Nuclear test veteran from Ipswich among first to receive medal
By Laura Devlin, BBC News, Suffolk, 24 Sept 23
A 92-year-old veteran who watched nuclear weapons being tested in the 1950s has become one of the first to receive a new military medal.
Bob Last, of Ipswich, Suffolk, was a newlywed in his 20s when he was sent to south-west Australia with the Royal Electrical and Mechanical Engineers.
Their contribution was recognised by the government after a long campaign…………………..
Cover faces with hands
Ms Catlin and her sister Debbie Last said their father, who has dementia, had started to speak about his experiences in the Australian outback in recent years.
“I think they were told not to talk about it; and that generation, if they told not to talk about something, they didn’t,” said Ms Last.
“He said they would see explosions go off, and they would cover their faces with their hands and they could see the bones in their hands.”
Seven atomic bombs were dropped in Maralinga, where Mr Last was based, in October 1957………
‘Nobody knew anything’
For years, veterans and their families have campaigned for recognition, saying the radiation they were exposed to caused ill health and premature deaths, as well as health problems in their families…………………………………………………………………………..
The British Nuclear Test Veterans Association believes more than 22,000 British servicemen participated in the British and US nuclear tests and clean-ups between 1952 and 1965, along with scientists from the Atomic Weapons Research Establishment and civilians.
Ms Last said: “We need to find the medical records of the veterans. It doesn’t stop here.” https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-suffolk-66906172
Alarmed by Risk of Nuclear Escalation among Major Powers, Speakers in General Assembly Warn Growing Distrust, Divisions Are Driving Multilateral System towards Dysfunction
MEETINGS COVERAGE, GENERAL ASSEMBLY, PLENARY SEVENTY-EIGHTH SESSION, 12TH & 13TH MEETINGS (AM & PM) GA/12538, 23 SEPTEMBER 2023
Powerful countries are pushing the world closer to the brink of nuclear conflict as mounting distrust and divisions corrode the bedrock of international cooperation, driving the multilateral system towards gridlock and dysfunction, world leaders warned today, as the General Assembly high-level debate concluded its fifth day of discussions.
Several Heads of State and Government, as well as ministers, voiced their concerns about the world’s current trajectory as it emerges from the most significant health emergency in a century amidst deepening conflicts and increasing instability. A fractured global political economy, skyrocketing food and fuel prices, looming climate crisis and heightened arms races have collectively led to widespread feelings of disillusionment, indifference, and cynicism among millions of people.
Nanaia Mahuta, Minister for Foreign Affairs of New Zealand, said that for the first time in several generations, the world faces the very real possibility of conflict between major Powers. “The stakes for all of us are simply too high,” she warned. The international rule of law and the United Nations Charter must mean something to a growing generation that is becoming more sceptical. The Russian Federation’s illegal invasion of Ukraine last year was a direct attack on the sovereignty and territorial integrity of a UN Member State. The war has also highlighted geostrategic tensions and heightened nuclear risks. “Playing politics with innocent lives is cruel and immoral,” she stressed.
Enrique A. Manalo, Secretary for Foreign Affairs of the Philippines, said that humanity remains in danger from too many destructive and disruptive weapons in existence. Thousands of nuclear warheads, which are still present, and now new ways of warfare have transformed the strategic landscape in the twenty-first century. “The rule of law must reign all the more,” he stressed, echoing the calls of many for a stronger UN to help bring back sense to the global community.
Sergey V. Lavrov, Minister for Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation, said that in 2021, Moscow’s proposals to conclude treaties on mutual security guarantees in Europe without changing the non-bloc status of Ukraine were “rudely rejected”. The United States and its subordinate “Western collective” continue to generate conflicts that artificially divide humanity into hostile blocs. Describing a series of recent joint exercises between the United States and European North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) allies, he also reported that they included testing scenarios for the use of nuclear weapons in the Russian Federation.
From a related angle, Osman Saleh Mohammed, Minister for Foreign Affairs of Eritrea, stressed that the futile attempts to impose a unipolar world order over the last 30 years are increasingly pushing the international community towards a much more perilous catastrophe. The African continent remains marginalized, compelled to shoulder the brunt of these destructive policies — and in this context, the resistance movements unfolding there are the continuation of the struggle against colonialism. They are defiant reactions to “modern slavery”, unremitting plunder and domination.
Mahamoud Ali Youssouf, Minister for Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation of Djibouti, observed that instead of fostering an integrated multilateralism there is a tendency to “group together into clubs”. This “minilateralism” results in implacable resistance to change in international institutions, compounded by fossilizing inequality and worsening geopolitical competition. While this is not irreversible, it requires massive investment to create a multilateral system that would account for current geopolitical realities.
Leaders repeatedly echoed calls for solidarity in the international community, emphasizing that the pandemic spotlighted glaring inequalities that must that be dealt with before another global crisis hits. Many small island developing States reiterated their calls on industrialized countries to abide by their obligations and commitments to developing nations for financing adaptation and mitigation measures.
Fiamē Naomi Mata’afa, Prime Minister of Samoa, said the first half of 2023 was characterized by worldwide record temperatures, intense water temperatures in various ocean basins, droughts in parts of Africa, Europe and Asia, severe flooding and cyclones, and devastating wildfires in Greece, north-eastern Canada and Hawaii. “We will continually face these ever-worsening disasters if we continue to deny addressing their root causes,” she stressed. Scientists have warned of imminent, more frequent and extreme weather events. Reducing global emissions, moving towards green resilient economies, tackling deforestation, reducing the reliance on fossil fuels and protecting nature must be a priority.
Terrance Micheal Drew, Prime Minister of Saint Kitts and Nevis, said that developing countries are groaning under the weight of burgeoning challenges not of their own making, some of which have been inherited as a result of colonization and the transatlantic slave trade. “It is past time for reparatory justice,” he said, echoing the sentiment of several speakers. Industrial countries and companies push small island developing States to the front lines of climate change, he added, pointing out that they accept little responsibility.
Delegates also accented the importance of respect for human rights, both as a cornerstone of decency and in building stability and prosperity — with some lamenting that this central principle of the United Nations is being eroded in countries around the world.
Anne Beathe Tvinnereim, Minister for International Development of Norway, affirmed that her Government engages the de facto authorities in Afghanistan as if this can help to address the dire human rights situation, “especially for women and girls, who are being deprived of education and a future — it is worth the attempt”. Human rights are at the core of the UN, and “societies prosper when women and girls participate on an equal footing”. The international community should “be concerned that standards are slipping in many places”, she affirmed: “This has to stop.”
Eamon Courtenay, Minister for Foreign Affairs, Foreign Trade and Immigration of Belize, noted that despite calls by the Global North for the respect of human rights, it remains outside the Convention on the Rights of Migrant Workers, resulting in “deaths and inhumane treatment of migrants at the southern borders of the Western world” continuing with impunity. With only 12 per cent of the SDGs on track for attainment, the global human development index has, for the first time, experienced a two-year consecutive downward trend, with poverty and insecurity on the rise.
Statements………………………………………………………………….
NATO Chief Admits NATO Expansion Was Key to Russian Invasion of Ukraine
The continuing U.S. obsession with NATO enlargement is profoundly irresponsible and hypocritical. And now Ukrainians are paying a terrible price.
JEFFREY D. SACHS, Sep 20, 2023, Common Dreams
“…………………………….. According to the U.S. government and the ever-obsequious New York Times, the Ukraine war was “unprovoked,” the Times’ favorite adjective to describe the war. Putin, allegedly mistaking himself for Peter the Great, invaded Ukraine to recreate the Russian Empire. Yet last week, NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg committed a Washington gaffe, meaning that he accidently blurted out the truth.
In testimony to the European Union Parliament, Stoltenberg made clear that it was America’s relentless push to enlarge NATO to Ukraine that was the real cause of the war and why it continues today. Here are Stoltenberg’s revealing words:
“The background was that President Putin declared in the autumn of 2021, and actually sent a draft treaty that they wanted NATO to sign, to promise no more NATO enlargement. That was what he sent us. And was a pre-condition to not invade Ukraine. Of course, we didn’t sign that.
The opposite happened. He wanted us to sign that promise, never to enlarge NATO. He wanted us to remove our military infrastructure in all Allies that have joined NATO since 1997, meaning half of NATO, all the Central and Eastern Europe, we should remove NATO from that part of our Alliance, introducing some kind of B, or second-class membership. We rejected that.
So, he went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders. He has got the exact opposite.”
To repeat, he [Putin] went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to his borders.
When Prof. John Mearsheimer, I, and others have said the same, we’ve been attacked as Putin apologists. The same critics also choose to hide or flatly ignore the dire warnings against NATO enlargement to Ukraine long articulated by many of America’s leading diplomats, including the great scholar-statesman George Kennan, and the former US Ambassadors to Russia Jack Matlock and William Burns.
Burns, now CIA Director, was US Ambassador to Russia in 2008, and author of a memo entitled “Nyet means Nyet.” In that memo, Burns explained to Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice that the entire Russian political class, not just Putin, was dead-set against NATO enlargement. We know about the memo only because it was leaked. Otherwise, we’d be in the dark about it.
Why does Russia oppose NATO enlargement? For the simple reason that Russia does not accept the U.S. military on its 2,300 km border with Ukraine in the Black Sea region. Russia does not appreciate the U.S. placement of Aegis missiles in Poland and Romania after the U.S. unilaterally abandoned the Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty………………………………….
Even Zelensky’s team knew that the quest for NATO enlargement meant imminent war with Russia. Oleksiy Arestovych, former Advisor to the Office of the President of Ukraine under Zelensky, declared that “with a 99.9% probability, our price for joining NATO is a big war with Russia.”……………………………………………
Putin made one last attempt at diplomacy at the end of 2021, tabling a draft U.S.-NATO Security Agreement to forestall war. The core of the draft agreement was an end of NATO enlargement and removal of U.S. missiles near Russia. Russia’s security concerns were valid and the basis for negotiations. Yet Biden flatly rejected negotiations out of a combination of arrogance, hawkishness, and profound miscalculation. NATO maintained its position that NATO would not negotiate with Russia regarding NATO enlargement, that in effect, NATO enlargement was none of Russia’s business.
The continuing U.S. obsession with NATO enlargement is profoundly irresponsible and hypocritical. The U.S. would object—by means of war, if needed—to being encircled by Russian or Chinese military bases in the Western Hemisphere, a point the U.S. has made since the Monroe Doctrine of 1823. Yet the U.S. is blind and deaf to the legitimate security concerns of other countries.
So, yes, Putin went to war to prevent NATO, more NATO, close to Russia’s border. Ukraine is being destroyed by U.S. arrogance, proving again Henry Kissinger’s adage that to be America’s enemy is dangerous, while to be its friend is fatal. The Ukraine War will end when the U.S. acknowledges a simple truth: NATO enlargement to Ukraine means perpetual war and Ukraine’s destruction. Ukraine’s neutrality could have avoided the war, and remains the key to peace. The deeper truth is that European security depends on collective security as called for by the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), not one-sided NATO demands. https://www.commondreams.org/opinion/nato-chief-admits-expansion-behind-russian-invasionb
“Republicans for Ukraine”s Refreshingly Honest Ukraine War Ad
CAITLIN JOHNSTONE, SEP 25, 2023 https://www.caitlinjohnst.one/p/bill-kristols-refreshingly-honest?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=82124&post_id=137366801&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=1ise1&utm_medium=email
The Bill Kristol-led group “Republicans for Ukraine” has released a TV ad to help drum up GOP support for Washington’s proxy war against Russia, and it’s surprisingly honest about what this war is really about: advancing US strategic interests using Ukrainians as sacrificial pawns.
Here’s a transcript:
“When America arms Ukraine, we get a lot for a little. Putin is an enemy of America. We’ve used 5% of our defense budget to arm Ukraine, and with it, they’ve destroyed 50% of Putin’s Army. We’ve done all this by sending weapons from storage, not our troops. The more Ukraine weakens Russia, the more it also weakens Russia’s closest ally, China. America needs to stand strong against our enemies, that’s why Republicans in Congress must continue to support Ukraine.”
“Republicans for Ukraine” was launched last month by “Defending Democracy Together”, another Kristol-led narrative management operation which is funded by oligarchs like Pierre Omidyar. Kristol, who as a neoconservative thought leader played a pivotal role in pushing for the 2003 invasion of Iraq, tweeted on Saturday that the ad “will air on the Sunday shows tomorrow in DC.”
One of the dumbest things the empire asks us to believe is that this war simultaneously (A) was completely unprovoked and (B) just coincidentally happens to massively advance the strategic interests of the government accused of provoking it. From the moment Russia invaded Ukraine in February 2022 westerners were aggressively hammered over and over and over again by the mass media with the uniform propaganda message that this was an “unprovoked invasion”, but ever since then we’ve also been receiving these peculiar messages from US empire managers and spinmeisters that this war is helping the United States crush its geopolitical enemies and advance its interests abroad.
This bizarre two-step occurs because the US-centralized empire needs to convey two self-evidently contradictory messages to the public at all times:
1. that the US is an innocent little flower who just wants to help its good friends the Ukrainians protect their democracy from the murderous Russians who invaded solely because they are evil and hate freedom, and
2. that it’s in the interest of Americans to continue this war.The second point is required because the message that the US is merely an innocent passive witness to the violence in Ukraine necessarily causes certain political factions to ask, “Okay, so what are we doing there then? Why are we pouring all this money into something that has nothing to do with us?” So another narrative is required to explain that backing this proxy war also just so happens to be a massive boon to US strategic interests abroad while creating American jobs manufacturing weapons at home.
And of course this war advances US strategic interests. Of course it does. Only an idiot would believe the US is pouring weapons into another country because it loves the people who live there and wants them to be free, and that it is only by pure coincidence that this happens to kill a lot of Russians, bolster NATO, and advance US energy interests in Europe. It doesn’t benefit normal Americans at home, but it absolutely does serve the interests of the globe-spanning empire that’s centralized around Washington. That’s why the empire deliberately provoked it.
Empire managers were openly discussing the ways a war in Ukraine would directly benefit the US empire long before the invasion. In 2019 a Pentagon-funded Rand Corporation paper titled “Extending Russia — Competing from Advantageous Ground” detailed how the empire can use proxy warfare, economic warfare and other Cold War tactics to push its longtime geopolitical foe to the brink without costing American lives or sparking a nuclear conflict. The US Army-commissioned paper mentioned Ukraine hundreds of times, and explicitly discussed how a war there could be used to promote sanctions against Moscow and attack Russia’s energy interests in Europe.
In December of 2021 John Deni of NATO propaganda firm The Atlantic Council authored a piece for The Wall Street Journal titled “The Strategic Case for Risking War in Ukraine,” subtitled “An invasion would be a diplomatic, economic and military mistake for Putin. Let him make it if he must.” Deni argued that “there are good strategic reasons for the West to stake out a hard-line approach” against Moscow and refuse to negotiate or back down over Ukraine, because if doing so provokes Russia to invade it would “forge an even stronger anti-Russian consensus across Europe,” “result in another round of more debilitating economic sanctions that would further weaken Russia’s economy,” and “sap the strength and morale of Russia’s military while undercutting Mr. Putin’s domestic popularity and reducing Russia’s soft power globally.”
The minds on the inside of the empire were talking about how this war would benefit the US before the invasion, and they’ve been talking about how much it benefits the US ever since. As the Washington Post’s David Ignatius put it this past July: “these 18 months of war have been a strategic windfall, at relatively low cost (other than for the Ukrainians). The West’s most reckless antagonist has been rocked. NATO has grown much stronger with the additions of Sweden and Finland. Germany has weaned itself from dependence on Russian energy and, in many ways, rediscovered its sense of values. NATO squabbles make headlines, but overall, this has been a triumphal summer for the alliance.”
The managers of the empire are getting everything they want out of this war. In public they rend their garments and cry crocodile tears and call it a terrible criminal atrocity, but every now and then they look at the camera and flash it a quick Fleabag-style grin.
They knew exactly what they were doing when they provoked this war, and they know exactly what they’re doing by keeping it going.
And they’re loving every minute of it.
Bill Gates’ nuclear firm Terrapower fears falling behind in Small Nuclear Reactor race
A row is brewing between a nuclear energy company founded by Bill Gates and the
UK government over fears it may be sidelined from a £1 billion competition
to build new small power plants. The billionaire is the chairman of Terrapower, which fears exclusion from the race to build the next generation of reactors over questions about its fuel source, according to people familiar with the matter.
In May, The Sunday Times revealed that
Terrapower had joined the likes of Rolls Royce, GE-Hitachi and Bechtel in
the running to manufacture Britain’s future nuclear infrastructure. But
Terrapower is concerned that the government is prioritising so-called small
modular reactors designed by its rivals, rather than Terrapower’s model,
which uses more innovative technology and is classed as an “advanced
modular reactor”, sources said.
Terrapower’s reactor, called Natrium,
uses high-assay low-enriched uranium (HALEU) as fuel. Officials are said to
be concerned that it does not have reliable supplies to import at scale, as
most of it is produced in Russia. A government spokesman said: “Great
British Nuclear is assessing the bids received as part of the latest phase
of the competition launched earlier this year and will announce an update
in due course.”
Times 24th Sept 2023
1 This month
of the week – Disrupting War & Militarism in Oceania. Active solidarity. Radical practice.
Antinuclear 