastated on the battlefield, with tragic and appalling losses. Russia is winning the war of attrition, an outcome that was predictable from the start but which the neocons and mainstream media continue to deny.
The second is the collapsing support in Europe for the U.S. neocon strategy. Poland no longer speaks with Ukraine. Hungary has long opposed the neocons. Slovakia has elected an anti-neocon government. E.U. leaders — including French President Emmanuel Macron, Italian Prime Minister Giorgia Meloni, Spain’s Acting Prime Minister Pedro Sanchez, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, U.K. Prime Minister Rishi Sunak, and others — have disapproval ratings far higher than approvals.
The third is the cut in U.S. financial support for Ukraine. The grassroots of the Republican Party, several GOP presidential candidates and a growing number of Republican members of Congress oppose more spending on Ukraine. In the stop-gap bill to keep the government running, Republicans stripped away new financial support for Ukraine. The White House has called for new aid legislation, but this will be an uphill fight.
The fourth, and most urgent from Ukraine’s point of view, is the likelihood of a Russian offensive. Ukraine’s casualties are in the hundreds of thousands, and Ukraine has burned through its artillery, air defenses, tanks and other heavy weapons. Russia is likely to follow with a massive offensive.
The neocons have created utter disasters in Afghanistan, Iraq, Syria, Libya and now Ukraine. The U.S. political system has not yet held the neocons to account, since foreign policy is carried out with little public or congressional scrutiny to date. Mainstream media have sided with the slogans of the neocons.
Ukraine is at risk of economic, demographic and military collapse. What should the U.S. government do to face this potential disaster?
Urgently, it should change course. Britain advises the U.S. to escalate, as Britain is stuck with 19th-century imperial reveries. U.S. neocons are stuck with imperial bravado. Cooler heads urgently need to prevail.
President Joe Biden should immediately inform President Vladimir Putin that the U.S. will end NATO enlargement eastward if the U.S. and Russia reach a new agreement on security arrangements. By ending NATO expansion, the U.S. can still save Ukraine from the policy debacles of the past 30 years.
Biden should agree to negotiate a security arrangement of the kind, though not precise details, of Putin’s proposals of Dec. 17, 2021. Biden foolishly refused to negotiate with Putin in December 2021. It’s time to negotiate now.
There are four keys to an agreement. First, as part of an overall deal, Biden should agree that NATO will not enlarge eastward, but not reverse the past NATO enlargement. NATO would of course not tolerate Russian encroachments in existing NATO states. Both Russia and the U.S. would pledge to avoid provocations near Russia’s borders, including provocative missile placement, military exercises and the like.
Second, the new U.S.-Russia security agreement should cover nuclear weapons. The U.S. unilateral withdrawal from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, followed by the placement of Aegis missiles in Poland and Romania, gravely inflamed tensions, which were further exacerbated by the U.S. withdrawal from the Intermediate Nuclear Force Agreement in 2019 and Russia’s suspension of the New Start Treaty in 2023.
Russian leaders have repeatedly pointed to U.S. missiles near Russia, unconstrained by the abandoned ABM Treaty, as a dire threat to Russia’s national security.
Third, Russia and Ukraine would agree on new borders, in which the overwhelmingly ethnic Russian Crimea and heavily ethnic Russian districts of eastern Ukraine would remain part of Russia. The border changes would be accompanied by security guarantees for Ukraine backed unanimously by the U.N. Security Council and other states such as Germany, Turkey and India.
Fourth, as part of a settlement, the U.S., Russia, and the E.U. would re-establish trade, finance, cultural exchange and tourist relations. It’s certainly time once again to hear Rachmaninoff and Tchaikovsky in U.S. and European concert halls.
Border changes are a last resort and should be made under the auspices of the U.N. Security Council. They must never be an invitation to further territorial demands, such as by Russia regarding ethnic Russians in other countries. Yet borders change, and the U.S. has recently backed two border changes.
NATO bombed Serbia for 47 days until it relinquished the Albanian-majority region of Kosovo. In 2008, the U.S. recognized Kosovo as a sovereign nation. The U.S. government similarly backed South Sudan’s insurgency to break away from Sudan.
If Russia, Ukraine, or the U.S. subsequently violated the new agreement, they would be challenging the rest of the world. As President John F. Kennedy once observed, “even the most hostile nations can be relied upon to accept and keep those treaty obligations, and only those treaty obligations, which are in their own interest.”
The U.S. neocons carry much blame for undermining Ukraine’s 1991 borders. Russia did not claim Crimea until after the U.S.-backed overthrow of Ukraine’s President Viktor Yanukovych in 2014. Nor did Russia annex the Donbass after 2014, instead calling on Ukraine to honor the U.N.-backed Minsk II agreement, based on autonomy for the Donbass. The neocons preferred to arm Ukraine to retake the Donbass by force rather than grant the Donbass autonomy.
The long-term key to peace in Europe is collective security as called for by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE).
According to OSCE agreements, OSCE member states “will not strengthen their security at the expense of the security of other States.”
Neocon unilateralism undermined Europe’s collective security by pushing NATO enlargement without regard to third parties, notably Russia. Europe — including the E.U., Russia and Ukraine — needs more OSCE and less neocon unilateralism as key to lasting peace in Europe.
Jeffrey D. Sachs is a university professor and director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, where he directed The Earth Institute from 2002 until 2016. He is also president of the U.N. Sustainable Development Solutions Network and a commissioner of the U.N. Broadband Commission for Development. He has been adviser to three United Nations secretaries-general, and currently serves as an SDG Advocate under Secretary-General Antonio Guterres. Sachs is the author, most recently, of A New Foreign Policy: Beyond American Exceptionalism (2020). Other books include: Building the New American Economy: Smart, Fair, and Sustainable (2017) and The Age of Sustainable Development, (2015) with Ban Ki-moon.
Russia says Japan did not inform it fully about radioactive Fukushima water
#nuclear #anti-nuclear #nuclear-free #NoNukes
MOSCOW, Oct 4 (Reuters) – Russia said on Wednesday that Japan had failed to provide full information on the radioactive water being discharged from the wrecked Fukushima nuclear power plant, despite repeated requests from both Moscow and Beijing.
Japan started releasing treated radioactive water from Fukushima into the Pacific Ocean in August, and was heavily criticised by China, which immediately banned all seafood imports from Japan.
“We and China have repeatedly urged the Japanese side to show transparency and provide all interested states with full access to all information about the discharge of water from the Fukushima-1 nuclear power plant,” Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said.
“Japan has not done this,” Zakharova said. “Japan has failed to properly respond to these issues and to guarantee the absence of a threat, including a long-term one.”………………….. https://www.reuters.com/world/russia-says-japan-failed-provide-full-information-about-water-fukushima-nuclear-2023-10-04/
France attempts to pressure Australia to stop engaging with UN nuclear weapons ban treaty
https://www.icanw.org/france_pressures_australia_to_stop_engaging_with_un_nuclear_weapons_ban_treaty 2 Oct 23 #nuclear #anti-nuclear #Nuclear-Free #NoNukes
Recent statements by a French diplomat to “the Australian” newspaper criticizing Australia’s decision to observe the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW) reveal the panicked efforts by nuclear-armed states to undermine the treaty as support for the ban continues to grow. It also shows a European state with a dark colonial legacy continuing to exert pressure on the Pacific – an area heavily impacted by French nuclear testing – instead of respecting national sovereignty.
On 2 October an article in “the Australian” newspaper cited an unnamed French diplomat claiming that Australia’s support for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons “undermines the primacy of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT)” and “is contradictory with Australia’s ambition to reinforce its partnership with NATO.”
Both of these statements are not only hamfisted attempts at pressuring the Australian government away from the TPNW, they are also factually incorrect: The TPNW was carefully crafted to reinforce, complement, and build on the NPT, which obligates its parties – including France – to negotiate further legal measures to achieve nuclear disarmament under Article VI, and NATO members face no legal barrier to joining the treaty, so long as they commit not to engage in or support any nuclear-weapon-related activities. Moreover, several NATO partners are already TPNW parties (Austria, Ireland, Kazakhstan, Malta, Mongolia, New Zealand) or signatories (Algeria, Colombia).
These declarations show France’s mounting concern over the growing support for the TPNW. The statements themselves are no surprise, as France has stridently protested the TPNW ever since it was adopted at the UN in 2017 with the backing of 122 states. France insists it has a legitimate right under the NPT to possess nuclear weapons, while ignoring its commitments to pursue negotiations in good faith for nuclear disarmament under the same treaty. What is new is the fact that this pressure is being exerted publicly, and on a state that is largely seen as an ally on security issues. Previously, France has limited this kind of pressure for formerly colonised states, particularly in Africa.
Australia’s growing support for the TPNW
The Australian Labor Party, which has been in power since May 2022, adopted a resolution in 2018 committing it to sign and ratify the TPNW in government. This was moved by Anthony Albanese, who now serves as prime minister and has been a vocal supporter of the TPNW. He said at the time: “Our commitment to sign and ratify the nuclear weapon ban treaty in government is Labor at its best.” Labor reaffirmed this position in 2021 and most recently on 18 August 2023. The government also has confirmed its intention to observe the treaty’s upcoming meeting of states parties in New York (2MSP) and is evaluating whether to sign and ratify the treaty.
This is an encouraging step, but ICAN’s Executive Director, former Labor MP Melissa Parke, has criticised the government’s delay in ratifying the treaty: “It’s not enough to keep promising to sign the treaty without acting. We want to see the Prime Minister put pen to paper, without delay. Labor’s commitment on nuclear disarmament and non-proliferation will be hollow if Australia fails to do so.”
Speaking to the revelation that French diplomats are exerting pressure on Australia to consider, she said: “Our two countries have never seen eye to eye on nuclear weapons. France shouldn’t be lecturing Australia on nuclear policy. We can make our own decisions, in our own interests – and for the global common good.”
France’s unresolved nuclear legacy in the Pacific
From 1966 to 1996, France tested 193 nuclear weapons in Maohi Nui/French Polynesia, a Self Governing Territory of France in the Pacific. In 1974, Australia famously took France to the International Court of Justice in a bid to force an end to its atmospheric nuclear testing in the Pacific, as the impacts of nuclear weapons are not contained by national borders. Yet France only ended its Pacific nuclear test explosions once it was confident it had developed non-explosive testing methods sufficiently for new weapons development, and it refuses to acknowledge and address the catastrophic legacy of its nuclear tests to this day.This legacy is also a subject of hot debate at the national level in France. On 28 September, only days before France’s criticisms of Australia, the assembly of French Polynesia unanimously adopted a resolution supporting the TPNW, highlighting the region’s history as the site of numerous French nuclear tests. The resolution underscores the TPNW as a humanitarian disarmament treaty and emphasises the deep concerns of the French Polynesian population regarding this issue. While French Polynesia cannot currently access the assistance and rehabilitation outlined in Articles 6 and 7 of the TPNW due to France’s non-ratification, it sends a resounding message in favour of the treaty to Paris.
Nuclear renaissance in Europe? Really?
#nuclear #antinuclear #nuclear-free #NoNukes
As countries including France, the UK and Sweden look to pivot back to
nuclear power to help them meet net-zero targets, questions remain over
safety, radioactive waste and where they’ll find the vast amounts of
money and expertise needed to build and manage new reactors.
FT 2nd Oct 2023
Pacific island States support the Treaty on Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons – a problem for Australia in joining AUKUS nuclear military alliance
French criticism of nuclear ban treaty highlights Canberra’s dilemma
The Interpreter, NIC MACLELLAN, 2 Oct 23
Can Australia rebuild a strategic military partnership with France at
the same time as independence movements claim Pacific support?
On 28 September, the Assembly of French Polynesia unanimously passed a resolution endorsing the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), the nuclear ban treaty that entered into force in 2021. Even though France refuses to sign the treaty, and still controls the defence and foreign policy of French Polynesia, the local legislature in Tahiti with its new pro-independence government sees TPNW as setting a new norm in international law. The resolution encourages “the participation of France as an observer state at the next TPNW Meeting of the States Parties”, to be held in New York in late November. It also calls on the French government to “work towards France’s adherence to this new international norm.”
A key reason for this pointed message to Paris are the TPNW provisions that call for assistance to nuclear survivors and clean-up of contaminated nuclear test sites. The Ma’ohi people are still seeking compensation for the health and environmental effects of 193 French nuclear tests at Moruroa and Fangataufa.
Beyond this, French Polynesia’s critique of nuclear weapons echoes the views of the majority of members of the Pacific Islands Forum. Unlike Australia, nine independent Pacific Island countries and Aotearoa-New Zealand have already signed and ratified the TPNW.
At the recent Australian Labor Party (ALP) National Conference in Brisbane, the party re-confirmed its support for signing the TPNW – under restrictive conditions – and agreed to send an observer to the next Meeting of State Parties. However key ALP leaders are opposed to signing, and nuclear weapons states such as the United States and France, having long derided the treaty, are now ramping up their opposition to it.
A front-page story in The Australian on 2 October cited an unnamed French diplomat who criticised Australia over its tentative moves towards signing TPNW, though the story fails to mention last week’s resolution from the Assembly of French Polynesia…………………………………………….
the Australian government has held a series of meetings with key French ministers to rebuild relations disrupted by AUKUS, including a summit between Defence Minister Richard Marles and French counterpart Sebastien Lecornu in September 2022, and a 2+2 meeting of defence and foreign ministers in January. Marles and Lecornu are organising the South Pacific Defence Ministers meeting in Noumea in December, to the dismay of the FLNKS independence movement, which is in the midst of talks with the French state over a new political status for New Caledonia.
Last year, Marles congratulated Emmanuel Macron on his re-election to the French presidency, proclaiming “France is our neighbour. France is a Pacific country. And as such, France deeply matters to Australia.”
But France is a European colonial power, not a Pacific country. It is recognised by the United Nations as the administering power of non-self-governing territories. It has responsibilities for decolonisation under international law. Australian governments may be reluctant to talk publicly about this, but the issue of self-determination is firmly on the regional agenda, posing difficult choices for all Forum member countries (as shown by recent debates over West Papua, Bougainville, Guam, etc).
Another problem is that, in both Australia and France, the perspectives of leaders from Francophone island communities are usually missing from the public debate about France’s role in Indo-Pacific security. It’s rare to see the media or think tanks cite President Louis Mapou of New Caledonia or newly elected President Moetai Brotherson of French Polynesia. Both will be attending the next Pacific Islands Forum summit in Rarotonga as it discusses regional security – for the first time, leaders from both French territories in the Forum are supporters of independence and sharp anti-nuclear critics.
So, can Australia rebuild a strategic military partnership with France at the same time as its Pacific neighbours are seeking an independent and sovereign state?
As Penny Wong travelled to Noumea last April, becoming the first Australian Foreign Minister to address the Congress of New Caledonia, Mapou was eager to strengthen ties with Canberra around trade, investment and people-to-people engagement. He also diplomatically highlighted key differences around Australia’s close alignment with the United States under the AUKUS partnership:
The independence movement of New Caledonia – of which I’m a member – is in favour of non-alignment. We regularly attend the summits of the Non-Aligned Movement. From the earliest days, we have supported a nuclear free Pacific – that’s even set out in the preamble of the draft Constitution of Kanaky that we submitted to the United Nations in 1986. When Australia decides to align itself with the United States in the framework of AUKUS to acquire nuclear submarines, it raises the question: if it starts here, where will it end? How does this impact the Treaty of Rarotonga and the Boe Declaration on security?
The Albanese government has proclaimed its support for a world without nuclear weapons. But talk is easy. It’s getting harder for the ALP government to balance tensions between its role as an AUKUS partner, a strategic partner with France and the “security partner of choice” for the island nations of the Pacific, which are deeply opposed to nuclear weapons. Why should Australia side with a European colonial power against its closest neighbours? https://www.lowyinstitute.org/the-interpreter/french-criticism-nuclear-ban-treaty-highlights-canberra-s-dilemma
A “New Cold War” on an Ever-Hotter Planet
The Slow-Motion Equivalent of a Nuclear War?
Tom Dispatch BY TOM ENGELHARDT, 1 Oct 23
Tell me, what planet are we actually on? All these decades later, are we really involved in a “second” or “new” Cold War? It’s certainly true that, as late as the 1980s, the superpowers (or so they then liked to think of themselves), the United States and the Soviet Union, were still engaged in just such a Cold War, something that might have seemed almost positive at the time. After all, a “hot” one could have involved the use of the planet’s two great nuclear arsenals and the potential obliteration of just about everything.
But today? In case you haven’t noticed, the phrase “new Cold War” or “second Cold War” has indeed crept into our media vocabulary. ………………………………………
let’s stop and think about just what planet we’re actually on. In the wake of August 6 and August 9, 1945, when two atomic bombs destroyed the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, there was little doubt about how “hot” a war between future nuclear-armed powers might get. And today, of course, we know that, if such a word can even be used in this context, a relatively modest nuclear conflict between, say, India and Pakistan might actually obliterate billions of us, in part by creating a — yes, brrr — “nuclear winter,” that would give the very phrase “cold” war a distinctly new meaning.
These days, despite an all too “hot” war in Ukraine in which the U.S. has, at least indirectly, faced off against the crew that replaced those Soviet cold warriors of yore, the new Cold War references are largely aimed at this country’s increasingly tense, ever more militarized relationship with China.
Its focus is both the island of Taiwan and much of the rest of Asia. Worse yet, both countries seem driven to intensify that struggle.
In case you hadn’t noticed, Joe Biden made a symbolic and much-publicized stop in Vietnam (yes, Vietnam!) while returning from the September G20 summit meeting in India. There, he insisted that he didn’t “want to contain China” or halt its rise. He also demanded that it play by “the rules of the game” (and you know just whose rules and game that was). In the process, he functionally publicized his administration’s ongoing attempt to create an anti-China coalition extending from Japan and South Korea (only recently absorbed into a far deeper military relationship with this country), all the way to, yes, India itself.
And (yes, as well!) the Biden administration has upped military aid to Japan, Taiwan (including $85 million previously meant for Egypt), Australia (including a promise to supply it with its own nuclear attack submarines), and beyond. In the process, it’s also been reinforcing the American military position in the Pacific from Okinawa, Guam, and the Philippines to — yes again — Australia. Meanwhile, one four-star American general has even quite publicly predicted that a war between the U.S. and China is likely to break out by 2025, while urging his commanders to prepare for “the China fight”! Similarly, Director of National Intelligence Avril Haines has called China the “leading and most consequential threat to U.S. national security” and the Biden foreign policy team has been hard at work encircling — the Cold War phrase would have been “containing” — China, both diplomatically and militarily.
On the Chinese side, that country’s military has been similarly ramping up its air and naval activities around and ever closer to the island of Taiwan in an ominous fashion, even as it increases its military presence in places like the South China Sea (as has the U.S.). Oh, and just in case you hadn’t noticed, with a helping hand from Russia, Beijing is also putting more money and effort into expanding its already sizable nuclear arsenal.
Yes, this latest version of a Cold War is (to my mind at least) already a little too hot to handle. And yet, despite that reality, it couldn’t be more inappropriate to use the term “new Cold War” right now on a globe where a previously unimagined version of a hot war is staring us all, including most distinctly the United States and China, in the face.
As a start, keep in mind that the two great powers facing off so ominously against each other have long faced off no less ominously against the planet itself. After all, the United States remains the historically greatest greenhouse gas emitter of all time, while China is the greatest of the present moment (with the U.S. still in second place and Americans individually responsible for significantly more emissions than their Chinese counterparts). The results have been telling in both countries.
In 2023, the United States has already experienced a record 23 billion-dollar weather disasters from Hawaii to Florida with the year still months from ending. Meanwhile, China has been clobbered by staggering heat waves and stunning flooding, the heaviest rains in 1,000 years, displacing 1.2 million people in areas around its capital, Beijing. Given the past summer, this planet and all its inhabitants are no longer in anything that could pass for a cold war state.
The Freedom to Fuel?
As it happens, industrializing countries first began to, in essence, make war on our world in the late eighteenth century, but had no idea they were doing so until deep into the twentieth century. These days, however, it should be anything but a secret that humanity is all too knowingly at war — and there’s nothing “cold” about it — with and on our very own world. ……………………………………………………………….
In 2022, those major G20 nations that met in India recently poured a record $1.4 trillion (yes, that is not a misprint!) into subsidizing fossil fuels in various ways, more than double the figure for 2019………………………………………………………
The results of such a — yes, warlike — approach to the planet have been painfully obvious this year. After all, the northern hemisphere just broiled through its hottest summer in recorded history and the southern hemisphere the hottest winter. Each summer month — June, July, and August — also broke its own previous global record for heat and 2023 is almost guaranteed to be the hottest year ever recorded.
In addition, in the last five months, the world’s ocean waters also broke temperature records, heating up if not literally to the boiling point, then at least to stunning levels……………………………………………………………………………….
it hardly matters where you look. Even Australia just experienced its hottest winter ever and already potentially “catastrophic” spring fire conditions are developing there. Evidence also suggests that, whatever the extremes of the present moment, the future holds far worse in store.
In that context, think about the fact that the planet’s two greatest carbon emitters, China and the United States, now fully knowledgeable about what they’re doing, can’t seem to imagine working together in any fashion to deal with a catastrophe that may prove, in the decades to come, the slow-motion equivalent of a nuclear war.
The New Hot War
So, a new Cold War? Don’t count on it. I mean honestly, how can anyone anywhere talk about a new cold war with a straight face on a planet where nature’s increasingly hot war is the order of the day — and where far too little is being done. Meanwhile, as of this moment, the distinctly hot war in Ukraine is only worsening, as the Russian and Ukrainian militaries emit ever more carbon, which, it turns out, is what militaries do. After all, the U.S. military is the largest institutional greenhouse emitter on the planet, larger than some countries.
………………………………………………………………………. On a planet burning up ahead of schedule — and where, no matter how you look at it, humanity is reaching beyond some of the boundaries set for life itself — isn’t it time to refocus in a major way on the new Hot War (and not the one in Ukraine) that has this planet in its grip? Isn’t it time for the American and Chinese leaderships to cut the war-like posturing and together face a world in desperate danger, for the sake, if nothing else, of all our children and grandchildren who don’t deserve the planet we’re heating up for them in such a devastatingly rapid fashion? https://tomdispatch.com/the-slow-motion-equivalent-of-a-nuclear-war/
American Meddling Failed To Prevent Robert Fico’s Victory In The Latest Slovak Elections
ANDREW KORYBKO, OCT 2, 2023, https://korybko.substack.com/p/american-meddling-failed-to-prevent?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=835783&post_id=137585191&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ln98x&utm_medium=email
The reason why America meddled in this election is because it fears both the substance and symbolism of a hitherto stalwart NATO vassal defecting from the bloc’s anti-Russian proxy war coalition.
The “Direction-Social Democracy” (SMER) party of former Prime Minister Robert Fico emerged victorious after Slovakia’s latest elections on Saturday in spite of Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR) warning before the vote that the US will go to any lengths to prevent that outcome. Nobody should have been surprised by that since CNN’s reporting made it obvious that Washington wanted him to lose. Here are three of their articles fearmongering about his democratically driven return to office:
* “A NATO country could soon have a pro-Russian leader”
* “With Kremlin apologist leading the polls, Slovakia vote threatens country’s support for Ukraine”
* “Pro-Russian politician wins Slovakia’s parliamentary election”
The reason why America meddled in this election is because it fears both the substance and symbolism of a hitherto stalwart NATO vassal defecting from the bloc’s anti-Russian proxy war coalition. Fico previously condemned the West’s role in provoking and perpetuating this conflict exactly as neighboring Hungarian leader Viktor Orban has done since the get-go. Just like him, Fico is also against arming Ukraine and could prevent others’ weapons from transiting across his country as well.
He’ll still need to form a governing coalition in order to make good on his promises, but few doubt that he’ll be able to. Assuming that’ll happen, then Slovakia will join Hungary in creating a center of anti-war gravity in the heart of both the EU and NATO, which complements Poland’s newly cautious stance towards this proxy conflict brought about by its dispute with Ukraine. These three could then form an influential force if the latter’s ruling “Law & Justice” (PiS) party wins re-election on 15 October.
Poland remains much more committed to this conflict than Hungary and post-election Slovakia, but there’s also no denying that the Polish people are incredibly offended at Ukraine’s ungratefulness. A critical mass of them might therefore vote for the anti-establishment Confederation party to protest PiS’ prior appeasement of Kiev up until recently despite that regime’s glorification of those who genocided Poles. If enough do so, then PiS might be compelled to form a coalition government with Confederation.
In that case, Poland might move closer towards Hungary and Slovakia’s position, which could inspire average Europeans to follow these countries’ lead during their own upcoming elections. The demonstration effect that was set into motion by Slovakia and which might soon manifest itself in Poland is therefore regarded by the US as a strategic challenge for good reason. That doesn’t justify its failed meddling in the latest Slovak elections, but simply places its motives into the appropriate context.
The fact that the CIA still failed to prevent Fico’s re-election dispels three popular myths, first and foremost that agency’s omnipotence. The second is foreign voters’ alleged inability to defy the American government’s will, the false perception of which has been exploited to suppress anti-establishment turnout. And finally, the Ukrainian Conflict is truly unpopular in some countries despite the media’s claims to the contrary and its crazed efforts to artificially manufacture support for this proxy war there.
With these symbolic outcomes in mind as well as the substantive changes to Slovak policy that are likely to follow its latest election, not to mention their possible impact on Poland in the coming future and the rest of Europe after that, the failure of America’s meddling campaign is a major development. It’s premature to describe it as a game-changer, but it still suggests a potentially impending inflection point in the Ukrainian Conflict, provided of course that the CIA doesn’t successfully sabotage related trends
North Korea slams #nuclear watchdog as ‘paid trumpeter’ for USA
AA 2 Oct 23 #anti-nuclear #nuclear-free #NoNukes
North Korea on Monday criticized the UN nuclear watchdog, calling it a “paid trumpeter” for the US.
Accusing International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) chief Rafael Grossi of “taking lead in creating the atmosphere of pressurizing” Pyongyang, North Korea’s Ministry of Nuclear Power Industry said he was “spreading a false story about imminent 7th nuclear test” by North Korea.
Pyongyang was responding to a resolution adopted on Sept. 29 at the IAEA general conference that calls on North Korea to curb its nuclear programs.
“If the IAEA wants to avoid international criticism as a paid trumpeter of the US, it would be well advised to devote itself to tackling the difficulties facing the international community such as the US nuclear proliferation through ‘AUKUS’, Japan’s discharge of nuclear-polluted water and the US expansion of nuclear test ground,” a ministry statement said.
…………………..“We vehemently denounce and reject the abnormal behavior of the IAEA which has been completely reduced to a reptile organization that serves the US away from its elementary mission as an international organization to maintain impartiality,” the statement added.
………………….“We clarify once again our principled stand to the director-general (of IAEA) who behaves like a US State Department official, forgetful of his duty as director of an international organization.
“As long as tyrannical nuclear weapons of the US and imperialist aggression forces exist on this land, the DPRK’s position as a nuclear weapons state will remain unchanged and the DPRK will never tolerate the hostile forces’ acts of infringing upon its sovereignty,” the statement said. https://www.aa.com.tr/en/asia-pacific/north-korea-slams-nuclear-watchdog-as-paid-trumpeter-for-us/3005744
Flagging Support: Zelenskyy Loses Favour in Washington
“With no end in sight, it looks increasingly likely that Ukraine will be yet another endless quagmire funded by the American taxpayer.”
In August, the Biden administration had requested a $24 billion package for Ukraine but was met with a significantly skimmed total of $6.1 billion. Of that amount $1.5 billion is earmarked for the Ukrainian Security Assistance Initiative, a measure that continues to delight US arms manufacturers by enabling the Pentagon to place contracts on their behalf to build weapons for Kyiv.
October 1, 2023, by: Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.com/flagging-support-zelenskyy-loses-favour-in-washington/
Things did not go so well this time around. When the worn Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy turned up banging on the doors of Washington’s powerful on September 21, he found fewer open hearts and an increasingly large number of closed wallets. The old ogre of national self-interest seemed to be presiding and was in no mood to look upon the desperate leader with sweet acceptance.
Last December, Zelensky and Ukrainian officials did not have to go far in hearing endorsements and encouragement in their efforts battling Moscow’s armies. The visit of the Ukrainian president, as White House Press Secretary Karine Jean-Pierre stated at the time, “will underscore the United States’ steadfast commitment to supporting Ukraine for as long as it takes, including through provision of economic, humanitarian and military assistance.”
Republican Senator from Utah, Mitt Romney, was bubbly with enthusiasm for the Ukrainian leader. “He’s a national and global hero – I’m delighted to be able to hear from him.” Media pack members such as the Associated Press scrambled for stretched parallels in history’s record, noting another mendicant who had previously appeared in Washington to seek backing. “The moment was Dec. 22, 1941, as British Prime Minister Winston Churchill landed near Washington to meet President Franklin D. Roosevelt just weeks after the attack on Pearl Harbor.”
Then House Speaker, the California Democrat Nancy Pelosi, also drew on the Churchillian theme with a fetishist’s relish. “Eighty-one years later this week, it is particularly poignant for me to be present when another heroic leader addresses the Congress in time of war – and with Democracy itself on the line,” she wrote colleagues in a letter.
Zelenskyy, not wishing to state the obvious, suggested a different approach to the question of aiding Ukraine. While not necessarily an attentive student of US history, any briefings given to him should have been mindful of a strand in US politics sympathetic to isolationism and suspicious of foreign leaders demanding largesse and aid in fighting wars.
How, then, to get around this problem? Focus on clumsy, if clear metaphors of free enterprise. “Your money is not charity,” he stated at the time, cleverly using the sort of corporate language that would find an audience among military-minded shareholders. “It’s an investment in global security and democracy that we handle in the most responsible way.” Certainly, Ukrainian aid has been a mighty boon for the US military-industrial complex, whose puppeteering strings continue to work their black magic on the Hill.
Despite such a show, the number of those believing in the wisdom of such an investment is shrinking. “In a US capital that has undergone an ideological shift since he was last here just before Christmas 2022,” remarked Stephen Collinson of CNN, “it now takes more than quoting President Franklin Roosevelt and drawing allusions to 9/11, to woo lawmakers.”
Among the investors, Republicans are shrinking more rapidly than the Democrats. An August CNN poll found a majority in the country – 55% – firmly against further funding for Ukraine. Along party lines, 71% of Republicans are steadfastly opposed, while 62% of Democrats would be satisfied with additional funding.
Kentucky Republican and Senate Minority leader Mitch McConnell continues to claim that funding Ukraine is a sensibly bloody strategy that preserves American lives while harming Russian interests. “Helping Ukraine retake its territory means weakening – weakening – one of America’s biggest strategic adversaries without firing a shot.”
The same cannot be said about the likes of Kentucky’s Republican Senator Rand Paul. While Zelenskyy was trying to make a good impression on the Hill, the senator was having none of it. “I will oppose any effort to hold the federal government hostage for Ukraine funding. I will not consent to expedited passage of any spending measure that provides any more US aid to Ukraine.”
In The American Conservative, Paul warned that, “With no end in sight, it looks increasingly likely that Ukraine will be yet another endless quagmire funded by the American taxpayer.” President Joe Biden’s administration had “failed to articulate a clear strategy or objective in this war, and Ukraine’s long-awaited counter-offensive has failed to make meaningful gains in the east.”
Such a quagmire was also proving jittering in its dangers. There was the prospect of miscalculation and bungling that could pit US forces directly against the Russian army. There were also no “effective oversight mechanisms” regarding the funding that has found its way into Kyiv’s pockets. “Unfortunately, corruption runs deep in Ukraine, and there’s plenty of evidence that it has run rampant since Russia’s invasion.” The Zelenskyy government, he also noted in a separate post, had “banned the political parties, they’ve invaded churches, they’ve arrested priests, so no, it isn’t a democracy, it’s a corrupt regime.”
Republicans such as Missouri Senator Josh Hawley are of the view that the US should be slaying different monsters of a more threatening variety. (Every imperium needs its formidable adversaries.) The administration, he argued, should “take the lead on China” and reassure its “European allies” that Washington would be providing “the nuclear umbrella in Europe.”
On September 30, with yet another government shutdown looming in Washington, the US House approved a bill for funding till mid-November by a 335-91 vote. But the measure did not include additional military or humanitarian aid to Ukraine. In August, the Biden administration had requested a $24 billion package for Ukraine but was met with a significantly skimmed total of $6.1 billion. Of that amount $1.5 billion is earmarked for the Ukrainian Security Assistance Initiative, a measure that continues to delight US arms manufacturers by enabling the Pentagon to place contracts on their behalf to build weapons for Kyiv.
The limited funding measure proved a source of extreme agitation to the clarion callers who have linked battering the Russian bear, if only through a flawed surrogate, with the cause of US freedom. “I am deeply disappointed that this continuing resolution did not include further aid for our ally, Ukraine,” huffed Maryland Democrat Rep. Steny Hoyer. “In September, the House held seven votes to approve that vital funding to Ukraine. Each time, more than 300 House Members voted in favor. This ought to be a nonpartisan issue and ought to have been addressed in the continuing resolution today.”
As Hoyer and those on his pro-war wing of politics are starting to realise, Ukraine, as an issue, is becoming problematically partisan and ripe. The filling in Zelenskyy’s cap is inexorably thinning and lightening.
US Pacific Security Deal With Marshall Islands at Risk Over #Nuclear Payments Description
VOA News, 1 Oct 23, #antinuclear #nuclear-free #NoNukes
The United States struck security agreements this week with Pacific Island nations seen as a key part of U.S. plans to counter China’s territorial expansion. But after three years of negotiations, one of those Pacific nations — the Marshall Islands — still has not reached a deal with Washington.
A member of the U.S. negotiating team blames the State Department’s legal team for the holdup, saying they object to how the agreement describes money for compensation from U.S. nuclear testing in the Marshall Islands some 60 years ago.
The agreement — known as the Compacts of Free Association — gives Washington exclusive access to large parts of the Pacific Ocean surrounding Micronesia, Palau and the Marshall Islands. Funding runs out on September 30.
“You would have to say that there was mission failure,” said Howard Hills in an exclusive interview with VOA.
Hills negotiated those compacts alongside presidential envoy Ambassador Joseph Yun but left his position September 7. Deals with Micronesia and Palau have been reached, while talks with the Marshall Islands have stalled.
In a speech before the United Nations General Assembly on September 20, President David Kabua laid out the Republic of the Marshall Island’s remaining demand.
“What the United States must realize is that Marshallese people require that the nuclear issue be addressed.”
Kabua was referring to the environmental and health impacts of the 67 atomic bomb tests conducted in the Marshall Islands between 1946 and 1958.
But Hills says the State Department won’t let Yun officially designate the funds as compensation for the effects of American nuclear tests in the Marshalls………………………………………………………………………………………. more https://www.voanews.com/a/7290553.html
 | |||
| |||
Nuclear Arms Control: U.S. May Face Challenges in Verifying Future Treaty Goals
GAO-23-105698P Sep 28, 2023. https://www.gao.gov/products/gao-23-105698 #nuclear #antinuclear #nuclear-free #NoNukes
Fast Facts. The U.S. has set goals for a new strategic U.S.-Russian nuclear arms control treaty when the current one expires in 2026.
The goals are to ensure that a new treaty addresses all nuclear weapons—including those in storage and shorter-range weapons—and certain weapon delivery vehicles. For the next treaty, officials largely expect to use current methods to verify that each country complies, such as on-site inspections and satellite imagery.
Beyond the next treaty, future treaties could include more extensive nuclear weapon limits. Verifying such treaties may require more advanced technology, which the U.S. is researching and developing.
What GAO Found
New START, a treaty that limits U.S. and Russian strategic nuclear forces, will expire in 2026. The U.S. has established three goals for a nuclear arms control treaty with Russia to follow New START:
- Retain limits on systems capable of delivering nuclear weapons at intercontinental ranges, or “strategic delivery vehicles”;
- Address all nuclear weapons, including nonstrategic nuclear weapons and weapons in storage; and
- Address new and novel Russian delivery vehicles, such as a nuclear-powered and nuclear-armed cruise missile.
According to U.S. officials, the measures for verifying compliance with a New START successor are likely to be similar to those employed for New START, including exchanges of data about deployed strategic delivery vehicles, inspections at relevant bases, and use of satellites. In the long term, the U.S. has aspirational goals—such as nuclear weapons reductions—that may require more extensive verification using more intrusive technologies.
The National Nuclear Security Administration (NNSA) has a plan for developing verification technologies that would support an array of possible treaty scenarios. NNSA’s plan groups these technologies into three “approaches” based on increasing levels of intrusiveness and confidence in compliance. Officials stated that technologies in the first, “baseline” approach are largely proven or already used under New START and are ready to support a potential successor treaty. More intrusive technologies—such as devices to measure weapons’ radiation signatures—would provide increased confidence in compliance and support longer-term treaty goals but may require 5 to 10 more years of development.
Stakeholders GAO interviewed and studies GAO reviewed noted likely challenges to verifying Russian compliance with future treaties that address U.S. nuclear arms control goals. For example, nuclear weapons are smaller than strategic delivery vehicles and would thus be harder to monitor using satellites. Verifying Russian compliance with limits on nonstrategic nuclear weapons may also be challenging, in part because many Russian nonstrategic delivery vehicles can carry nuclear or conventional weapons, making visual differentiation difficult.
Why GAO Did This Study
New START limits the number of U.S. and Russian strategic delivery vehicles—such as intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM)—and the total number of nuclear weapons that each party is allowed to deploy on those vehicles. New START also details a collection of verification measures—such as inspections and the use of satellites—intended to provide confidence that parties are complying with treaty limits. The U.S. has sought to negotiate a New START successor with Russia and aspires to pursue future arms control with China.
The Senate report accompanying a bill for the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2022 includes a provision for GAO to review technologies that could support verification of future nuclear arms control treaties. This report describes (1) U.S. goals and likely verification measures for future nuclear arms control treaties, including a successor to New START; (2) the extent NNSA has planned for or developed verification technologies to support future arms control goals; and (3) challenges stakeholders have identified to implementing verification measures to support future treaties.
GAO reviewed U.S. government plans and reports pertaining to nuclear arms control treaty verification, as well as relevant studies. GAO also interviewed 43 stakeholders, including U.S. government officials, representatives from the Department of Energy’s national laboratories, and nuclear arms control experts.
For more information, contact Allison Bawden at (202) 512-3841 or bawdena@gao.gov.
North Korea slams UN nuclear agency as US mouthpiece
The spokesman described the resolution as a ‘result of conspiracy’ by the United States and its allies, saying North Korea’s status as a nuclear weapons state has already become ‘irreversible.’
The spokesman described the resolution as a ‘result of conspiracy’ by the United States and its allies, saying North Korea’s status as a nuclear weapons state has already become ‘irreversible.’
Reuters 02 October 2023,
Read more at: https://www.deccanherald.com/world/north-korea-slams-un-nuclear-agency-as-us-mouthpiece-2708775
North Korea on Monday denounced the UN atomic watchdog for joining a US-led pressure campaign and “cooking up” a resolution over its nuclear programmes, calling the agency a “paid trumpeter” for Washington.
The spokesman also accused IAEA chief Rafael Grossi of “taking the lead in creating the atmosphere of pressurising the DPRK” by “spreading a false story” about an imminent nuclear test. Grossi warned last year that the reclusive country could resume…
Read more at: https://www.deccanherald.com/world/north-korea-slams-un-nuclear-agency-as-us-mouthpiece-2708775
Read more at: https://www.deccanherald.com/world/north-korea-slams-un-nuclear-agency-as-us-mouthpiece-2708775
Qatar calls for Israeli nuclear facilities to be subjected to IAEA safeguards
Friday, 29 September 2023 https://www.presstv.ir/Detail/2023/09/29/711758/Qatar-Israel-nuclear-IAEA-NPT
Qatar has called for the Israeli regime’s nuclear facilities to be subjected to the International Atomic Energy Agency’s safeguards amid Tel Aviv’s ongoing snub of international nuclear regulations.
The demand was put forward by the Chairman of Qatar’s National Committee for the Prohibition of Weapons, Abdulaziz Salmeen al-Jabri at the annual general conference of the IAEA, which is currently underway in Vienna, the official Qatar News Agency (QNA) reported on Friday.
Jabri further called for Israel to join the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT).
The Qatari official explained that these were legitimate demands that had been confirmed by “international legitimacy resolutions [that were passed] half a century ago,” the QNA report noted.
He named some of those resolutions as “resolutions of the UN General Assembly [that have been passed] since 1974, [United Nations] Security Council Resolutions 487 of 1981 and 687 of 1991, numerous IAEA resolutions, and the resolution of the Review Conference of the Middle East Non-Proliferation Treaty in 1995.”
The official reminded that Israel’s subjecting all of its nuclear facilities to the IAEA’s comprehensive safeguards regime and its accession to the NPT “is a prerequisite for establishing a nuclear-weapon-free zone in the Middle East.”
He “stressed that confronting nuclear proliferation in the Middle East is at the core of the tasks assigned to the IAEA…”
Israel, which pursues a policy of deliberate ambiguity about its nuclear weapons, is estimated to harbor 200 to 400 nuclear warheads in its arsenal, making it the sole possessor of non-conventional arms in West Asia.
The regime has, nevertheless, refused to either allow inspections of its military nuclear facilities or sign the NPT.
| |||
| |||
France pushes pro-nuclear momentum to host global talks at OECD, to get tax-payer funding for the nuclear industry
At the event, participants called on international financial institutions, regional development banks and organisations, including the EU, to finance nuclear power.
The joint statement calls on financial institutions to “classify nuclear energy with all other zero- or low-emission energy sources in financial taxonomies”.
By Paul Messad | EURACTIV France | translated by Daniel Eck 29 Sept 23 https://www.euractiv.com/section/energy-environment/news/france-builds-on-eus-pro-nuclear-momentum-to-host-global-talks/
France sought to build on the “momentum” behind nuclear energy in Europe by hosting world leaders on 28-29 September to accelerate nuclear financing and discuss long-term international cooperation that excludes Russia from the game.
The conference was attended by 21 countries, including 15 from Europe – Bulgaria, Romania, the Netherlands, Poland, Croatia, the Czech Republic, Estonia, Finland, France, Hungary, Slovakia, Slovenia, Sweden, Ukraine and the UK – as well as Turkey, South Korea, Japan, Ghana and the US.
“This is the first time in 13 years that so many ministers have come together for a Nuclear Energy Agency (NEA) event,” said French Energy Minister Agnès Pannier-Runacher, who co-chaired the event with William D. Magwood, director-general of the OECD’s Nuclear Energy Agency.
The timing is right, added Pannier-Runacher about the shift in attitude among EU member states like the Netherlands and Italy, who were until recently historically opposed to nuclear power.
Some 30 industry leaders also participated in the debates, with several signing a joint press release on Friday calling for redeveloping nuclear power.
On the agenda of the Paris event were topics like financing, supply chain and fuel issues, and coordination between governments and industry.
International financing
At the event, participants called on international financial institutions, regional development banks and organisations, including the EU, to finance nuclear power.
“We intend to explore innovative financing approaches, including public-private partnerships, to facilitate access to capital for refurbishment, long-term operation, spent fuel and waste long-term storage & disposal, and new nuclear build projects internationally while mitigating the economic costs of risk through public support mechanisms,” says a joint communiqué.
This means that the EU is also called upon to join the movement.
In this sense, Pannier-Runacher “welcomed” the statement made on Tuesday (26 September) by the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, who, for the first time, envisaged EU subsidies for nuclear power.
“Nuclear energy needs public support in three areas: financing [including from the European Investment Bank], skills development and innovation,” the EU’s internal market Commissioner Thierry Breton said at the event’s start.
Asked about the possible reluctance of EU countries such as Germany to allow EU funds to be used for nuclear power, Pannier-Runacher said that “the problem lies in the different treatment of two energies that contribute to the same [decarbonisation] goals”, namely nuclear power and renewables, which are all low-carbon.
The joint statement calls on financial institutions to “classify nuclear energy with all other zero- or low-emission energy sources in financial taxonomies”.
The countries that signed the joint declaration have another powerful argument: nuclear capacity is set to triple worldwide by 2050 according to OECD scenarios, although a less optimistic IEA predicts that it will double.
Sharing the same values
The meeting was an opportunity for nuclear proponents to get together, but only from “democratic countries that share the same values”, Pannier-Runacher’s entourage explained on Wednesday.
While the talks did not directly address the dependence of some participating countries on Russia’s nuclear industry, “there is an implicit commitment by all OECD countries to condemn the Russian invasion,” Pannier-Runacher’s office said.
While Russia has been suspended from the OECD’s Nuclear Energy Agency, the Eastern European countries that attended the event are also members of the “Nuclear Alliance”, which is committed to “building partnerships to move away from this dependence [on Russia]”, the minister’s entourage added.
Their presence allowed EU countries present in Paris to hold informal talks on the ongoing reform of the EU electricity market, for which France advocates an approach favouring existing nuclear plants.
While the topic was not up for discussion, Pannier-Runacher’s office said ahead of the conference that “bilateral meetings with some of them [members of the nuclear alliance] will indeed take place”.
On the morning of the event, Pannier-Runacher was due to meet her Italian counterpart Gilberto Pichetto Fratin “to discuss cooperation on nuclear issues and the future of the European electricity market,” she said on X (formerly Twitter).
Italy did not take part in the OECD debates or sign the joint communiqué but was present as an observer.
1 This Month
petition to oppose the rapid increase of space-military industry threatening Jeju Island and the region.
[Petition by April 19th (KST)] Stop the joint military-Hanwha Systems-Jeju Provincial Government Sea Launch!
World Nuclear Power. Reactors 1951-2026, 75 Years of Nuclear Power.
Interactive Map– https://dv.worldnuclearreport.org/
Chernobyl: The Lost Tapes – A good documentary on Chernobyl on SBS available On Demand for the next 3 weeks– https://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/tv-program/chernobyl-the-lost-tapes/2352741955560
of the week–London Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament
Tell the Ukrainian Government to Drop Prosecution of Peace Activist Yurii Sheliazhenko
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
-
Archives
- April 2026 (211)
- 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)
- May 2025 (261)
-
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 