Friends of the Earth comments accuse the Australian Government Industry Department of blatant racism in its Kimba nuclear waste dump plan.
Comments on: Guidelines for the content of a Draft EIS National Radioactive Waste Management Facility, SA EPBC 2021/9128 April 2023
RIGHTS OF TRADITIONAL OWNERS
Recommendation #1: The Guidelines must require the proponent (the Australian Government Department of Industry, Science and Resources) to explain how the nuclear dump/store proposal complies with the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples, in particular Article 29.2:
“States shall take effective measures to ensure that no storage or disposal of hazardous materials shall take place in the lands or territories of indigenous peoples without their free, prior and informed consent.”
Of course it is common knowledge that the proposal is a gross violation of Article 29.2 and that the nuclear dump/store is unanimously opposed by Barngarla Traditional Owners. Nevertheless, the proponent must be asked to explain its position and its crude racism.
Recommendation #2: The list of documents in section 3.5.1 of the Guidelines should also include the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.
Recommendation #3: The Guidelines mention a “process for ongoing consultation with FirstNations people”. The proponent should be required to declare whether or not it reservesthe right to ignore the rights, interests and recommendations of the Barngarla Traditional Owners in future just as it has ignored and overridden unanimous Barngarla opposition to the nuclear dump/store proposal.
Recommendation #4: The proponent should be required to discuss the adequacy of the
National Radioactive Waste Management Act (NRWMA) and in particular to provide
justifications for each of the following provisions of the Act:
- The nomination of a site for a radioactive waste facility is valid even if Aboriginal
Traditional Owners were not consulted and did not give consent. The NRWMA states that
consultation should be conducted with Traditional Owners and consent should be secured ‒
but that the nomination of a site for a radioactive waste facility is valid even in the absence
of consultation or consent. - The NRWMA has sections which nullify State or Territory laws that protect the
archaeological or heritage values of land or objects, including those which relate to
Indigenous traditions. - The Act curtails the application of Commonwealth laws including the Aboriginal and Torres
Strait Islander Heritage Protection Act 1984 and the Native Title Act 1993 in the important
site-selection stage. The Native Title Act 1993 is expressly overridden in relation to land
acquisition for a radioactive waste facility.
Recommendation #5. The proponent should be required to explain why it rejects the SA
Government’s policy that Traditional Owners should have a right of veto of nuclear waste
sites. SA Labor’s Deputy Leader (and now Deputy Premier) Susan Close noted in September
2020 that: “South Australian Labor is calling on the Federal Government to halt its plans to
dump nuclear waste at Kimba. … SA Labor has consistently expressed its concerns about the
site selection process and the lack of consultation with native title holders. … This was a
dreadful process from start to finish, resulting in fractures within the local community over
the dump. The SA ALP has committed to traditional owners having a right of veto over any
nuclear waste sites, yet the federal government has shown no respect to the local
Aboriginal people.”
FEASIBLE ALTERNATIVES
Recommendation #6. The Guidelines should require discussion on the ‘feasible alternative’
of targeting states/territories which do not have legislation prohibiting a nuclear
dump/store such as the one proposed. The current proposal requires the Commonwealth to
override the SA Nuclear Waste Storage (Prohibition) Act 2000.
Recommendation #7. The Guidelines state that the no-action alternative should be
discussed “if relevant”. The term “if relevant” should be removed and the proponent should
be required to discuss the no-action alternative since it is in fact a viable alternative.
Recommendation #8. The Guidelines should explicitly require the proponent to consider the
option of abandoning the plan to store intermediate-level waste (ILW) and Kimba since an
overwhelming majority of ILW is currently store at ANSTO’s Lucas Heights site with no
practical or legal obstacles to ongoing storage. The plan to move ILW to Kimba is absurd: it necessarily entails double-handling; and it entails moving waste from a site with strong
security and an abundance of nuclear experts to a site with weaker security and a dearth of
nuclear experts … for no reason whatsoever let alone a good, compelling reason.
It should be noted here that ARPANSA plans separate assessments of the proponent’s plans
for disposal of lower-level wastes and storage of ILW. Further, in its March 2022 Regulatory
Assessment Report approving ANSTO’s new ILW Storage Facility at Lucas Heights to 2037,
the ARPANSA CEO states that a “clear net benefit must be provided by the licence applicant
to support a licence application”. It is implausible that the proposal to move ILW from Lucas
Heights to Kimba would meet this net-benefit criterion. Thus DCCEEW must be alert to the
misinformation and obfuscation that the proponent may present to justify ILW storage at
Kimba instead of Lucas Heights, and DCCEEW must ensure a full evaluation of alternatives to
ILW storage at Kimba.
Recommendation #9. Further to the above recommendation, the proponent should be
required to consider the option of abandoning plans for ILW storage at ANSTO and instead
working on a consolidated plan for deep underground disposal (or deep borehole disposal)
of both ILW as well as high-level nuclear waste from nuclear submarines.
TRANSPORT OF SPENT FUEL REPROCESSING WASTES
Recommendation #10. The proponent should be required to thoroughly consider
transportation of waste products arising from reprocessing of spent research reactor fuel.
There is no logical reason or justification for this omission
‘No Business In The Public Domain’: National Security Council spokesman Kirby Warns Journalists Not To Report On Leaked Pentagon Documents
Biden administration and National Security Council spokesman John Kirby addressed the media on Monday, asking in so many words that pretty please would journalists not report on the trove of highly classified documents which were leaked online.
“This is information that has no business in the public domain… It has no business… on the front pages of newspapers or on television.” But Kirby is a bit late, given already days ago major outlets from the NY Times to Washington Post to foreign outlets like The Guardian and RT have widely reported on them. They classified reports have circulated widely on English-language and foreign social media as well.
Independent media outlets have also widely shared images of the documents, which Pentagon officials claim could have been altered by the Kremlin to make the US look bad……….
Some observers have speculated that given the high number of documents marked SECRET/NOFORN, which literally means Not Releasable to Foreign Nationals (and thus it can’t be shared with even close allied services of the US), this points to the leak originating within the US chain of command. Others have said the leak may have come from the Ukrainians, given the high numbers of Ukraine-related battlefield assessments that were part of the trove that appeared online.
The Pentagon and DOJ meanwhile says they are still “working around the clock” to assess the source and scale of the massive breach of highly classified data. New bombshell documents have continued to trickle out in media stories into Monday and Tuesday, likely with more revelations to come throughout the week.
FT and others have called the breach the “most significant since Edward Snowden released a trove of classified documents about US intelligence activities a decade ago — included apparently highly classified documents.” Officials have also noted they “appear mostly authentic”.
“These photos appear to show documents similar in format to those used to provide daily updates to our senior leaders on Ukraine and Russia-related operations as well as other intelligence updates,” Meagher explained, though agreeing with other officials that some of them appear doctored. https://www.zerohedge.com/political/kirby-asks-journalists-pretty-please-dont-report-leaked-pentagon-documents
Two American brigades close to the Ukrainian border, but no plan, no leadership towards ending the war!
“The problem is Biden and his principal lieutenants—Blinken and Sullivan and their court of worshippers—who see those who criticize Zelensky as being pro-Putin.
the juniors are running the show here,” the official added. “There’s no NSC coordination and the US army is getting ready to go to war. There’s no idea whether the White House knows what’s going on.
| If worse comes to worst for the undermanned and outgunned Ukraine army in the next few months, will the two American brigades join forces with NATO troops and face off with the Russian army inside Ukraine? Is this the plan, or hope, of the American president? TRADING WITH THE ENEMY Amid rampant corruption in Kiev and as US troops gather at the Ukrainian border, does the Biden administration have an endgame to the conflict? Seymour Hersh, Substack, Apr 12 ∙ |
“CIA Director William Burns is not the problem,” the official said. “The problem is Biden and his principal lieutenants—Blinken and Sullivan and their court of worshippers—who see those who criticize Zelensky as being pro-Putin. ‘We are against evil. Ukraine will fight ’til the last military shell is gone, and still fight.’ And here’s Biden who is telling America that we’re going to fight as long as it takes.”
The official cited the little-known and rarely discussed deployment, authorized by Biden, of two brigades with thousands of America’s best army combat units to the region. A brigade of the 82nd Airborne Division has been intensively training and exercising from its base inside Poland within a few miles of the Ukrainian border. It was reinforced late last year by a brigade from the 101st Airborne Division that was deployed in Romania. The actual manpower of the two brigades, when administrative and support units—with the trucks and drivers who haul the constant stream of arms and military equipment flowing by sea to keep the units combat ready—could total more than 20,000.
The intelligence officials told me that “there is no evidence that any senior official in the White House really knows what’s going on in the 82nd and 101st. Are they there as part of a NATO exercise or to serve with NATO combat units if the West decides to engage Russians units inside Ukraine? Are they there to train or to be a trigger? The rules of engagement say they can’t attack Russians unless our boys are getting attacked.”
But the juniors are running the show here,” the official added. “There’s no NSC coordination and the US army is getting ready to go to war. There’s no idea whether the White House knows what’s going on. Has the president gone to the American people with an informative broadcast about what is going on? The only briefings the press and the public get today are from White House spokespeople.
“This is not just bad leadership. There is none. Zero.” The official added that a team of Ukrainian combat pilots are now getting trained here in America to fly US-built F-16 fighter jets, with the goal, if needed, of flying in combat against Russian troops and other targets inside Ukraine.” No decision about such deployment has been made.
The clearest statements of American policy have come not from the White House, but from the Pentagon. Army General Mark A. Milley, who is chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said of the war last March 15: “Russia remains isolated. Their military stocks are rapidly depleting. Their soldiers are demoralized, untrained, unmotivated conscripts and convicts, and their leadership is failing them. Having already failed in their strategic objectives, Russia is increasingly relying on other countries, such as Iran and North Korea. . . . This relationship is built on the cruel bonds of repressing freedom, subverting liberty and maintaining their tyranny. . . . Ukraine remains strong. They are capable and trained. Ukrainian soldiers are . . . strong in their combat units. Their tanks, infantry fighting vehicles and armored vehicles are only going to bolster the front line..”
There is evidence that Milley is as optimistic as he sounds. I was told that two months ago the Joint Chiefs had ordered members of the staff—the military phrase is “tasked”—to draft an end-of-war treaty to present to the Russians after their defeat on the Ukraine battlefield.
If worse comes to worst for the undermanned and outgunned Ukraine army in the next few months, will the two American brigades join forces with NATO troops and face off with the Russian army inside Ukraine? Is this the plan, or hope, of the American president? Is this the fireside chat he wants to give? If Biden decides to share his thoughts with the American people, he might want to explain what two army brigades, fully staffed and supplied, are doing so close to the war zone.
Leaked documents expose US-NATO Ukraine war plans
Perhaps the most notable piece of information contained in the leaked documents relates to military death tolls, with Ukrainian and Russian losses estimated at about a 4:1 ratio. According to one document, 71,500 Ukrainian troops have been killed in action.
That figure is close to the 100,000 KIA’s cited by EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in a November 2022 speech, before her comments were retracted.
ALEXANDER RUBINSTEIN·APRIL 7, 2023, https://thegrayzone.com/2023/04/07/leaked-documents-us-nato-ukraine-war-plan/
Classified Pentagon documents containing information about US and NATO plans for a Ukrainian offensive and key details of the ongoing war have leaked. And the Biden administration is reportedly demanding they be scrubbed from the internet. Is there a hidden agenda behind the leak?
Update: We have added a leaked Defense Intelligence Agency document at the end of this article outlining potential scenarios in which Israel would provide Ukraine with lethal weapons. [on original]
The New York Times has reported “a significant breach of American intelligence in the effort to aid Ukraine” through the leak of classified documents which have been shared on social media. It correspondents cited “senior Biden administration officials” who apparently tipped the outlet off to the story. Documents circulating on Telegram which closely resemble those referred to by the Times are reproduced at the end of this article.
The Times writes, “Military analysts said the documents appear to have been modified in certain parts from their original format, overstating American estimates of Ukrainian war dead and understating estimates of Russian troops killed. The modifications could point to an effort of disinformation by Moscow, the analysts said… The analysts warned that documents released by Russian sources could be selectively altered to present the Kremlin’s disinformation.”
Neither the New York Times nor the “military analysts” it cited explain how the documents were altered, or why they have the appearance of tampering. However, because the leaked documents have arrived in the form of photographs of printed documents, rather than original files, the possibility of forgery or alteration must be considered.
The leaked documents claim that Russia has sustained troop losses ranging from 16,000 to 17,500 while Ukrainian losses amount to as many as 71,500 – a staggering differential that stands at odds with the triumphalist narrative projected by Kiev. They are dated March 1 2023 and appear to be part of an ongoing briefing effort to analyze the war’s progress and plan a Ukrainian counteroffensive.
The Grayzone obtained the documents from a public Telegram channel. Though they resemble those described by the Times, we can not confirm their authenticity.
According to the New York Times, the Pentagon is investigating the leak while the White House is “working to get them deleted.” Twitter owner Elon Musk appears to have confirmed the pressure campaign, sarcastically commenting, “Yeah, you can totally delete things from the Internet – that works perfectly and doesn’t draw attention to whatever you were trying to hide at all.”
Perhaps the most notable piece of information contained in the leaked documents relates to military death tolls, with Ukrainian and Russian losses estimated at about a 4:1 ratio. According to one document, 71,500 Ukrainian troops have been killed in action.
That figure is close to the 100,000 KIA’s cited by EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen in a November 2022 speech, before her comments were retracted. It also tracks closely with statements by one of Ukrainian President Vlodymyr Zelensky’s top advisers, Mykhailo Podolyak, who told the BBC in June of last year that Ukraine was losing between 100 and 200 soldiers per day (200 deaths per day over the course of 370 days between the launch of Russia’s military operation and the date of the documents would total 74,000.)
Other American and EU state officials have offered dramatically different figures placing Russian KIA’s over the six figure mark. For instance, Norway’s defense chief has charted 100,000 Ukrainian soldiers dead to Russia’s 180,000, while Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Miley asserted that Russian losses are “significantly well over 100,000.”
Another key detail in the documents pertains to the size of the front lines in Donetsk: Russia maintains 91 battalions in the “Donetsk axis” with around 23,000 total personnel, while Ukraine maintains eight brigades and 40 battalions, with 10,000 to 20,000 total personnel.
The documents also outline expectations of weapons deliveries to Ukraine from the US and other NATO countries along with training schedules for Ukrainian forces as a Spring counteroffensive approaches. The timeline spans from January through April, detailing twelve Ukrainian brigades under construction and the weapons they have been or will be supplied. Nine brigades are said to be armed and trained by the US and NATO allies, and six are said to be ready by the end of March, while the rest will be in action by the end of April. The brigades are said to require 253 tanks, 381 mechanized vehicles, 480 motor vehicles and more.
While the documents distributed on Telegram contain important details about NATO and Ukrainian military capacity, and highlight the astounding depth of American involvement in the war, their publication raises a number of questions.
If the documents were partially faked, were they disseminated to help Russia advance its public relations goals, perhaps by minimizing their casualty numbers or inflating those of their foe? They certainly would not be fooling anyone at the Department of Defense, since they obviously have the original files on hand. Or could it be that the United States leaked the documents with faulty intelligence strewn throughout their contents to confuse Russia ahead of a Ukrainian offensive?
There is also the possibility that they are one hundred percent authentic. If so, Ukraine and its Western patrons may have more serious problems than a few leaked documents.
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 