Trump Admits He Wants To Take Venezuela’s Oil – and Give It to US Corporations
Donald Trump imposed a naval blockade on Venezuela and admitted he wants to take its oil and give it to US corporations: “We had a lot of oil there. They threw our companies out, and we want it back”.
GeoPolitical Economy, By Ben Norton 19 Dec 25
Donald Trump has openly admitted that he wants to take Venezuela’s oil. Top US officials have made it clear that this is a key reason for their war on the South American nation.
Trump declared an illegal naval blockade of Venezuela on December 16. The US government aims to prevent Venezuela from selling oil to China, to starve Caracas of export revenue.
The Trump administration is also illegally blocking Venezuela from importing crucial goods, including the light crude and chemicals needed to process and refine its own heavy crude.
The US goal is to bring about an extreme crisis in Venezuela — to “make the economy scream” — hoping it leads to regime change.
Trump says US corporations should control Venezuela’s oil
On December 17, a journalist asked the US president, “Is the goal of the blockade of Venezuela regime change?”
Trump replied:
It’s just a blockade. We’re not going to let anybody going through that shouldn’t be going through.
You remember, they took all of our energy rights. They took all of our oil, from not that long ago. And we want it back.
Another reporter then asked Trump, “On Venezuela, sir, you mentioned getting land back from Venezuela. What land is that?”
The US president stated:
Getting land, oil rights, whatever we had. They took it away, because we had a president that maybe wasn’t watching. But they’re not going to do that. We want it back.
They took our oil rights. We had a lot of oil there. As you know, they threw our companies out, and we want it back.
Trump imposes a naval blockade on Venezuela
In these questions, the journalists were referencing a December 16 post on Trump’s website Truth Social, in which the US president announced “A TOTAL AND COMPLETE BLOCKADE OF ALL SANCTIONED OIL TANKERS going into, and out of, Venezuela”.
These US sanctions on Venezuela’s oil industry are unilateral coercive measures and do not have the approval of the UN Security Council, and are therefore illegal under international law………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….
US naval blockade cuts off Venezuelan exports and imports
The Trump administration launched a war against Venezuela in September. As of December 19, the US military had killed more than 100 people in strikes on boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean.
Throughout this war, the Trump administration gradually escalated its aggressive tactics, seeking to destabilize and overthrow Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.
In December, the US government started to seize oil tankers off the coast of Venezuela, in blatant violation of international law.
When Trump was asked what the US government would do with the Venezuelan oil in these tankers, his response was, “We keep it”. This is piracy…………………………………………………………………………………….
The US government’s imperial strategy: “make the economy scream”
In other words, Trump is bringing back the infamous US imperial strategy known as “make the economy scream”. This phrase originated with Richard Nixon and Henry Kissinger………………………………………………………………………………………………..
US coup attempts, illegal sanctions, and economic war on Venezuela
This is precisely the imperial strategy that the US empire has used to try to topple Venezuela’s left-wing government, over more than two decades……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………
The coup attempt that Trump initiated in 2019 failed. So in his second term, under Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Trump launched another putsch.
This time, they used the US military to try to directly force President Maduro from power. https://geopoliticaleconomy.com/2025/12/19/trump-take-venezuela-oil-us-corporations/
Is the UN Ready for a Non-Renewable 7-YearTerm for the Secretary-General?
By Thalif Deen
UNITED NATIONS, Dec 19 2025 (IPS) – A long-standing proposal going back to 1996—to establish a single non-renewable seven-year term for the Secretary-General of the United Nations—has been resurrected by former UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon.
The original proposal was part of a study sponsored by the Dag Hammarskjold and Ford Foundations. According to the proposal, the seven-year term “ would give the SG the opportunity to undertake far-reaching plans free from undesirable pressures.”
Ban has said a single, nonrenewable seven-year term will strengthen the independence of the office. The current practice of two five-year terms, he said, leaves Secretaries-General “overly dependent on this Council’s Permanent Members for an extension.”
A former Secretary-General Boutros Boutros-Ghali of Egypt was deprived of a second five-year term when the US was the only permanent member state to veto his second term despite the fact that he received 14 of the 15 votes in the Security Council.
As the highest policy-making organ of the United Nations, and as the ultimate appointing body, the General Assembly should adopt a comprehensive resolution establishing a single seven-year term and all key features of an improved process of appointing the Secretary-General,” the study said.
The same seven-year term, according to the 1996 study authored by Sir Brian Urquhart and Erskine Childers, should also apply to heads of UN agencies and UN programmes.
The study was titled “A World in Need of Leadership: Tomorrow’s United Nations. A Fresh Appraisal.” Sir Brian was a former UN Under-Secretary-General (USG) for Special Political Affairs and Childers was a former Senior Advisor to the UN Director-General for Development and International Economic Affairs.
Ambassador Anwarul K. Chowdhury, former Under-Secretary-General and High Representative of the United Nations and Permanent Representative of Bangladesh to the UN, told IPS that, in keeping with the best interest of the operational credibility of the world’s most universal multilateral body with a global mandate, and as a conscientious UN insider, “I believe very strongly and quite comfortably that there is substantive merit in the long-standing, but surprisingly undervalued, proposal to establish a single non-renewable seven-year term of office for the Secretary-General of the United Nations.”
………………………………………………………………………………………….. Recounting his IPS op-ed, Ambassador Chowdhury said he had underscored that “Another important idea to ensure independence of the Secretary-General would be to make the office restricted to one term for each incumbent.”
The seven-year term is adequate for any leader worth the name to deliver positive results and show what can be achieved for any global institution. Any change in the tenure of office and in the re-election process will require the amendment of the UN Charter and therefore the concurrence of the P5, said Ambassador Chowdhury, initiator of the UNSCR 1325 as President of the UN Security Council in March 2000, Chairman of the UN General Assembly’s Main Committee on Administrative and Budgetary Matters and Founder of the Global Movement for The Cultural of Peace (GMCoP).
On 30 October 2023, in another op-ed in IPS, Ambassador Chowdhury recommended that “… in the future the Secretary-General would have only one term of seven years, as opposed to the current practice of automatically renewing the Secretary-General’s tenure for a second five-year term, without even evaluating his performance.”
Netanyahu is exploiting the Bondi Beach massacre to build support for the Gaza genocide and is fueling antisemitism in the process
Benjamin Netanyahu is blaming the attack at Bondi Beach on Australia’s support for Palestinian statehood. He conflates Jewish safety with Zionism to garner support for Israel, but in doing so, he enlists all Jews as agents of Palestinian oppression.
By Jonathan Ofir December 18, 2025, https://mondoweiss.net/2025/12/netanyahu-is-exploiting-the-bondi-beach-massacre-to-build-support-for-the-gaza-genocide-and-is-fueling-antisemitism-in-the-process/
On September 21, Australia officially recognized the State of Palestine. This recognition coincided with that of several other Western countries, including France, Canada, and the United Kingdom. This is, of course, a problem for an Israeli government that “flatly rejects the establishment of a Palestinian Arab state west of the Jordan River.”
So what better than a massacre of Jews on Hanukkah to undermine this effort?
At an Israeli government meeting following the Bondi Beach massacre, Netanyahu admonished the Australian government and its Prime Minister, Anthony Albanese, for its supposed role. This rhetorical attack aimed not only to delegitimize support for Palestinian statehood but also to garner support for the continuing genocide in Gaza. It does not seem to matter that the shooters, a father and a son of Pakistani Muslim background, are reported to have been inspired by ISIS and not a Palestinian cause as such. Israel never misses an opportunity to incite against Palestinians.
This is what Netanyahu said during the three and half minute long rant, in English. He started like this:
“On August 17th, about four months ago, I sent Prime Minister Albanese of Australia a letter, in which I gave him warning, that the Australian government’s policy was promoting and encouraging antisemitism in Australia. I wrote: ‘Your call for a Palestinian state pours fuel on the antisemitic fire. It rewards Hamas terrorists. It emboldens those who menace Australian Jews, and encourages the Jew hatred now stalking your streets. Antisemitism is a cancer. It spreads when leaders stay silent. It retreats when leaders act. I call upon you to replace weakness with action, appeasement with resolve’.
Instead, Prime Minister, you replaced weakness with weakness, and appeasement with more appeasement. Your government did nothing to stop the spread of antisemitism in Australia, you did nothing to curb the cancer cells that were growing inside your country, you took no action, you let the disease spread, and the result is the horrific attacks on Jews we saw today.”
So, following the Bondi Beach attack, Netanyahu is basically saying, “I told you so.”
The “appeasement” narrative is one that Netanyahu likes a lot, because it alludes to the appeasement policy of Britain towards Nazi Germany under PM Neville Chamberlain, who sought at the time to play soft with Hitler. The analogy turns Palestinians into Nazis, and those who seek to ‘appease’ them, weaklings and antisemites. For Netanyahu, antisemitism is a cancer, and who embodies it? Palestinians.
Netanyahu continued to apply pressure on Albanese, and in turn, any other leaders in the West who are considering supporting the Palestinians:
“We saw an action of a brave man, turns out a Muslim brave man [Netanyahu first claimed he was Jewish], that stopped one of these terrorists from killing innocent Jews. But it requires the action of your government, which you’re not taking, and you have to, because history will not forgive hesitation and weakness – it will honor action and strength. That’s what Israel expects of each of your governments in the West, and elsewhere. Because the disease spreads, and it will consume you as well. But we are worrying right now about our people, our safety, and we do not remain silent”.
And he then expanded his analogy to lump the Bondi Beach attack in with recent news from Syria, Gaza, and Lebanon:
“We fight those who try to annihilate us. They’re not only trying to annihilate us, they attack us because they attack the West. In Syria, we saw yesterday two American soldiers killed, and one American interpreter killed as well, killed because they represent our common culture. Now as a result of this, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth said the following. He said ‘let it be known, that if you target Americans anywhere in the world, you will spend the rest of your brief, anxious life, knowing the United States will hunt you, find you, and ruthlessly kill you’. We send our condolences to the people of America, and I want to say that our policy is exactly that policy. That’s why those who target Israelis, target our soldiers, try to kill them, or try to hurt them and wound them, as happened in Gaza yesterday – we take action. They will spend the rest of their brief, anxious lives knowing that Israel will hunt them, find them, and ruthlessly dispose of them. That is American policy, this is Israel’s policy. It’s our policy in Gaza, Lebanon, anywhere around us. We do not sit by and let these killers kill us.”
This is thus also a message to the U.S., we are one in our imperialist alliance. Netanyahu is signaling to Albanese, Australia, and anyone else who is thinking about aligning with the Palestinians in any form or shape, that they will be aligning with those who seek to annihilate Jews.
Netanyahu is playing an all-or-nothing game, and it’s forcing governments that seek to be liberal to choose a side – with Israel, or with the Palestinians, since Israel is so clearly bent on their destruction. Albanese was asked about Netanyahu’s accusations on ABC. Sarah Ferguson asked:
“Let me just talk to you about antisemitism. I want to bring up what Prime Minister Netanyahu said today. He singled you out personally, he said, for ‘pouring fuel on the antisemitism fire by recognising a Palestinian State’. Do you accept any link between that recognition and the massacre in Bondi?”
Albanese: “No, I don’t. And overwhelmingly, most of the world recognises a two-state solution as being the way forward in the Middle East.”
Albanese is clearly trying not to respond with fury to Netanyahu’s demeaning provocations, but Netanyahu is seeking to divide the world, are you with us or against us – and with us is against the Palestinians.
And it is exactly this rhetoric from Israel that arguably fuels antisemitism, or at least anti-Jewish animus.
This is because it seems impossible to protect Palestinians or even offer symbolic support for their national aspirations without being labeled a coward, an appeaser, or an antisemite seeking the destruction of the Jewish people. When these accusations set the terms, many feel that proving their worth against Israel’s claims is pointless. This dynamic also sustains hostility toward the Jewish community.
In 2015, after an attack in France on a Jewish supermarket, Netanyahu said to French Jews: “Israel is your home”. It caused considerable discontent among the Jewish community at the time, which is probably why he didn’t repeat it now. But he’s still posing as the strong leader of all Jews, whom the “weak” leaders should take example from, as it were. When such self-appointed ‘Jewish leaders’ conflate Judaism with Zionism and insist on unquestioning support for Palestinian destruction as proof of solidarity, people will often side with humanity—supporting those facing genocide, not those perpetrating it—and grow resentful of anyone demanding support for such actions.
We are already seeing the Zionist exploitation of the massacre to target Palestine solidarity in Australia, as well as internationally. We will likely also see a further crackdown on Palestinians from the river to the sea.
Following the massacre, mourners descended upon Bondi Beach to remember the victims. Jews waving Israeli flags were permitted, while anti-Zionist Jews wearing a kuffiyeh were distanced by the police. It was a message to all that the lessons drawn from this will likely be the Zionist ones.
Many are now once again listening to Netanyahu’s violent incitement, as if he weren’t wanted by the ICC for crimes against humanity. He has been granted moral authority once again, even if for a fleeting moment, as head of the self-proclaimed Jewish state. He is using it to berate the world about how to be on the right side of history, while actively commanding a genocide.
Gaza is being carved up. Palestinians are being written out.
As governments and billionaires design a “new Gaza,” most corporate media treat it as a technical project, not a colonial mandate that denies Palestinians the right to govern themselves. The basic fact of Palestinian self-determination is pushed to the margins or erased
Nuclear power’s role in Japan is fading. The myths of reactor safety and energy needs can’t change that reality.
By Tadahiro Katsuta , Bulletin of Atomic Scientists 11th Dec 2025
On November 24, the Niigata Prefecture approved the partial restart of the seven-unit Kashiwazaki-Kariwa Nuclear Power Plant—the world’s largest, with a 7,965-megawatt-electric capacity—the first time it would be operated since the 2011 Fukushima Daiichi accident. The decision follows a series of efforts by the Japanese government to revive its nuclear industry since the Fukushima disaster led to the temporary shutdown of all its reactors.
In February, the Japanese government unveiled the country’s latest revised strategic energy plan with one significant shift: It no longer includes the commitment to “reduce dependence on nuclear power as much as possible.” Since the 2011 Fukushima accident, this objective has been reaffirmed in all three revisions preceding the 2022 plan. Its removal marks a clear departure from the government’s previously cautious stance on Japan’s nuclear policy.
Decommissioning work of the Fukushima Daiichi plant is still falling behind schedule, and there are no prospects for fully lifting the evacuation orders in the Fukushima Prefecture. This uncertainty surrounding post-accident Fukushima casts doubt on the government’s ability to manage another nuclear crisis. Meanwhile, the government’s plan actively promotes the “effective use” of plutonium through the reprocessing of spent nuclear fuel and the “usefulness” of nuclear power as a decarbonized power source in its newest plan.
The Japanese government had consistently maintained a strong policy of promoting nuclear power since the initial planning stage in the 1950s until the Fukushima accident. Its current position, therefore, comes as little surprise. But in the nearly 15 years since the accident, Japan’s energy structure and society have changed—and all evidence shows that nuclear power cannot simply be switched on again, despite what the government claims.
Displaced by renewable energy. As a result of new safety regulations that the Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) established in 2012, nuclear power plants with inadequate accident prevention measures are still unable to operate.
Japan used to operate 54 commercial nuclear power plants before the Fukushima accident, but so far only 14 have obtained operating permits and resumed operations. This translated into nuclear power’s share of electricity supply dropping to just over 5 percent from the 29 percent before the accident. The government is seeking a 20-percent share by fiscal 2040 but has not presented any specific measures to achieve this goal.
Meanwhile, renewable energy has increased rapidly since the Fukushima accident, partially filling the vacuum of the shutdown reactors. Renewable energy now supplies 226 terawatt-hours of electricity—more than twice the 84 terawatt-hours supplied by nuclear power. And renewables will continue to dominate the electricity market with a target share of 40 to 50 percent by 2040, also more than double that of nuclear power……………..
While nuclear power lacks competitiveness in the electricity market, Japan’s electricity demand has already plateaued. Demand has decreased by more than 10 percent since 2010,[2] according to the latest figures. The government insists that electricity consumption will increase sharply over the next 10 years due to the growing demand in data centers and semiconductor factories. However, even if this happens, it will still result in a lower electricity demand compared to 2010.
Unlike France, Japan does not allow output adjustments for nuclear power generation, and being an island nation, it cannot export electricity overseas. Moreover, with a slowing economy and a shrinking population, electricity demand has already peaked. In a market that seeks to maximize profits by anticipating short-term electricity demand and avoiding excess power generation, nuclear power is not an attractive option.
Does Japan need MOX fuel?
……………………………………………..Power companies and the government have not disclosed what the cost will be for Japan of manufacturing this MOX fuel abroad and then importing it. But trade statistics indicate that the MOX fuel commissioned at a French reprocessing plant cost approximately $11,000 per kilogram of heavy metal (primarily plutonium and uranium), while uranium fuel imported from the United States cost approximately $1,000 per kilogram of heavy metal. In other words, MOX fuel is more than 10 times as expensive as imported non-reprocessed reactor fuel.[3]………………….
Does nuclear power mean fewer CO2 emissions?
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..As spent nuclear fuel continues to accumulate in Japan, the government claims that it can be reduced by reprocessing. If so, the reduction cost can be estimated as ¥488 million ($3.3 million) per ton.[5] That’s an emission reduction cost per ton 300,000 times higher than for other mitigation measures indicated by the IPCC. Moreover, spent nuclear fuel does not disappear through reprocessing. Even at the end of a closed fuel cycle, the reprocessed and recycled used fuel will require permanent geological disposal, which comes with its own set of challenges. That’s particularly the case with MOX fuel, which generates high decay heat associated with plutonium and accumulated minor actinides.
Advocates of nuclear power argue that combining fast reactors and transmutation technology after reprocessing can reduce the volume of high-level radioactive waste. But, beyond their many scientific and economic challenges, those measures will not be available in time to solve the climate change crisis, which requires immediate solutions. The only way to stop the generation of spent nuclear fuel is to stop operating nuclear reactors in the first place.
The myth of nuclear power disappears. The Fukushima accident demonstrated—once again—that the claimed inherent safety of nuclear power is a myth. Japan’s reduced reliance on nuclear power since the accident has now also debunked a second myth—that the Japanese society needs nuclear energy. The government’s reversal of its passive stance in favor of a proactive nuclear power policy goes against the current facts. It should revise its energy plan accordingly.
Unfortunately, the new Japanese cabinet formed this October, like its predecessors, is sidestepping the many current and future challenges of nuclear power………………………… As long as the government continues to avoid confronting the difficult reality of nuclear power in Japan, the myth will go on. Until it doesn’t.
They are calling fast-track Ukraine EU bid ‘nonsense.’ So why dangle it?
It’s supposed to soften the blow for lost NATO membership. But Kyiv is hardly ready and not all members are enthusiastic.
Ian Proud, Responsible Statecraft, Dec 18, 2025
Trying to accelerate Ukraine’s entry into the European Union makes sense as part of the U.S.-sponsored efforts to end the war with Russia. But there are two big obstacles to this happening by 2027: Ukraine isn’t ready, and Europe can’t afford it.
As part of ongoing talks to end the war in Ukraine, the Trump administration had advanced the idea that Ukraine be admitted into the European Union by 2027. On the surface, this appears a practical compromise, given Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky’s concession that Ukraine will drop its aspiration to join NATO.
However, the idea of accelerated entry for Ukraine has not been met with widespread enthusiasm in Europe itself. Diplomats in Brussels dismissed the notion as “nonsense: There needs to be an appetite for enlargement that isn’t there.”
There are two big problems with Ukraine’s rapid accession, the first being readiness and the second cost.
Firstly, Ukraine is nowhere near ready to meet the EU’s exacting requirements for membership. The process of joining the bloc is long and complex. At the start of November, in presenting its enlargement report, the EU said that it could admit new members as early as 2030, with Montenegro the most advanced in negotiations.
After it was formally granted candidate status in June 2022, Ukraine this year passed screening of its progress against the various chapters of the acquis (regulations) that it needs to pass before accession is granted. However, the EU enlargement report on Ukraine downgraded the country’s status from A+ to B, largely in light of the corruption scandal that first erupted in the summer and that rumbles on today.
The report indicated that Ukraine had made good progress on just 11 of the 33 chapters required for accession. It has made limited progress on 7 of the chapters, including on corruption, public procurement, company law and competition policy. It has yet to finalize negotiations on any of the chapters. And, of course, with war still raging, it is incredibly difficult to both agree and put in place the reforms needed to align itself with EU rules and standards. So, even if the war ended by Christmas, which despite the progress still appears optimistic, it would be unlikely to do all of the necessary work in the space of a year to be ready for accession.
The second, possibly more insurmountable challenge is cost.
In July, German Chancellor Friedrich Merz commented that Ukraine was unlikely to join before 2034. The EU has already formalized its next seven year budget through to that time, coming in at $2.35 trillion.
As I pointed out for Responsible Statecraft last year, Ukrainian membership of the EU would come with an enormous price tag……………………………………………. So the economic cost of delivering Ukrainian membership may not be politically viable any time soon, and certainly not before 2034, as the German premier has indicated.
……………………………………With practically all Russia-Ukraine economic ties severed over the past decade, Russian President Vladimir Putin has dropped his opposition to EU membership for Ukraine. An end to the war would allow Ukraine, finally, to start to reform and rebuild its bankrupt economy, and EU membership could accelerate that process.
That’s why Zelensky’s decision to drop the aspiration to NATO membership is such an important stepping stone. It has been abundantly clear since the start of the war that Russia’s NATO red line will never change. Russia has verbalized its opposition at least since Putin’s Munich Security Conference speech in 2007, when he said that NATO expansion “represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of mutual trust.”
……………………………………..https://responsiblestatecraft.org/ukraine-european-union/
Memory as Resistance: Why Hibakusha Testimonies Matter for Nuclear Justice Today
By Monalisa Hazarika
ICAN Australia and Monalisa Hazarika, Dec 19, 2025, https://icanaustralia.substack.com/p/memory-as-resistance-why-hibakusha?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=6291617&post_id=181742900&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email
How do we live with memories of discrimination when they are woven into our earliest or most defining experiences? How do we find the strength to speak about encounters we would rather protect our loved ones from? And how do we ensure that the injustices we faced are never repeated? For hibakusha, these questions are not rhetorical; their testimonies turn memory into resistance—insisting that lived experience remains central to struggles for nuclear justice today.
The Story of Lee Jong Keun
The following tells the story of Lee Jong Keun, a non-Japanese hibakusha, as shared by his legacy successor, Mozume Megumi—who has been entrusted to convey his testimony. Mr. Lee, born in 1928, was a Zainichi (residing in Japan) Korean with the Japanese name Egawa Masaichi. He, like many other Koreans at that time, was forced to adopt Japanese-style family names as part of Soshi Kaimei—a Japanese colonial policy aimed at broader assimilation efforts. As a Zainichi, he experienced persistent discrimination from childhood, including being targeted for something as simple as bringing Korean food in his lunchbox. He noted that in school, he was routinely singled out and blamed for wrongdoing, reflecting the broader social prejudice faced by Korean minorities in Japan.
At sixteen, Mr. Lee was a mechanic living in the suburbs of Hiroshima, taking the train each day to his workshop. But on the morning of August 6, 1945, he missed his usual stop and boarded a tram instead—a small change that, as he later said, ended up saving his life. He recalled seeing a sudden pika (a blinding flash), thinking it was a flare bomb, and instinctively covered his eyes, nose, and ears, and crouched on the ground. When he opened his eyes again, the previously sunny morning had turned into pitch-black darkness. People were running for shelter, others trapped under rubble were crying for help. The city was unrecognisable. He described seeing people with peeling skin, charred bodies, and desperate cries for assistance; images that left him feeling helpless, confused, and overwhelmed by fear and pain.
As a railroad worker, he received the limited medical care available, mostly Mercurochrome—a red antiseptic containing mercury—which his family used to treat his burns. He remembered his mother quietly crying as she cleaned the wounds each day, removing maggot eggs and tending to the foul-smelling injuries on his back. Her whispered fear that death might have been kinder than such suffering stayed with him. Yet amid the devastation, he also remembered the kindness of his neighbours. One family, despite having very little themselves, shared a small jar of vegetable oil each week to soothe his burns—an act of generosity that stood in stark contrast to the stigma and isolation survivors faced during that time.
Hibakusha and Non-Japanese Hibakusha
Hibakusha—atomic bomb survivors—faced profound social, economic, and psychological discrimination rooted in widespread misconceptions about radiation sickness. In post-war Japan, many believed that radiation-related conditions were contagious or hereditary, resulting in exclusion from employment, healthcare, marriage prospects, and community life. For non-Japanese hibakusha such as Mr. Lee, this marginalisation was compounded by ethnic discrimination. They endured both the trauma of the bombings and the persistent stigma of being perceived as “outsiders,” leading some, including Mr. Lee, to conceal their survivor status from even close family members for decades. They faced social stigma linked to radiation’s visible effects and persistent institutional neglect tied to their nationality and residency status
Beyond social prejudice, non-Japanese hibakusha have continued to confront bureaucratic obstacles, limited political recognition, and inconsistent access to state support. Restrictions on eligibility for medical subsidies, complex residency verification processes, and legal battles over compensation have left many without adequate care. Their exclusion from formal policymaking spaces has further limited their ability to advocate for their rights. Despite incremental progress, these survivors remain on the margins of disarmament and public health policy, underscoring the need for sustained diplomatic attention, inclusive historical acknowledgment, and equitable survivor support frameworks.
Stories like Mr. Lee’s are not alone and stand as stark reminders of the human cost of misguided policies pursued in the name of national or global security. Across Japan and around the world, thousands of hibakusha, their descendants, and dedicated activists continue to shoulder the burden of history while working tirelessly to ensure its lessons are not forgotten with a collective message: never again!
Hibakusha testimonies are not only records of past violence—they are acts of resistance. By insisting on truth, dignity, and accountability, they challenge systems that normalise nuclear harm and demand justice in the present.
Under Article 6 of the United Nations Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), states must provide age and gender sensitive assistance to victims of nuclear weapons use or testing. This must be enacted without discrimination, including medical care, rehabilitation, and psychological support, and provide for their social and economic inclusion. Countries must be obligated to assist survivors, many of whom share a similar story to Mr Lee, and ensure that nuclear weapons use and testing are prohibited in the future, possible through the advocacy of the TPNW.
About the Author
Monalisa Hazarika is the Strategic Communication and Partnership Officer at the SCRAP Weapons Project. She is one of the UN Youth Champions for Disarmament under the United Nations Office for Disarmament Affairs’ #Youth4Disarmament programme. She is an emerging voice in conventional arms control and meaningful youth engagement, featuring most recently at a UNGA-ECOSOC Joint Meeting. Her areas of expertise and research focus include small arms and light weapons, especially non-industrial weapons and their trends in illicit manufacture and trade, transnational organised crime, and the proliferation of 3D-printed weapons.
Book -Secretary Of Perpetual War
by Caitlin Johnstone (Author), Timothy P Foley (Author)
Part of: JOHNSTONE (28 books) https://www.amazon.com/dp/1923372157?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
As the US murder machine ramps up for yet another war of aggression against yet another oil-rich nation in Venezuela, Secretary of War Pete Hegseth has been trying to meme his way out of a major scandal after he was exposed as having authorized the “double-tap” murder of men who survived a US missile strike on a boat in the Caribbean.
In mockery of the uproar over the news, Hegseth posted a meme on Twitter featuring an AI-generated image of the children’s book character Franklin the Turtle with the caption “Franklin Targets Narco Terrorists”. The phrase “narco terrorists” is the slogan the Trump administration has come up with to justify its extrajudicial executions of alleged drug traffickers which it has been using as a pretense to amass a major military presence in the waters near Venezuela.
I personally am glad the US has swapped out the name Department of Defense for the far more honest name Department of War. When was the last time the American military was used to defend the United States? It never happens. Call it what it is. Only thing more honest would be to call it the Department of Perpetual War.
India’s Parliament approves bill to open civil nuclear power sector to private firms
DailyMail, By ASSOCIATED PRESS, 19 December 2025
NEW DELHI (AP) – India´s Parliament approved new legislation Thursday that enables opening the tightly controlled civil nuclear power sector to private companies.
The government termed it a major policy shift to speed up [?] clean energy expansion while the opposition political parties argued that it dilutes safety and liability safeguards.
The lower house of parliament passed the legislation Wednesday and the upper house on Thursday. It now needs the assent from the Indian president, which is a formality, to come into force.
………….. critics say it opens the door to risks, mainly health hazards, that could have long term consequences…………..
some are skeptical about India´s ambitions as the country´s nuclear sector is still very small, and negative public perceptions about the industry remain.
Opposition parties flagged concerns related to several provisions of the bill and urged the government to refer it to a parliamentary panel for examination. The government didn´t adhere to the request.
“The bill doesn´t have sufficient safeguards when it comes to mitigating the bad health of those impacted by living in areas closer to nuclear plants,” Ashok Mittal, a lawmaker from the opposition Aam Admi Party, told The Associated Press.
G. Sundarrajan, an anti-nuclear energy activist, called the bill a “disastrous law,” saying it takes away essential safeguards that are needed to make sure companies invest in safety and reduce the chances of a major disaster that can impact millions from occurring.
“It also provides little recourse for any Indian citizen to claim damages from nuclear companies even if they are affected by radiation leaks or suffer from any other health impact as a result of a nuclear plant in their region,” he said. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/wires/ap/article-15396015/Indias-Parliament-approves-bill-open-civil-nuclear-power-sector-private-firms.html
Over the Moon and Down to Earth
15 December 2025, https://www.banng.info/news/regional-life/over-the-moon-and-down-to-earth/
Varrie Blowers writes for the December 2025 issue of Regional Life magazine
If Bradwell is an unsuitable site for nuclear development……what about the Moon? Although it can be seen shining over the Blackwater and appear quite close, the Moon is actually almost 239,000 miles away. But Sean Duffy, the Acting Administrator of NASA, is over the Moon at the idea of such development.
A new space race is starting between the USA and Russia in collaboration with China planning to build nuclear reactors on the Moon, in 2030 and 2035 respectively, to power bases. No doubt other members of the space club will wish to follow where they lead. Is this a case of the unbelievable becoming believable?
A key problem for building nuclear reactors on the Moon is getting them up there in the first place – in the hope that the transporting rockets do not explode (not unknown!) and shower radioactive particles on populated areas below.
Another is that a stable power supply would be required to sustain the astronauts who would have to get the reactors up and running. This would seem to be impossible; the location for the proposed bases is the Moon’s dark South Pole, where solar power could not provide a consistent supply.
Among other serious problems are:
the Moon’s very environment with its extreme thermal cycles, abrasive dust, reduced gravity, cosmic radiation, the lack of atmosphere;- astronauts in space suits, it seems, would be unable to maintain the reactors regularly meaning that electronic components that could last for a very long time without being replaced would be needed;
- the vast expense and need for sustained funding with cost and time overruns
So why would any nation wish to attempt to undertake a project that appears to be a non-starter? To undertake space exploration…… or space exploitation?
The motive behind the bases is the desire to exploit what are regarded as the Moon’s vast resources of minerals, including rare earths, metals and helium.
All of this prompts the question of ‘Who owns the Moon?’. The answer according to the UN Outer Space Treaty of 1967 is that space, including the Moon, belongs to us all and should be used peacefully for the benefit of all nations. It is, however, unlikely that any nation with a base would regard the resources as ‘belonging to us all’.
History should warn us that in this grab for the Moon’s riches, likely clashes between nations would arise, perhaps even leading to military conflict in space.
We are in danger of transporting our problems to the Moon. Back down to Earth, we have enough problems to cope with.
Less Than 50 Days Before New START Treaty Expires
Concerned Citizens for Nuclear Safety, 19 Dec 25
The New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty, or the New START Agreement, is set to expire on Thursday, February 5th, 2026 – in less than 50 days. The New START Agreement is the last remaining nuclear arms control treaty between the United States and the Russian Federation.
It was signed in 2010. It limits the number of strategic long-term nuclear warheads and launchers that the United States and Russia can deploy.
And, without any New START Agreement, there would be no limits on United States and Russian nuclear weapons stockpiles.
In September, President Putin offered a one-year extension; President Trump, unfortunately, has not responded in an official manner. https://nuclearactive.org/putin-proposed-to-extend-new-start-treaty-for-one-year-trump-has-not-formerly-responded/
73 Organizations Send Joint Letter Calling on the Federal Government to Improve Nuclear Waste Oversight
73 organizations representing a broad segment of Canadian society have sent a joint letter to the federal government urging more oversight of the nuclear industry and of nuclear waste projects.
In the letter, the groups urged the Prime Minister and the Ministers of Environment and Climate Change and of Energy and Natural Resources to exercise oversight of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s “Adaptive Phased Management Project” to transport, process, bury and eventually abandon all of Canada’s nuclear fuel waste at the NWMO’s selected site in the heart of Treaty 3 Territory in northwestern Ontario and its upcoming impact assessment process.
The groups expressed an overarching concern about the lack of federal oversight of this project since its inception in 2002.
More recently, the NWMO has made it known that they are seeking to have transportation of the radioactive wastes excluded from the project’s impact assessment process. But for 20 years the NWMO has been describing transportation as part of their project, and the Impact Assessment Act requires activities that are integral to – or, in the language of the Act “incidental” to – the project be included in the assessment.
The joint letter requests that the federal government provide immediate oversight and direction in four areas:
73 organizations representing a broad segment of Canadian society have sent a joint letter to the federal government urging more oversight of the nuclear industry and of nuclear waste projects.
In the letter, the groups urged the Prime Minister and the Ministers of Environment and Climate Change and of Energy and Natural Resources to exercise oversight of the Nuclear Waste Management Organization’s “Adaptive Phased Management Project” to transport, process, bury and eventually abandon all of Canada’s nuclear fuel waste at the NWMO’s selected site in the heart of Treaty 3 Territory in northwestern Ontario and its upcoming impact assessment process.
The groups expressed an overarching concern about the lack of federal oversight of this project since its inception in 2002.
More recently, the NWMO has made it known that they are seeking to have transportation of the radioactive wastes excluded from the project’s impact assessment process. But for 20 years the NWMO has been describing transportation as part of their project, and the Impact Assessment Act requires activities that are integral to – or, in the language of the Act “incidental” to – the project be included in the assessment.
The joint letter requests that the federal government provide immediate oversight and direction in four areas:
Cancer risk may increase with proximity to nuclear power plants.
By Maya Brownstein, December 18, 2025, https://hsph.harvard.edu/news/cancer-risk-may-increase-with-proximity-to-nuclear-power-plants/
In Massachusetts, residential proximity to a nuclear power plant (NPP) was associated with significantly increased cancer incidence, with risk declining by distance, according to a new study led by Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health.
The study was published Dec. 17 in Environmental Health. It was conducted by researchers in the Department of Environmental Health, including corresponding author Yazan Alwadi, PhD student, and senior author Petros Koutrakis, professor of environmental sciences.
Despite widespread—and potentially expanding—reliance on nuclear power in the U.S., epidemiologic research investigating the health impacts of NPPs remains limited. Meanwhile, the results of studies conducted internationally vary significantly. To broaden the evidence base, the researchers assessed proximity of Massachusetts zip codes to nuclear power plants and 2000-2018 cancer incidence data collected by the Massachusetts Cancer Registry. They controlled for confounders such as air pollution and sociodemographic factors.
The researchers estimated that about 20,600 cancer cases in the state—roughly 3.3% of all the cases included in the study—were attributable to living near an NPP, with risk declining sharply beyond roughly 30 kilometers from a facility. The risk of developing cancer attributable to living near an NPP generally increased with age.
According to the researchers, the findings highlight the importance of acknowledging and addressing nuclear energy’s health impacts, particularly at a time when its expansion is being promoted as a solution to climate change.
Read the study:
Residential proximity to nuclear power plants and cancer incidence in Massachusetts, USA (2000–2018)
Israeli Ministers Wear Noose Pins to Symbolize Support for Killing Palestinians
The pins resemble the hostage pins that Israeli leaders have worn throughout the Gaza genocide.
By Sharon Zhang , Truthout, December 8, 2025, https://truthout.org/articles/israeli-ministers-wear-noose-pins-to-symbolize-support-for-killing-palestinians/
Ultranationalist Israeli politicians, including National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, wore golden noose-shaped lapel pins to a meeting on Monday in order to show their “commitment” to advancing a widely condemned bill to mandate the death penalty for “terrorists” who kill Israelis.
The pins resemble the yellow ribbon pins that Israeli leaders have worn throughout their genocide to to acknowledge the Israeli captives held in Gaza.
Ben-Gvir boasted about the pins, worn by members of his Otzma Yehudit party, saying that they show the politicians’ “commitment to the demand for the death penalty for terrorists.”
The politicians were attending a hearing on a bill advancing through the Israeli Knesset that would ensure that those who kill Israelis “with the aim of harming the State of Israel” would be given the death penalty. Critics have noted that the bill is worded in such a way that it would effectively exclusively target Palestinians, in the latest instance of Israeli politicians advancing policies to further entrench Israel’s apartheid.
Ben-Gvir boasted that the nooses are “one of the options by which the law will enforce a death penalty for terrorists.” He seemed to relish in the idea of the death penalty, saying, “of course, there is the option of the gallows, the electric chair, and there is also the option of lethal injection,” Israeli media reported.
The bill, which passed a first reading last month, has been roundly condemned by human rights experts.
“Knesset members should be working to abolish the death penalty, not broadening its application. The death penalty is the ultimate cruel, inhuman, and degrading punishment, and an irreversible denial of the right to life. It should not be imposed in any circumstances, let alone weaponized as a blatantly discriminatory tool of state-sanctioned killing, domination and oppression,” said Erika Guevara Rosas, Amnesty International’s Research, Advocacy, Policy and Campaigns director.
The bill comes amid “a drastic increase in the number of unlawful killings of Palestinians, including acts that amount to extrajudicial executions” since October 2023 and “a climate of incitement to violence against Palestinians as evidenced by the surge in state-backed settler attacks in the occupied West Bank,” Guevara Rosas said.
Indeed, Ben-Gvir also boasted about the deaths of Palestinians in Israeli custody under his watch. According to Israeli media, 110 Palestinians have died under his prison policies in the past two and a half years — a “record high,” Israeli outlet Walla reported. This is compared to 187 Palestinian detainees recorded killed in Israeli prisons between 1967 and 2007. The true toll may be far higher, as Israel obscures statistics on Palestinian prisoners and captives.
“This morning, I saw that it was published that under Itamar Ben-Gvir, 110 terrorists have died. They said there has never been anything like this since the state’s founding,” Ben Gvir boasted, while also denying that his policies were related to the killings.
Last month, the Israeli Medical Association said that its doctors would not participate in the executions, as that would force them to go back on their oath as doctors. “Our knowledge must not be used for purposes that do not promote health and welfare,” a representative of the group said.
Ben-Gvir claimed on Monday, however, that since that statement, “I have received a hundred calls from doctors saying, ‘Itamar, just tell me when.’”
Trump’s rush to build nuclear reactors across the U.S. raises safety worries
NPR, December 17, 2025
In May, President Trump sat in the Oval Office flanked by executives from America’s nuclear power industry.
“It’s a hot industry. It’s a brilliant industry,” the president said from behind the Resolute desk.
It’s also an industry that’s having a moment. Billions of dollars in capital are currently flowing into dozens of companies chasing new kinds of nuclear technologies. These are small modular designs that can potentially be mass produced in the hundreds or even thousands. Their proponents say these advanced designs promise to deliver megawatts of power safely and cheaply.
But there’s a problem, Joseph Dominguez, the CEO of Constellation Energy, told the president.
New nuclear plants keep getting caught up in safety regulations.
“Mr. President, you know this because you’re the best at building things,” Dominguez, whose company runs about a quarter of America’s existing nuclear reactors, said. “Delay in regulations and permitting will absolutely kill you. Because if you can’t get the plant on, you can’t get the revenue.”
Now, a new Trump administration program is sidestepping the regulatory system that’s overseen the nuclear industry for half a century. The program will fast-track construction of new and untested reactor designs built by private firms, with an explicit goal of having at least three nuclear test reactors up and running by the United States’ 250th birthday, July 4, 2026.
If that goal is met, it will be without the direct oversight of America’s primary nuclear regulator. Since the 1970s, safety for commercial reactors has been the purview of the Nuclear Regulatory Commission. But the NRC is only consulting on the new Reactor Pilot Program, which is being run by the Department of Energy’s Office of Nuclear Energy……………………………………………………………………………………………………
Sites across the country will host new reactor designs
The new pilot program may be an unproven regulatory path run by an agency with limited experience in the commercial sector, but supporters say it’s energizing an industry that’s been moribund for decades.
“This is exactly what we need to do,” said Isaiah Taylor, founder and CEO of Valar Atomics, a small nuclear startup headquartered in Hawthorne, Calif. “We need to make nuclear great again.”
Valar and other companies plan to build smaller reactors than those currently used in the nuclear industry, and that makes a Chernobyl or Fukushima-type accident impossible, noted Nick Touran, an independent nuclear consultant. “The overall worst-case scenario is definitely less when you’re a smaller reactor,” he said.
Critics, however, worry that the tight July 4 deadline, political pressure and a lack of transparency are all compromising safety. Even a “small” release of radioactive material could cause damage to people and the environment around the test sites.
“This is not normal, and this is not OK, and this is not going to lead to success,” warned Allison Macfarlane, a professor at the University of British Columbia who served as chairman of the NRC under President Barack Obama. “This is how to have an accident.”
AI’s need for speed
……………………………………………………………………………………………………………. Right from the start it was clear that, unlike the slow and deliberate safety culture that has dominated nuclear power for decades, this new program would be all about speed.
…………officials responsible for overseeing safety would do “whatever we need to ensure that the government is not stopping you from reaching [nuclear] criticality on or before July 4, 2026.”
A new regulator
Before the executive order, the Energy Department did not regulate the safety of commercial nuclear reactors. That job fell to another body: the Nuclear Regulatory Commission.
The commission was set up in 1975 by Congress as an independent safety watchdog, said Allison Macfarlane, the former NRC chair. Part of the reason the NRC was formed was because the predecessor to the DOE, known as the Atomic Energy Commission, oversaw both safety and promotion of nuclear power at the same time.
“This was a very strong conflict of interest,” Macfarlane said.
But in recent years, companies, particularly those trying to build new kinds of reactors, had become frustrated with the NRC, Macfarlane said. “The promoters of these small modular reactors were becoming very vociferous about the NRC being the problem,” she said.
In 2022, the NRC rejected a combined license application for Oklo, a new nuclear startup. Oklo had submitted an application to build and operate its small reactor, called the Aurora powerhouse. But the NRC denied the application because it contained “significant information gaps in its description of Aurora’s potential accidents as well as its classification of safety systems and components.”
Oklo was told it could resubmit its application to the NRC, but it never did.
Then at the May signing of the executive order, Oklo’s CEO Jacob DeWitte appeared behind President Trump applauding the new reactor program at DOE.
“Changing the permitting dynamics is going to help things move faster,” DeWitte said to the president. “It’s never been more exciting.”
Oklo had another connection to the Energy Department — the secretary of energy, Chris Wright, was a member of Oklo’s board of directors until he took the helm at the DOE. Wright stepped down following his confirmation in February.
In August, a little over a month after that initial meeting between industry executives and the DOE, the Office of Nuclear Energy announced the 11 advanced reactor projects had been selected for the Reactor Pilot Program. Three of Oklo’s reactors were part of the new pilot program, including a test version of the reactor design rejected by the NRC…………………………………………………………………………………………………………
Valar’s design looks far different from the reactors that are running today. It will use a special type of fuel together with a high-temperature gas to generate heat and electricity. Taylor said gathering real data will speed development and increase safety over the long-term….
(Valar is also party to a lawsuit against the NRC arguing the commission does not have the authority to regulate small reactors. In his interview, Taylor told NPR the company intends to file for an NRC license “when we’re ready.”)
………………………………………………….. critics question whether the pilot program will really produce safe nuclear reactors.
The July 4, 2026, deadline puts enormous pressure on the program, said Heidy Khlaaf, the chief AI scientist at the AI Now Institute, which recently published a report warning that AI development could undermine nuclear safety.
“I think these manufactured timelines are actually incredibly concerning,” Khlaaf said. “There’s no timeline for assessing a new design and making sure it’s safe, especially something we haven’t seen before.”
Then there’s the question of public transparency. The NRC makes many of the documents around its decisions available publicly. It also frequently allows the public to comment as well, added Edwin Lyman, director of nuclear power safety at the nonprofit Union of Concerned Scientists. The new pilot program is far more opaque and “is really an attempt to subvert the laws and regulations that go around commercial nuclear power,” he said.
While many of the test reactors are small and tout themselves as inherently safer than existing nuclear power plants, they are still capable of leaking radiation in an accident, Lyman noted. “If they are located closer to populated areas, if there aren’t any provisions for offsite radiological emergency planning … then you are potentially putting the public at greater risk, even if the reactors are small,” he said.
Perhaps most worrying, said former NRC Chair Macfarlane, is how the DOE’s safety assessment might be used to build more small reactors across the country, once the pilot reactors are built.
………………………………………..Macfarlane is unconvinced. She said relying on the hasty DOE analysis for the construction of potentially dozens or even hundreds of small reactors around the U.S. is the real risk.
“They can look at what the DOE did, they can take it as a piece of input, but they have to do their own separate analysis,” she warned. “Otherwise, none of us are safe.” https://www.npr.org/2025/12/17/nx-s1-5608371/trump-executive-order-new-nuclear-reactors-safety-concerns
Julian Assange: Sweden Broke Own Laws With Nobel Prize to Venezuela’s Machado
The same dynamic is at play in the Caribbean once again, according to Assange, as the Nobel Committee crowns a Venezuelan politician best known for her unhinged appeals for foreign military intervention and her dedication of her Nobel victory to US President Donald Trump.
Max Blumenthal and Wyatt Reed, The Grayzone, December 17, 2025
By awarding its peace prize to Trump’s favorite Venezuelan opposition figure, pro-war coup plotter Maria Corina Machado, the Nobel Committee contravened the principles enshrined in its founding documents, as well as Swedish law, Julian Assange alleged in an explosive brief reviewed by The Grayzone.
The Swedish government violated its own laws by awarding the Nobel Peace Prize to Venezuelan opposition figure Maria Corina Machado, according to an explosive legal brief filed by Julian Assange, the Wikileaks co-founder and former political prisoner who was hounded across the globe, confined in harsh conditions, and subjected to physical and psychological torment over the course of a decade by the US and its allies.
The Nobel committee’s decision to award Machado the Peace Prize — and the 11 million Swedish Kroner ($1.18 million USD) reward which accompanies it — means that “there is a real risk that funds derived from Nobel’s endowment have been or will be… diverted from their charitable purpose to facilitate aggression, crimes against humanity, and war crimes,” Assange stated.
The Wikileaks founder pointed to the “ample public statements… showing that the U.S. government and María Corina Machado have exploited the authority of the prize to provide them with a casus moralis for war,” adding that the explicitly stated purpose of the war sought by Machado and her wealthy Latin American backers would be “installing her by force in order to plunder $1.7 trillion in Venezuelan oil and other resources.”
The Nobel Foundation stands accused of a number of violations of Swedish criminal law, including breach of trust, misappropriation and gross misappropriation, conspiracy, crimes against international law, as well as financing of aggression, facilitation of war crimes and crimes against humanity, and breaching Sweden’s stated obligations under the Rome Statute, to which Stockholm says it is “deeply committed.”
Under Swedish law, “Alfred Nobel’s endowment for peace cannot be spent on the promotion of war,” Assange noted. “Nor can it be used as a tool in foreign military intervention. Venezuela, whatever the status of its political system, is no exception.”
By granting Nobel funds to Machado, Assange argues that the Committee is effectively financing “a conspiracy to murder civilians, to violate national sovereignty using military force…” By refusing to end payments, “they flagrantly violate Nobel’s will and clearly cross the threshold into criminality,” he alleged. The Wikileaks co-founder seeks the “immediate freezing of all remaining funds and a full criminal investigation” into Committee members who awarded the prize.
The Nobel Prizes were established in 1901 according to Swedish inventor Alfred Nobel’s last will and testament, which was later incorporated into the Swedish and Norwegian legal systems. The Peace Prize, which is meant to be bestowed on the figure who has contributed most to “fraternity between nations,” the “abolition or reduction of standing armies,” and “the holding and promotion of peace congresses,” has served as a cornerstone of Scandinavian soft power ever since.
Since its inception, however, the prize was marred by controversy due to the violent legacy of its recipients, and the political ambitions of its Norwegian sponsors. In the case of one of the Prize’s first winners, US President Theodore Roosevelt, the Norwegian Nobel Committee was criticized at the time for overlooking the American statesman’s naked warmongering in Latin America in order to curry favor with the nascent US empire. The New York Times sardonically observed that “a broad smile illuminated the face of the globe when the prize was awarded … to the most warlike citizen of these United States.”
The same dynamic is at play in the Caribbean once again, according to Assange, as the Nobel Committee crowns a Venezuelan politician best known for her unhinged appeals for foreign military intervention and her dedication of her Nobel victory to US President Donald Trump.
As Assange explained, Trump’s massive buildup of US military forces off the coast of Venezuela “has already committed undeniable war crimes, including the lethal targeting of civilian boats and survivors at sea, which has killed at least 95 people.”
“The Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights labeled these U.S. coastal strikes against civilian boats “extrajudicial executions,” the Wikileaks co-founder wrote. And the “principal architect of this aggression” was none other than Trump’s Secretary of State Marco Rubio, who “nominated María Corina Machado for the peace prize.”
Norwegian Nobel judges tied to influential Venezuelan regime change lobbyist
The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to a figure as clearly unqualified as Machado – and in apparent violation of Swedish law – raised questions about whether the Committee had been influenced by powerful outside interests. Machado’s nomination for the prize by the US Secretary of State had an undeniable impact on the decision, as the Nobel ceremony serves as a central channel of Norwegian soft power. But inside Oslo, a political powerbroker determined to return to power in his family’s native Venezuela may have also played a role in swinging votes for Machado. ………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………..
The odds of Machado winning surged from 3.75% to 72.8% just hours before the Nobel Committee officially informed Machado of her victory. One unusually prescient bettor won $65,000 gambling on the Venezuelan opposition figure. “It seems we have been prey to a criminal actor who wants to earn money on our information,” said Kristian Berg Harpviken, the head of the Nobel Institute.
Months later, The Nobel committee still has yet to conclude its investigation into the corruption scandal. As of publication, the committee did not respond to a request for comment by The Grayzone.
For what promotes itself as the world’s premiere peacemaking institution, it may be too late to undo the damage wrought by giving the Nobel Prize to an avowed champion of violent regime change.
“Using her elevated position as the recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize, Machado may well have” already “tipped the balance in favor of war,” Assange concluded. https://thegrayzone.com/2025/12/17/julian-assange-sweden-nobel-venezuelas-machado/
1 This Month
Website of the Week
New book – https://www.amazon.com/dp/1923372157?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email
Now until to February 10, 2026 Radioactive waste storage in France: the debate is finally open! How to participate?
-
Archives
- January 2026 (127)
- December 2025 (358)
- November 2025 (359)
- October 2025 (377)
- September 2025 (258)
- August 2025 (319)
- July 2025 (230)
- June 2025 (348)
- May 2025 (261)
- April 2025 (305)
- March 2025 (319)
- February 2025 (234)
-
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 