Extradition hearing of Julian Assange – defence witnesses destroy myths, demonstrate his integrity
Julian Assange: Three myths destroyed by defence witness statements, Independent Australia, By Sara Chessa | 19 November 2020
Witness statements towards the journalistic integrity of Julian Assange have been heard in court, debunking various myths in the process. Sara Chessa reports from the UK.
THE EXTRADITION HEARING of Julian Assange closed last month in London’s Central Criminal Court, the world-famous “Old Bailey”. We will have to wait until 4 January next year for the decision of the Judge. However, the Court heard impressive and authoritative witness statements highlighting the importance of Assange’s journalistic work and years of smear campaigns carried out by those states which were embarrassed by the way WikiLeaks disclosures made civil society aware of war crimes and the reality of the public interest.
Reconstructing the events starting from these accounts means getting out of the chronic opinionism of our time and taking the first fundamental step to return to the concrete facts. Therefore, while we wait for Judge Vanessa Baraitser to announce her decision, let’s go through the main myths that have been debunked by the witness statements heard at the Old Bailey.
Debunked myth one: On the redaction of the classified documents
|
The subtle game of the prosecution has been to deny that the charges against Mr Assange are about the disclosure of information that the public had the right to know, such as the Collateral Murder video. They have rather claimed to have identified WikiLeaks fault in the failure to redact the secret papers in deleting names of people who gave information to the American military and intelligence services whose life could have been in danger after the release. However, several WikiLeaks media partners were heard in Court testifying that strenuous steps had been taken by Wikileaks to redact any names before the release of documents. John Goetz, the German journalist who collaborated with WikiLeaks on their reporting about the U.S. military Afghan and Iraq War logs before publication, testified under oath that the redaction initiative put in place by Assange was “robust” and had involved a huge investment by WikiLeaks, both financially and in human resources. The Court also heard from one of the most celebrated whistleblowers in history, former U.S. Marines officer Daniel Ellsberg, best known for leaking to the New York Times in 1970 the huge tranche of U.S. Government documents on the Vietnam War – the “Pentagon Papers” – showing that the American Government had lied to the public from the very beginning of the conflict. Ellsberg told the packed court that Assange’s approach was the exact opposite of that of a reckless publication. He also explained that the U.S. Government could have prevented sensitive names from being released merely by revealing those that raised concerns, so they could be redacted. They didn’t do this, Ellsberg suggested, so to leave open the possibility of future prosecution……….. Debunked myth two: On the Trump supporters desperately believing he was going to save AssangeIf before September hearings we could have said that only a complete ignorance of the case had led people to think of U.S. President Donald Trump as a “hope” for Assange, now, after listening to the witness statements, we have a complete dossier of facts proving how harshly the incumbent U.S. President is fighting against WikiLeaks and investigative journalism. ……….. Moreover, the naïve vision of Trump as Assange’s saviour does not match with the witness statement of Mark Feldstein, Professor in the Journalism Department of the University of Maryland. He told the Court that the Trump Administration wanted a “head on a spike” to discourage future leaks. Feldstein explained that in 2010 and 2011, the Obama Administration wanted to prosecute WikiLeaks. However, the Justice Department stated that this would have been unconstitutional and would have set a precedent that could lead to many other journalists being prosecuted, as Assange’s conduct was “too similar” to that of journalists in hundreds of different newspapers. However, the Trump Administration decided to prosecute him anyway, leveraging the attempt by Assange to access classified documents. “It can’t be right that the only way journalists can get information is anonymously by post,” Feldstein said, concluding by highlighting that the nature of the accusation showed that the Trump Administration had journalism firmly in its sights. Debunked myth three: On the fact that Assange prosecution will only destroy his lifeKey witnesses have been clear: Assange’s conviction would criminalise all journalists. Trevor Timm, the founder of the Freedom of the Press Foundation, told the court that there have been numerous attempts by the U.S. Government to use espionage charges against journalists and none have ever succeeded. His qualified opinion is that this prosecution would mean that any journalist in possession of confidential information could be arrested. As he explained, if the charges against Assange were applied in 1970, the journalists who revealed the Watergate scandal under the Richard Nixon Administration – Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein – could have been thrown in jail under this standard. Reconnecting the issue to the present, he said that if asking a source for classified information is espionage, then the secure “dropbox” systems used by more than 80 publications worldwide to encourage whistleblowers to send them information would also be illegal, since they “solicit classified information” — one of the charges against Assange. Despite this, we are still waiting for a massive reaction from journalists. Of course, the International Federation of Journalists has taken action and the UK National Union of Journalists is finally organising to do the same. However, a lot of work still needs to be done to explain the impact that a decision to extradite Assange would have on the freedom of the press to inform the public, so the people could truly assess the action of their rulers.https://independentaustralia.net/life/life-display/julian-assange-three-myths-destroyed-by-defence-witness-statements,14531
|
|
|
British govt produced no evidence that nuclear plants are essential, in secret deals for the convenience of the nuclear industry
Greenpeace 17th Nov 2020, Greenpeace briefing on SMRs and Sizewell. The government has produced no analysis to show that nuclear reactors are essential, despite being asked by select committees to do so. It is making the same strategic mistakes in decision making as the Cameron and May governments did with Hinkley. Being drawn in to commitments they can’t pull out from, by conducting secretive deals behind closed doors with no scrutiny or competition, for the convenience of the nuclear industry.
What energy policies is Greenpeace calling for instead of nuclear?
A commitment to ensuring at least 80% of the UK’s power is generated from renewables by 2030; In addition to a commitment to delivering at least 40GW of total offshore wind generation by 2030, publicly commit to targets for total generation of 45GW of solar and 35GW of onshore wind by 2030.
Hazardous plan for Peel Ports to take over the decommissioning of Britain’s dead nuclear submarines
|
Ferret 17th Nov 2020. The company that runs the port at Hunterston in North Ayrshire wants to useit to break up the radioactive hulks of defunct nuclear submarines, The Ferret can reveal. A plan by Peel Ports, released under freedom of information law, discloses that the firm sees “opportunities” for military submarine decommissioning at Hunterston.
But the idea has brought condemnation from politicians, environmental and community groups. They warn that the transport and dismantling of submarines would be “potentially hazardous” and could cause “significant environmental damage”. The 50-strong group of nuclear free-local authorities (NFLA) in the UK pointed out that prolonged public consultations had resulted in
agreement that decommissioning should only take place at Rosyth and Devonport. “If Peel Ports is lobbying for a change in that policy to undertake this work at Hunterston port, we would be concerned,” said NFLA Scotland’s convenor, SNP Glasgow councillor, Feargal Dalton. There were “complicated and potentially hazardous transport issues of moving
submarines from the east to the west coast of Scotland, and the required level of expertise to do this,” he argued. “It would also require a new consultation process at a time when the last one took years to deliver. I doubt the Ministry of Defence would like to reopen that process – and if they do, we and others will robustly challenge any significant change that increases the hazards to this operation.” https://theferret.scot/hunterston-peel-ports-nuclear-submarines/ |
Russia and the United States Nuclear Industry
Trump’s Impact on Nuclear Proliferation, Treating Foreign Policy as a Business, Just Security, by Tamsin Shaw, November 18, 2020 “…………….Russia and the United States Nuclear Industry
It’s only relatively recently that the public and private U.S. institutions have begun to examine seriously the intricate financial network that lies behind and links Russian nuclear business dealings in the United States. Public perception of these dealings has been dominated by the false Uranium One conspiracy theory. This distraction has diverted attention from the extent to which Russia has established a strong foothold in the US nuclear industry in a way that suggests an aspiration to vertical control.
The grain of truth in the Uranium One story is that in 2010 Canadian company Uranium One, which was responsible for mining 20% of the currently licensed uranium in the United States, made an agreement with JSC Atomredmetzoloto, or ARMZ, the mining arm of Rosatom, giving them a controlling stake (51%). In 2013 Rosatom acquired full ownership. Uranium One continues to mine approximately 10% of that licensed in-situ uranium.
The United States also relies, both for civilian utilities and defense purposes, on nuclear fuel supplied by Russian subsidiary of Rosatom called Techsnabexport (TENEX). No U.S. uranium enrichment facilities are currently in operation. The U.S. company, Centrus has a new centrifuge design but it will likely be over a decade before it goes into action.
Nor does the United States currently have a company that builds commercial nuclear reactors. The only U.S. company now aiming to construct them is Bill Gates’s TerraPower, which is working on what will likely be the next generation of reactors, small modular reactors (SMRs), but again these won’t be commercially viable for a decade. Commercial nuclear reactors were previously designed and built by US company Westinghouse. But on March 24, 2017, Westinghouse declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy. The sale of that company naturally has serious national security implications. But the story of the sale and of the role that the Trump administration played in it raises many questions.
Trump’s friend and adviser, Tom Barrack, seized on the opportunity presented by the Westinghouse bankruptcy to put together a new version of the Marshall Plan for the Middle East, producing his own document setting out the details. In his March 2017 white paper, Barrack refers to the plan interchangeably as the “Trump Marshall Plan” and the “Trump Plan.” The July 2019 House Oversight and Reform Committee report details the ambitious deal Barrack tried to put together to purchase Westinghouse. Barrack had permission from the highest levels at the White House for a US-led consortium involving Colony Capital, IP3, and financial firms Blackstone and Apollo. Barrack assured Blackstone CEO Steve Schwartzman,
Our GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council] allies in Saudi Arabia and the UAE have committed to invest in the Westinghouse acquisition and are willing to concurrently lock in Westinghouse as the primary partner on the 30+ reactors expected to be constructed in their countries in the coming decade.
IP3 officials were very optimistic. President Trump and Jared Kushner had met with MBS on March 14, and IP3 boasted that this meeting prepared the way for a “partnership to acquire Westinghouse between IP3 and Saudi Arabia.” They eagerly arranged meetings with officials in the administration to promote the plan, including then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo, Director of the National Economic Council Gary Cohn, and top National Security Council (NSC) Staff officials. They also briefed Jared Kushner.
But in January, 2018 it was announced that Canadian company, Brookfield Business Partners, a subsidiary of investing giant Brookfield Asset Management, would purchase Westinghouse. And Westinghouse promptly and unilaterally decided to sever ties with IP3. ProPublica discovered that Kushner was the one who prevented the IP3-led deal from happening, reporting that Kushner “wanted to table the nuclear question in favor of simpler alliance-building measures with the Saudis, centered on Trump’s visit in May, according to a person familiar with the discussions.”
The Westinghouse sale went through on August 1, 2018. Three days later it was announced that Brookfield Properties, another subsidiary of Brookfield Asset Management that had just purchased Westinghouse, would buy Jared Kushner out of his catastrophic real estate deal involving 666 Fifth Avenue.
Who Owns Westinghouse?
The Westinghouse purchase was naturally considered an extremely sensitive deal, deserving scrutiny by the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States (CFIUS), which at the time included Steve Mnuchin, Rex Tillerson, Jeff Sessions, Wilbur Ross and Dan Coats. The committee approved the transaction but with a Nuclear Regulatory Committee (NRC) Requirements Notice forbidding transfer of their licenses and insisting on compliance with all applicable statutory and regulatory requirements. But the NRC filing submitted to CFIUS is fairly thin. It tells us that Westinghouse would be “ultimately controlled” by Brookfield Asset Management, but little about the money behind the deal. According to their 2018 20-F annual report, BBU acquired 44% of the company, while having a 100% voting interest, having put in $405m of equity totaling $920m, with the balance coming from “institutional partners.” The rest of the purchase price was funded with approximately $3b of long-term debt financing. The sources of the equity and financing aren’t disclosed.
Immediately prior to the Westinghouse sale, prominent foreign policy experts Thomas Duesterberg and William Schneider wrote an article expressing serious concerns about the opacity………….https://www.justsecurity.org/73422/trumps-impact-on-nuclear-proliferation/
Surveys to identify nuclear waste disposal site begin in Hokkaido
The town of Toyo in Kochi Prefecture had previously applied for a literature survey in 2007, but later canceled the application before the survey began.
The literature survey, which checks geological literature and data, is the first of three stages of examination in the selection process. Suttsu and Kamoenai will each receive up to ¥2 billion in state subsidies in exchange for underdoing the first-stage survey……..
First-stage surveys began Tuesday in two municipalities in Hokkaido to see whether their locations are suited to hosting a final disposal facility for high-level radioactive waste from nuclear power plants in the nation.
The Nuclear Waste Management Organization of Japan, or NUMO, started the so-called literature surveys in the town of Suttsu and the village of Kamoenai in the northernmost main island, marking the first time such surveys have ever been conducted in the country. On the day, the industry ministry gave the necessary approval for the surveys to be conducted.
The town of Toyo in Kochi Prefecture had previously applied for a literature survey in 2007, but later canceled the application before the survey began.
The literature survey, which checks geological literature and data, is the first of three stages of examination in the selection process. Suttsu and Kamoenai will each receive up to ¥2 billion in state subsidies in exchange for underdoing the first-stage survey……
In response to the start of the first-stage survey, Hokkaido Gov. Naomichi Suzuki released a statement saying that he was “opposed at the moment” to the second-stage survey, reiterating his intention not to give his approval. …….https://www.japantimes.co.jp/news/2020/11/18/national/hokkaido-nuclear-waste-surveys/
Tehran’s UN ambassador says rival Saudi Arabia is looking for an excuse to build nuclear weapons and blaming Iran
In tweets in Farsi and English, Iran’s ambassador and permanent representative to the UN, Kazem Gharibabadi, said “scapegoating and fearmongering are two common and classic methods used by demagogues”………
The Iranian official’s comments come shortly after Adel al-Jubeir, the kingdom’s minister of state for foreign affairs, said Saudi Arabia reserves the right to arm itself with nuclear weapons if Iran cannot be stopped from making one.
Tehran has pursued a nuclear programme for decades but insists it only wishes to use nuclear power peacefully.
More than 10 years ago, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei issued a fatwa – a legal or general decree in Islam by a religious authority or court and issued by a Mufti – declaring all weapons of mass destruction, including nuclear weapons, a “serious threat against humanity”.
“The Iranian nation is itself a victim of the use of chemical weapons,” Khamenei wrote in reference to the eight-year Iran-Iraq War that ended in 1988.
“It feels the threat of development and proliferation of these weapons more than other nations and is ready to use all its resources to combat it.”
In 2015, Iran signed a landmark nuclear deal with world powers that significantly curbed its nuclear programme in exchange for the lifting of multilateral sanctions.
In May 2018, US President Donald Trump unilaterally withdrew the US from the deal and imposed harsh sanctions on Iran.
After a year of remaining committed to the deal under sanctions, Iran gradually scaled back its commitments under the deal but has said it will come back to full compliance if the US does so first and lifts sanctions…….. https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2020/11/18/iran-saudi-arabia-scapegoating-its-pursuit-of-nuclear-armament
£525 million pledged to build UK small nuclear reactors, no funding package yet revealed for £20 billion Sizewell plant
Times 18th Nov 2020. A total of £525 million has been pledged “to help develop large and
smaller-scale nuclear plants, and research and develop new advanced modular
reactors”. However, there is no word as yet on a funding package to
support the proposed £20 billion new nuclear plant at Sizewell in Suffolk.
Trump’s Impact on Nuclear Proliferation, Treating Foreign Policy as a Business
Trump’s Impact on Nuclear Proliferation, Treating Foreign Policy as a Business, Just Security, by Tamsin Shaw, November 18, 2020 Donald Trump has never been known for his visionary foreign policy and yet his presidency will leave the world transformed. In an age of disinformation, the precise nature of the changes he has brought about in global affairs can be elusive, particularly when those changes have resulted from his administration’s clandestine negotiations with Russian officials and businessmen. While America has been focused on the ways in which the Kremlin interfered to support Trump in the 2016 election, too little attention has been paid to what Moscow intended to get out of a Trump presidency or indeed what they got.
From the earliest days of the campaign right up until the present day, Trump and his associates have tried to conduct foreign policy through the genre they know best: the business deal. Since they didn’t use the usual government channels for foreign affairs, unless we have official investigations we won’t know exactly what transpired in these dealings. But there is one area — nuclear energy — in which it seems clear that Russia stands to benefit from these transactions at the expense not only of US interests, but also those of Ukraine and of global nonproliferation more generally. This could present serious challenges to any attempts the Biden administration might make to reconstruct a stable nonproliferation regime.
The impetus for Trump 2016 campaign associates and Trump administration officials to make nuclear energy deals has come in large part from the interest of the Gulf states, particularly Saudi Arabia, in nuclear power. And the lure of Saudi billions has created financial incentives that have eclipsed non-proliferation concerns. ……..
An examination of two separate sets of negotiations reveals distinct forms of corruption and geopolitical risk involved in Trump associates’ nuclear energy deals. The first, led by Trump’s first National Security Advisor Michael Flynn, but also implicating other members of Trump’s inner circle, involved openly courting Russia to participate in a nuclear energy deal that would likely further Russian interests at the expense of Ukraine’s. The second, which involved an attempt to purchase nuclear company Westinghouse, was led by Trump’s close associate and former Middle East adviser, Tom Barrack. It didn’t explicitly include Russia, but it was thwarted by Jared Kushner for unknown reasons, and it now appears that Russia may have secretly been a chief beneficiary of the alternative deal that was ultimately made…….
international nuclear security has already been profoundly shaken by a few stamps of Trump’s foot. That includes his withdrawal from three international arrangements — the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) for Iran’s nuclear program, the Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty (INF) with Russia, and the Open Skies Treaty that permitted verification of nuclear agreements — as well as his potential withdrawal from the U.S. Bilateral Agreement for Peaceful Nuclear Cooperation. These extraordinary steps have collectively transformed the nuclear landscape. In June of this year he even threatened to restart nuclear testing……..
since 2016, Trump and his team have treated the international nuclear order as if it were cheap real estate in a former Soviet republic: rich in opportunities for deals, liberatingly deficient in enforceable laws and norms. Their secret bargaining over nuclear security has compounded the damage done by Trump’s highly visible unraveling of non-proliferation agreements.
Dispensing with International Regulations
The initial efforts by members of the Trump administration to strike a lucrative nuclear deal were reportedly made by General Michael Flynn. These were detailed in a report by the House Committee on Oversight and Reform under the late Elijah Cummings, in July 2019, entitled “Corporate and Foreign Interests Behind White House Push to Transfer U.S. Nuclear Technology to Saudi Arabia.” It exposed a concerted attempt by Trump administration officials to broker nuclear power deals in the Middle East, commenting that the attempt “virtually obliterated the lines normally separating government policymaking from corporate and foreign interests.”
The Cummings report exposed several attempts by Trump associates to get Saudi financial backing for a plan that involved building nuclear power plants in a block of Middle Eastern countries deemed potentially friendly to the interests of the United States and Israel………….. https://www.justsecurity.org/73422/trumps-impact-on-nuclear-proliferation/
Iran admits breach of nuclear deal discovered by UN inspectorate
Iran admits breach of nuclear deal discovered by UN inspectorate
Iran uses advanced uranium-enriching centrifuges in underground plant in breach of 2015 nuclear agreement, Guardian, Patrick Wintour Diplomatic Editor, Thu 19 Nov 2020 Iran has admitted a further breach of the 2015 nuclear deal by firing up advanced uranium-enriching centrifuges installed at its underground plant at Natanz.
The finding was made by the UN nuclear weapons inspectorate, the International Atomic Energy Association, and confirmed by the Iranian ambassador to the IAEA.
Donald Trump last week considered but rejected a military strike on Natanz, south of Tehran and the country’s main uranium-enrichment site. But the latest move by Iran may be regarded by his administration as a provocation that changes his, or Israel’s, calculation of risk. The development comes weeks ahead of him standing down and being replaced by Joe Biden, who is committed to re-entering the nuclear deal struck under Barack Obama………..
n a lengthy interview published on Tuesday the Iranian foreign minister, Javad Zarif, clarified Iran’s approach to talks with a Biden administration. He said: “If the US implements its commitments under the UN security council resolution 2231, we will implement our commitments under the JCPoA. This can be done automatically and needs no negotiations. But if the US wants to rejoin the JCPoA then we will be ready to negotiate how the US can re-enter the deal.”
Zarif’s wording suggests that as soon as the US lifts its sanctions on Iran the country will come back into compliance with the JCPoA and stop breaching the uranium enrichment limits. But Zarif is resisting allowing the US back into the deal until it has assurances that as a JCPoA member the US will not use its right unilaterally to declare Iran in breach of the deal’s terms, and so require the UN as a whole to reimpose UN sanctions on Iran.
The tussle with America is being held against an increasingly grim backdrop of mounting deaths across Iran due to the spread of coronavirus. Health officials announced on Wednesday that a record 13,421 new patients had been identified in the previous 24 hours and a further 480 people had died. The official total death toll stands at 42,941. The spiral in new infections suggests the death toll will continue to mount. https://www.theguardian.com/world/2020/nov/18/iran-admits-breach-of-nuclear-deal-discovered-by-un-inspectorate
British govt’s foolhardy plan to pay up for non existent Rolls Royce small nuclear reactors
Guardian 17th Nov 2020, Boris Johnson’s £12bn plan for a “green industrial revolution” spans renewable energy, nuclear power and countryside restoration. However, some of the objectives are likely to be difficult to reach, and the plan has been criticised for a lack of ambition in key areas.Canadian government misplacing funding into unviable small nuclear reactors for North West Territories
Is small-scale nuclear energy an option for the N.W.T.?
N.W.T., federal gov’t looking closely at industry, but some say they should focus only on renewable energy, Hannah Paulson · CBC News Nov 18, 2020 “……. both the federal government and the Northwest Territories look to transition away from fossil fuels, territorial leaders are exploring how small-scale nuclear energy could alleviate the North’s dependency on diesel.
In October, the federal government announced it was investing $20 million into small modular nuclear energy reactors
…….The N.W.T. government has also shown interest in this form of energy and identified it as an emerging energy technology that it follows “closely,” according to a written statement from the Department of Infrastructure.
Others, however, think the federal funding is misplaced.
Last week, the Green Party of Canada called on the federal government to abandon nuclear energy and invest in renewable energy instead.
In a press release, MP Elizabeth May said that “small nuclear reactors (SMRs) have no place in any plan to mitigate climate change when cleaner and cheaper alternatives exist.”
May cited issues with the high costs involved in nuclear energy, the long timeline to rollout, and the environmental risk.
What is small-scale nuclear energy?
SMRs is a term that represents “a range of technology,” said Diane Cameron, director of nuclear energy at Natural Resources Canada.
The federal government’s $20-million investment is toward Terrestrial Energy, an Oakville, Ont., firm that is working to bring SMRs to market. That technology is still in the design phase, but could become commercially viable in five to 10 years, said Cameron……..
N.W.T. part of small-scale nuclear group
The Northwest Territories is among several jurisdictions and energy corporations that are part of a working group looking at how small-scale nuclear reactors could be used across the country.
The working group “has recognized the potential for application in off-grid small and remote communities and for remote industrial sites that rely on diesel,” the Department of Infrastructure said in a statement.
The statement also said that there needs to be more information about whether SMRs would be technically viable, safe, reliable and cost effective in the North.
The Department of Infrastructure considers small-scale nuclear energy a long-term initiative.
Cameron said SMRs could be commercially viable anywhere from 2025 to 2030, but before it’s likely to be brought up to the N.W.T., it will be tested in national labs.
If that is successful, the technology could make its wat into communities, but that might not be for another 20 or so years, she said.
‘Not the answer to climate change’
In a 2018 UN report, scientists warned that there were only 12 years left to drastically reduce global emissions in order to avert the most catastrophic impacts of climate change.
This is part of the reason why May and other environmentalists don’t think small-scale nuclear energy is part of “the answer to climate change.”
Theresa McClenaghan, the executive director of the Canadian Environmental Law Association, said the industry requires extremely high startup costs, which divert attention away from renewable energy.
Funding should be going toward existing renewable energy sources that are currently viable, like geothermal, solar, or wind energy, she said. “These are not pipe dreams. These are existing technologies where the price is coming down practically by the day,” said McClenaghan.
“It’s not to say we don’t want an alternative to diesel, but that alternative should be renewables.” https://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/north/small-scale-energy-nwt-1.5803972
For Joe Biden – an early trial problem – the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons
The New Nuclear Weapons Ban Treaty Will Be an Early Trial for Biden, World Politics Review
, Miles A. Pomper Wednesday, Nov. 18, 2020, With support from nearly half the world’s nations, a new United Nations treaty banning the possession and use of nuclear weapons will take effect early next year. The U.N. confirmed last month that the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, or TPNW, had been ratified by the required 50 countries. Secretary-General Antonio Guterres called it “a tribute to the survivors of nuclear explosions and tests, many of whom advocated for this treaty.”
Many non-nuclear-armed states, as well as pro-disarmament activists and organizations like the Nobel Peace Prize-winning International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, have celebrated the agreement, which they see as a milestone in global efforts to prevent nuclear war. However, it has drawn strong opposition from nuclear-armed states, especially the five permanent members of the U.N. Security Council: Russia, China, France, the United Kingdom and the United States. The Trump administration has called on the treaty’s 84 signatories to back out of it. Its entry into force on Jan. 22, 2021, will pose a thorny diplomatic challenge for the incoming Biden administration………..
In the case of the Chemical and Biological Weapons Conventions, the major possessors of these arsenals, such as the United States and Russia, helped draft and build support for the pacts. However, the TPNW was drawn up by non-nuclear-armed states over the objections of nuclear powers. The initiative reflected the frustration of non-nuclear-weapons states with what they contended was the failure of their nuclear-armed counterparts to uphold their end of the “grand bargain” at the heart of the NPT. That bargain calls on the non-nuclear-weapon states to permanently renounce nuclear arms in exchange for access to peaceful nuclear technology and a commitment by nuclear powers to “pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures” toward nuclear disarmament. ………
|
the treaty could pose a political problem in the future for NATO members and other countries that shelter under the U.S. nuclear umbrella, given the TPNW’s call not to support actions inconsistent with the treaty. That challenge is especially acute for the five NATO members that host an estimated 150 forward-deployed U.S nuclear weapons: Belgium, Germany, the Netherlands, Italy and Turkey. German, Dutch and Belgian disarmament advocates, in particular, enjoy strong mainstream political support among center-left parties in all three countries. And 56 former world leaders, including many from NATO countries, argued recently in an open letter that the new nuclear ban treaty can “help end decades of paralysis in disarmament.” NATO has beaten back such arguments before, most recently in the wake of Obama’s Prague speech. However, handling the TPNW and tensions within the alliance more generally will likely prove a challenge for President-elect Joe Biden, who will take office just two days before the treaty enters into force……. Another important event looms on the horizon: In August 2021, state parties to the NPT are scheduled to meet and review that treaty for the first time since the TPNW was concluded. Such conferences—which usually take place every five years, though the 2020 meeting was delayed until next year due to the COVID-19 pandemic—are always a headache for U.S. negotiators, as they provide an opportunity for the far more numerous non-nuclear-weapon states to bash Washington and other nuclear-armed states for their disarmament shortcomings, and thus of the NPT more generally. These arguments will only become more intense now that the TPNW is a legal alternative. Making progress on U.S. nonproliferation goals in this new environment, with a U.N. treaty that bans nuclear weapons, is sure to prove a tough diplomatic test of the new administration. Miles Pomper is a senior fellow at the James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies at the Middlebury Institute of International Studies. https://www.worldpoliticsreview.com/articles/29225/the-new-nuclear-weapons-ban-treaty-will-be-an-early-trial-for-biden |
|
UK government wastes tax-payer money on small and large nuclear reactors that will never be cheap or safe
FoE Scotland 17th Nov 2020, Friends of the Earth Scotland gave a scathing reaction to 
the UK Government’s announcement of a 10-point plan on climate and energy, calling for much more priority on solutions which can reduce emissions and create jobs today.crisis like carbon capture and storage, hydrogen and nuclear. “While there are some crumbs from the table in terms of the welcome new target of 2030 to phase out fossil-fuelled cars, overall there is too little new money and too much funding committed to long-term, dangerous distractions.
https://foe.scot/press-release/response-to-the-uk-10-point-climate-plan-for-net-zero/
Could a mad, unhinged US president, push the nuclear button?
Could a mad, unhinged US president, push the nuclear button? From JFK and the Cuban crisis, to Nixon and Watergate, to now: the sum of all fears, is still carried in a suitcase, By DAVE MAKICHUK, NOVEMBER 19, 2020 “I had no idea we had so many weapons … what do we need them for?”
— A stunned President Bush, after his first briefing on US nuclear forces
It is the elephant in the room.
And it is a very big elephant, and, a very big room.
We are living in a very surreal time, that much we know. Officials would even say, challenging — I would even say, it’s a bit worse than that.
We have a US president who still believes he won the election, despite the fact he clearly lost.
Yet, there isn’t one iota of evidence to back up President Trump’s claims.
He is, without question, angry, in denial and — most importantly — vengeful to those who served him, whom he thinks
All in all, it paints a picture of a man, who only cares about himself …. not the will of the people, not the country, and
The exact opposite, in fact, of one President John F. Kennedy, who, after a meeting with the Joint Chiefs during the
No. 2 reactor at Tohoku Electric Power Co’s Onagawa nuclear power plant for restart, despite problems
As nuclear worries linger, Tohoku plant heads for landmark restart, BY ERIC JOHN, 18, Nov, 20 OSAKA – On Nov. 11, Miyagi Gov. Yoshihiro Murai gave the green light to restarting the No. 2 reactor at Tohoku Electric Power Co’s Onagawa nuclear power plant. While the reactor is not expected to begin generating power until construction to improve the plant’s safety is completed, the governor’s approval paves the way for the first reactor damaged by the Great East Japan Earthquake to resume operation.
The restart, the first in northeastern Japan, comes amidst controversial restarts in the country’s west following the quake and at a time when the energy source’s future economic and political feasibility is being debated after the government announced a target of Japan being carbon neutral by 2050.
What is the Onagawa nuclear plant and what happened to it after the earthquake and tsunami?
The Onagawa nuclear power plant sits on a peninsula in Miyagi Prefecture about 130 kilometers from the epicenter of the March 11, 2011 quake and tsunami. It has three reactors, one of which is being decommissioned.
………..The government’s current long-term energy strategy calls for nuclear power to provide between 20% and 22% of the nation’s electric power supply by fiscal 2030. The Agency for Natural Resources has said to meet that goal, the restart of 30 reactors is necessary.
There are a number of issues that could make that goal difficult. These include the cost of meeting the new NRA safety standards that went into place after 3/11 and the time needed to upgrade facilities. For the operator, those costs raise questions of whether it is worth investing and whether nuclear power-generated electricity will remain competitive with renewable energy in the coming years.
Other issues could also drive up the costs of restarting more reactors, beginning with subsidies to local governments. With no financial incentive, village heads, city mayors and prefectural governors could delay or refuse permission to restart. Even if permission is granted, operators may face lawsuits from residents opposed to restarts, a process that could delay or even halt the process if a judge rules in their favor, which would mean further costs for the operator.
The government’s current long-term energy strategy calls for nuclear power to provide between 20% and 22% of the nation’s electric power supply by fiscal 2030. The Agency for Natural Resources has said to meet that goal, the restart of 30 reactors is necessary.
There are a number of issues that could make that goal difficult. These include the cost of meeting the new NRA safety standards that went into place after 3/11 and the time needed to upgrade facilities. For the operator, those costs raise questions of whether it is worth investing and whether nuclear power-generated electricity will remain competitive with renewable energy in the coming years.
Other issues could also drive up the costs of restarting more reactors, beginning with subsidies to local governments. With no financial incentive, village heads, city mayors and prefectural governors could delay or refuse permission to restart. Even if permission is granted, operators may face lawsuits from residents opposed to restarts, a process that could delay or even halt the process if a judge rules in their favor, which would mean further costs for the operator.
1 This Month
Read the Public Inquiry Report, the Commissioners’ report, Surrendering Australia: The AUKUS Deception is available to download for free at aukuspublicinquiry.com. Or just watch the replay of the National Press Club Luncheon.
19 November – Webinar – The Reality of Reprocessing
Time: 11:00 AM Pacific Time (US & Canada) / 2:00 PM Eastern / 7:00 PM UK / 8:00 PM CET
Register for the Zoom Event Here
Shut down the radiation-damaged Heysham nuclear reactors now
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity – go to https://nuclearinformation.wordpress.com
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
Say No to NASA’s Reckless Nuclear Reactor on the Moon
-
Archives
- November 2026 (109)
- October 2026 (302)
- September 2026 (339)
- August 2026 (330)
- July 2026 (355)
- June 2026 (287)
- May 2026 (306)
- April 2026 (356)
- March 2026 (251)
- February 2026 (267)
- January 2026 (308)
- December 2025 (358)
-
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
