TODAY. Why I am really a CONSERVATIVE, and you should be, too.
Years ago, when I was a member of the Australian Labor Party, I was shocked when someone accused me of being really a conservative at heart. Sacrilege! to a Leftie, to be given such an accusation!
Now I know that it is true.
Conservative – “holding traditional values.”
Conservation – “seeking the proper use of nature, a careful preservation and protection of natural resources to prevent exploitation, pollution, destruction, or neglect.”
It is fashionable, and of course, attention-grabbing in the media – to condemn things that are “old” and claim that “youth opinion” and “feelings” (rather than facts) are what matter , to downgrade our institutions of justice, and representative democracy that have served us well over time.
How is it that now there is worldwide acceptance of the idea that Donald Trump, and indeed the USA Republican Party, the Tories in Britain, and the Australian Liberal-National Coalition are CONSERVATIVES?
They are not conservative at all. They are out to wreck the natural environment, in the interests of a few rich corporations. They are out to wreck the social environment in spurning domestic courts and other legal institutions, like the International Court of Justice. They have attitudes of unfairness to non-white people, indigenous people, refugees, at times of suppression of women’s rights, especially, over their own bodies. This is not conservative. This is RADICAL – uprooting Christian values, and the natural world.
Admittedly, there was a time when the Western world held cruel “Christian” values, – like divine right of kings, slavery, racism, severe suppression of women’s rights, of religious and political rights…. Hanging on to those ideas was then conservatism.
But that’s a while back. In Western countries, values like Christian ideas of equal human rights, compassion and fairness, and also proper care of land, water, and animals – have been around for a long time now.
And that’s why we need to be conservatives There’s really no point in being left-wing or right-wing. No point in slavishly supporting your political party. A genuine conservativism is in looking beyond all the guff, and using those common sense traditional values. The political parties seem to get ever closer together, in the radical new doctrine of ever-increasing profit as the main purpose in life.
A hard job for the Australian government to find credible spruikers for a nuclear waste dump
Nobody wants a nuclear waste dump, By The Canberra Times, April 2 2024, https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8576489/nuclear-waste-disposal-woes-in-australia/
One would think, given the Australian continent is second only to Antarctica in terms of low population density, it would be easier to develop a nuclear waste dump here than almost anywhere else.
COMMENT. Why on Earth would Australia want a nuclear waste dump? Just because it has space?
Unfortunately, due in large part to a series of hubristic decisions by former governments, that is not the case.
It is now more than two decades since plans for a nuclear waste facility at Woomera had to be abandoned. A subsequent proposal to site a national storage facility at Muckaty Station in the Northern Territory fell over 10 years later.
Then, after more than seven years of research and planning, the former Coalition government’s push to use farmland near Kimba in South Australia was derailed last July and August after traditional owners took their case to the Federal Court and won.
The court set the 2021 site declaration aside on the grounds that not only had the traditional owners not been consulted, they had been deliberately excluded from the consultation process.
According to Ian Lowe, emeritus professor of environment and science at Griffith University, the process had been doomed from the start by the government’s heavy-handed approach.
“The ‘decide and defend’ model where a government decides to put radioactive waste somewhere and then attempts to defend it against the community hasn’t worked anywhere,” he said.
Opposition to the proposal, which left Kimba bitterly divided, was fuelled by revelations that even though it had been billed as a “low level” nuclear waste dump, once up and running Kimba would be used to “temporarily” store intermediate-grade material until a suitable “permanent” disposal site could be found.
While millions of Australians have benefited from radioactive medical isotypes created at the former HIFAR reactor and its replacement, the Opal reactor, at Lucas Heights nobody wants the leftover waste in their backyard. And that’s perfectly understandable.
Unfortunately the temporary storage facility at Lucas Heights, which holds some of the 5000 cubic metres of waste Australia has accumulated at about 100 locations over more than six decades, is reportedly running out of space. It apparently won’t be able to accept some classes of material as early as 2027.
COMMENT. Confusion here between the “low level” medical wastes, mainly with short half-lives of radioactivity, stored at various locations across Australia, and the “higher level” long-lasting wastes resulting from the nuclear reactor itself.
Plenty of space at Lucas Heights for continued storage of these more dangerous reactor wastes.
This has put the Albanese government on the spot. As a result it has opted to go on the front foot in terms of damage control by seeking expressions of interest for a public relations team able to manage the “high outrage” national conversation about nuclear waste disposal.
The multi-million dollar question, given Kimba had been costed at $300 million, is what process will be followed in selecting the next site. Will Resources Minister Madeleine King revisit the six sites originally shortlisted almost a decade ago? Or will fresh expressions of interest from interested landowners be sought?
And, most importantly, what consultation process does the government intend to follow? Will it repeat the “decide and defend” mistakes of past governments or will it listen to the experts including Professor Lowe who urge the highest possible level of community engagement?
Given, as he has said, that under the AUKUS agreement Australia is to manage high-level waste from the future nuclear submarine fleet this is going to be a very hard sell. Australia has come a long way since the 1950s when the Menzies government, admittedly at the height of the Cold War, gave Britain carte blanche to test its nuclear weapons in the outback.
Whoever wins the “high outrage” PR tender is going to have a big job ahead of them.
Dutton’s perks for nuclear plan
April 2, 2024, The Australian, Simon Benson; Political Editor
Peter Dutton is poised to release a major incentive package for coal communities to move from coal-fired power stations to nuclear energy, promising higher paying jobs and industry energy subsidies, following a US report that found the coal-to-nuclear transition pumped millions of dollars into regions that adopted them.
The Australian understands the Coalition will release the first major plank of its nuclear energy plan within weeks after identifying six or more potential sites, primarily in Queensland and NSW.
The Liberal leader will address a small business conference on Wednesday to promote the Coalition’s nuclear plan as the only proven technology that emits zero emissions while providing cheap, consistent and clean power as a source of baseload power to firm up renewables.
A report by the US Department of Energy released on Monday confirmed it would look to replace its fleet of coal-fired power plants with nuclear reactors, citing significant economic benefits to the local communities who agreed to the transition………………………………………..
Coalition climate change and energy spokesman Ted O’Brien confirmed that a Coalition package that would incentivise local coal communities would be announced before the May budget.
He said that “social licence” would be key to a future rollout of coal-to-nuclear with gas as a transition baseload energy provider.
Mr Dutton has flagged that the Coalition’s nuclear energy plan would provide incentive packages, including potential subsidised electricity prices for local industries as well as new infrastructure.
A key element of the packages would be transition arrangements for coal plant workers to upgrade to higher-paid jobs in nuclear plants………………..
Former Victoria Liberal Party President Michael Kroger says Peter Dutton has to show why “life will improve” under his government, in order to win the next election………………….
Mr Dutton will tell the Council of Small Business Australia conference that under its current approach, the government couldn’t credibly meet its 2050 net zero emissions target.
“That is why a Coalition government will ramp up domestic gas production to make energy more affordable and reliable and to help transition our economy to new energy systems,” he will say.
“And that is why we want Australia to move towards adopting the latest nuclear power technologies.
“Nuclear is the only proven technology which emits zero emissions, which can firm up renewables, and which provides cheap, consistent and clean power………………………………………….
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/nation/politics/peter-dutton-to-reveal-key-details-of-going-nuclear/news-story/87fc2f81063750adfd93a0c802d7c0e4
Coalition to release nuclear incentive package
Sky News 3 Apr 24
Peter Dutton has flagged higher paying jobs and energy subsidies for coal-fired power stations that move to nuclear energy.
Sky News Australia understands the Opposition Leader could release part of his party’s nuclear energy plan within weeks.
This comes after flagging more potential sites along the East Coast.
He is attending a small business conference in Sydney today to promote the Coalition’s nuclear plan……https://www.skynews.com.au/australia-news/politics/coalition-to-release-nuclear-incentive-package/video/fad99f67779685ace4f51b1e1ffbf58d
Are US, Israel Heading for Divorce?
It’s unclear how much longer Netanyahu can hold on to power in Israel in the face of a torrent of bad news for Israel about declining international support for — and dire economic consequences derived from — its ongoing military operation in Gaza
Scott Ritter, Washington, Apr 1, 2024, Energy Intelligence Group, https://www.energyintel.com/0000018e-9900-d183-abef-9f430f020000
The crisis in Gaza that has been ongoing since Hamas’ Oct. 7 attack on Israel has resulted in a sea change in political opinion on the question of Israeli security prerogatives and Palestinian statehood. While international opinion has decisively shifted to the Palestinian cause, Israel has until recently been ably backstopped by the US, which has wielded its veto at the UN Security Council to shield Israel from any binding consequences. But shifting global priorities, coupled with turbulent domestic political realities, have caused the US stance on Israel to shift, creating the possibility of Israel, for the first time, standing alone in the crosshairs of global condemnation.
On Mar. 25, the 10 non-permanent members of the UN Security Council tabled a draft resolution demanding a ceasefire in Gaza during Ramadan, the immediate release of hostages and humanitarian access. The resolution was the latest in a succession of similar calls from the Security Council seeking an end to the violence that has wracked Gaza and the region since Oct. 7.
Prior to the Mar. 25 draft resolution being tabled, all previous efforts to bring an end to violence in Gaza had failed, with the draft texts either vetoed by the US or, on one occasion, Russia and China. But the latest call for a ceasefire passed muster, receiving 14 “yes” votes, zero “no” votes, and one abstention — from the US.
The Security Council resolution has no enforcement clause, making it little more than a formal notice of disapproval by the UN of Israeli actions. The administration of President Joe Biden made it clear that it continued to blame Hamas over Israel when it comes to the root cause of the current crisis, and that the US supported the overall Israeli objective of destroying Hamas both militarily and politically. Circumstances at home and abroad, however, raise questions about the sustainability of this policy position.
Changing Times
The Israeli government headed by Benjamin Netanyahu is the most conservative in its history, the byproduct of a desperate politician (Netanyahu) seeking to bury his personal legal problems under the weight of governing what has, for several election cycles, become an increasingly ungovernable state. To accomplish this, Netanyahu made common cause with Israel’s extreme right-wing political element, crafting a coalition that not only rejected the notion of a peaceful resolution of the Palestinian question but also embraced the idea of a greater Israel that would do away with the idea of a Palestinian state in general.
Israel was able to capitalize on the general apathy of the global collective to the plight of the Palestinian people, allowing the dream of a viable Palestinian state to be supplanted by a road map toward regional economic connectivity and prosperity defined by the normalization of relations between Israel and the Arab world. This generated schemes such as the India-Middle East Economic Corridor (Imec), an ambitious sea-rail collaboration designed to link India with Europe via the Gulf Arab states, Jordan and Israel.
The Hamas attack of Oct. 7 and Israel’s heavy-handed response changed all that. Imec is dead in the water, alongside any notion of normalized relations with Arab countries until the question of Palestinian statehood is resolved. The resilience of Hamas militarily and politically has compelled Israel to undertake military action that has resulted in the deaths in Gaza of over 30,000 civilians (some 19,000 of whom are children). This has prompted allegations of genocide presented to the International Court of Justice. Cities across the world are full of protesters condemning Israel and praising the cause of a free and independent Palestine. More and more US cities are hosting such actions.
The tidal wave of public sentiment has moved the needle of government policy in many nations. The US State Department has put the White House on notice that the US is in danger of losing the support of the Global South at a time when US policy objectives are centered on slowing the pace of multipolarity and preserving the rules-based international order that serves as the centerpiece of US foreign and national security policy. The US abstention at the Security Council reflected a new reality, where the US must weigh its own foreign policy objectives against the established principle of unquestioned support for Israel.
Local Politics
The US and Israel could attempt to ride out the storm of international protest, waiting for a world that had long been indifferent to the plight of the Palestinian people to lose interest again and shift its attention to a new crisis — in a world fully capable of generating one at a moment’s notice.
But as Tip O’Neill, a former Speaker of the US House of Representatives, once quipped, “all politics is local,” and the Gaza crisis is no exception. The UN abstention was an attempt at damage control which, under normal circumstances, might have allayed the concerns of people more interested in words over action. But 2024 is a US presidential election year, with incumbent Joe Biden set to face former President Donald Trump in a race that is expected to be every bit as heated — or more — than the tumultuous 2020 election.
The 2020 election, like the 2016 one before it, was won on the margins, in so-called “battleground states” where the difference between winning and losing came down to a few thousand votes derived from distinct demographics. One such demographic is the Muslim-American community, which is overwhelmingly sympathetic to the Palestinian cause.
The UN abstention was an effort to dampen the negative feelings of this community. But void of any meaningful follow-on action by the Biden administration to enforce the will of the Security Council, this won’t be enough to secure this demographic come election time. As a result, the US political theater is witnessing previously unimaginable scenes, such as the ardently pro-Israeli Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer calling for the removal of Netanyahu or Biden threatening to withhold military aid, something previously unimaginable in US politics, should Israel not yield to the demand for a ceasefire.
It’s unclear how much longer Netanyahu can hold on to power in Israel in the face of a torrent of bad news for Israel about declining international support for — and dire economic consequences derived from — its ongoing military operation in Gaza. Netanyahu, who failed in his bid to cloak himself with judicial immunity, faces not just political defeat but also personal ruin should he be removed from office.
Netanyahu’s political viability is linked to his ability to sustain the current conflict in the hope that he can pull a miraculous victory over Hamas out of the hat. Netanyahu, however, is running into a brick wall of US political opposition where the presidential political imperative is starting to trump loyalty to Israel. No Israeli prime minister has survived without US political support. And no US presidential candidate has prevailed in an election where the cause of Israel was forsaken. The question now is who will blink first, Netanyahu or Biden — the answer to which remains very much up in the air.
Killing Humanitarians: Israel’s War on Aid Workers in Gaza
April 3, 2024, by: Dr Binoy Kampmark, https://theaimn.com/killing-humanitarians-israels-war-on-aid-workers-in-gaza/
Eulogies should rarely be taken at face value. Plaster saints take the place of complex individuals; faults transmute into golden virtues. But there was little in the way of fault regarding Lalzawmi “Zomi” Frankcom’s messianic purpose, whose tireless work for the charity, World Central Kitchen (WCK) in northern Gaza had not gone unnoticed. Sadly, the Australian national, along with six other members of WCK, were noticed by the Israeli Defense Forces (IDF) around midnight of April 1 and 2 and targeted in a strike that killed all of them.
Other members of the slain crew included Polish citizen Damian Sobol, three British nationals whose names are yet to be released, a US-Canadian dual citizen, and the driver and translator Saif Abu Taha.
The charity workers had been unloading food supplies from Cyprus that had been sent via sea in a designated “deconflicted” area. All three vehicles, two armoured and one “soft skin”, sported the WCK logo. Even more galling for the charity was the fact that coordinating efforts between WCK and the IDF had taken place as it left the Deir al-Balah warehouse, where the individuals had been responsible for uploading over 100 tonnes of humanitarian food aid.
On April 2, Haaretz reported that three missiles had been fired in rapid succession at the convoy by a Hermes 450 UAV on direction of a unit guarding the aid transport route. The troops in question claimed to have spotted what they thought was an armed figure riding a truck that had entered one of the aid storage areas with three WCK vehicles. The armed figure, presumed to be a Hamas militant, never left the warehouse in the company of the vehicles.
In a public relations war Israel is increasingly losing, various statements of variable quality and sincerity could only confirm that fact. IDF spokesman Rear Adm. Daniel Hagari stated that he had spoken to WCK founder Chef José Andrés “and expressed the deepest condolences of the Israel Defense Forces to the families and the entire World Central Kitchen family.”
Hagari went on to add the IDF’s expression of “sincere sorrow to our allied nations who have been doing and continue to do so much to assist those in need.” This was a bit rich given the programmatic efforts of the IDF and Israeli officials to stifle and strangulate the provision of aid into the Gaza Strip, from the logistical side of keeping land crossings closed and delaying access to existing ones, to aggressive efforts to defund the United Nations Relief and Works Agency (UNRWA).
As for the operation itself, Hagari announced that “the highest levels” of military officialdom had been “reviewing the incident” to comprehend the circumstances that led to the deaths. “We will get to the bottom of this and we will share our findings transparently.” Again exalting the prowess of his organisation in investigating such matters, he promised that the army’s General Staff Fact-Finding Assessment Mechanism – yet another independent body designed to give the impression of thoroughness and impartiality – would look into this “serious incident” to “reduce the risk of such an event from occurring again.”
Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu gave a better barometric reading of the mood, and it was certainly not one of grieving or feeling aggrieved. The killings had merely been “a tragic instance of our forces unintentionally harming innocent people in the Gaza Strip. It happens in war.” Israel would “investigate it” and had been “in contact with the governments and we will do everything we can so that it doesn’t happen again.”
This is mightily optimistic given the butcher’s toll of 173 aid workers from UNRWA alone, with 196 humanitarians said to have died as of March 20, 2024 since October 7 last year. Aid workers have been killed in IDF strikes despite the regular provision of coordinates on their locations. Be it through reckless indifference, conscious intent, or a lack of competence, the morgues continue to be filled with humanitarian workers.
A bristling CEO of WCK, Erin Gore, proved blunter about the implications of the strike. “This is not only an attack against WCK, this is an attack on humanitarian organisations showing up in the most dire of situations where food is being used as a weapon of war.”
Project HOPE’s Executive Vice President, Chris Skopec, drew attention to the obvious, yet repeatedly neglected fact in the Gaza conflict that aid workers are protected by international humanitarian law. Gaza had become “one of the most dangerous places in the world to be a humanitarian worker. This is unacceptable and demands accountability through the International Criminal Court.”
Responsibility for the killings is unlikely to translate into accountability, let alone any public outing of the individuals involved. This is not to say that such exercises are impossible, even with Israel not being a member of the International Criminal Court. The pageantry of guilt can still be pursued.
When Malaysian Airlines MH17 was downed over Ukraine in July 2014 by a Buk missile, killing all 298 on board, international efforts of terrier-like ferocity were initiated against those responsible for the deadly feat. The MH17 Joint Investigation Team (JIT), comprising the Netherlands, Australia, Malaysia, Belgium and Ukraine, identified the missile as having come from the 53rd Anti-Aircraft Missile Brigade of the Russian armed forces from Kursk. Four suspects were identified. Of the four, one was acquitted, with the district Court of The Hague handing down three life sentences in November 2022 along with an order to pay over €16 million in compensation to the victims. The individuals remain at large, and the Kremlin largely unmoved, but the point was made.
In this case, any hope for seeking an external accounting for the event is likely to be kept in-house. Excuses of error and misidentification are already filling press releases and conferences. Doing so will enable the IDF to continue its program of quashing the Palestinian cause while pursuing an undisclosed war against those it considers, publicly or otherwise, to be its ameliorating collaborators. With an announcement by various humanitarian groups, including WCK, Anera and Project Hope, that their operations will be suspended following the killings, starvation, as a policy in Gaza, can receive its official blessing.
TODAY. Ethics, intelligence, literature, and nuclear reprocessing
What on Earth has literature got to do with nuclear power? Well, nothing, really, I suppose.
And yet…….
An article today, about nuclear reprocessing, brought to mind the dilemma for Shakespeare’s Macbeth as he continues on the path to his doom.
Macbeth decides to go on, though he knows it is hopeless:
“I am in blood
Stepp’d in so far that, should I wade no more,
Returning were as tedious as go o’er“
He decides to just keep doing the same thing, rather than to stop, and think about alternatives:
” Strange things I have in head, that will to hand; Which must be acted ere they may be scann’d.”
“They have invested too much money in the program to give up on it halfway“
That’s the reason why the Japanese government will continue with this $97 billion massive white elephant of the Rokkasho nuclear reprocessing plant.
Even if the reprocessing plant is completed, it can treat only 800 tons of spent nuclear fuel annually at full capacity, compared with 19,250 tons of spent fuel stored nationwide.
Calls have grown over the years to abandon the nuclear fuel cycle project. – The Asahi Shimbun.
What has intelligence got to do with it? Well, meaning common sense, (rather than spying) – it would be intelligent to stop this futile project, and take some different actions, such as stopping making this toxic trash.
Finally – what has ethics got to do with this?
Well, everything. The Japanese government won’t face up to the truth. Neither will world leaders. It’s all too hard – leave it to our great-grandchildren to deal with the radioactive trash, and all the environmental, social, and weapons-and war-dangers of this noxious industry.
‘Poison portal’: US and UK could send nuclear waste to Australia under Aukus, inquiry told
Labor describes claims as ‘fear-mongering’ and says government would not accept waste from other nations.
Tory Shepherd, Tue 2 Apr 2024, https://www.theguardian.com/world/2024/apr/02/poison-portal-us-and-uk-could-send-nuclear-waste-to-australia-under-aukus-inquiry-told
Australia could become a “poison portal” for international radioactive waste under the Aukus deal, a parliamentary inquiry into nuclear safety legislation has heard.
New laws to establish a safety framework for Australia’s planned nuclear-powered submarines could also allow the US and UK to send waste here, while both of those countries are struggling to deal with their own waste, as no long-term, high-level waste facilities have been created.
The government introduced the Australian naval nuclear power safety bill in November last year. If passed, it will establish a nuclear safety watchdog, allow for naval nuclear propulsion facilities to be created, including for storing or disposing of radioactive waste from Aukus submarines. A second bill to enable the regulator to issue licenses was introduced at the same time.
Both have been referred to a Senate inquiry, which is due to report on 26 April.
Dave Sweeney, the Australian Conservation Foundation’s nuclear free campaigner, said the issue of waste disposal was “highly disturbing” and that the Aukus partners could see Australia as a “a little bit of a radioactive terra nullius”.
“Especially when it’s viewed in the context of the contested and still unresolved issue of domestic intermediate-level waste management, the clear failure of our Aukus partners to manage their own naval waste, the potential for this bill to be a poison portal to international waste and the failure of defence to effectively address existing waste streams, most noticeably PFAS,” he said.
The defence minister, Richard Marles, has previously accused the Greens of “fearmongering” when they raised similar concerns, saying the government would not accept waste from the other nations.
However, the legislation allows for the creation of facilities for “managing, storing or disposing of radioactive waste from an Aukus submarine”, and defines an Aukus submarine as either an Australian or a UK/US submarine, and “includes such a submarine that is not complete (for example, because it is being constructed or disposed of)”.
The Greens defence spokesperson, David Shoebridge, said HMS Dreadnought, one of the UK’s first nuclear submarines, had been “rusting away” since being decommissioned in 1980.
“You can go on Google Maps and look at them rusting away in real time, can’t you?” Shoebridge asked Australian Radiation Protection and Nuclear Safety Agency (Arpansa) chief regulatory officer, James Scott.
“Yes. There is no disposal pathway yet,” Scott said, adding he was “aware of the UK plans to establish a deep geological repository somewhere in the 2050s to 2060s”.
“There’s no exact date,” he said.
“The UK is pursuing a disposal pathway, and Australia will need to do the same. We are fully aware of this; we are engaging with our own radioactive waste agency, ARWA, on this, and it’s something that needs to be dealt with now, not later.”
The Dreadnought’s nuclear fuel has been removed to be stored safely. This has happened with some but not all of the submarines, but there is still no permanent disposal facility. The US also removes nuclear fuel for temporary storage.
The $97 billion mess – spent nuclear fuel reprocessing in Japan
The reprocessing plant was initially scheduled for completion in 1997.
Including expenditures for the future decommissioning of the plant, the total budget has reached 14.7 trillion yen. (close to $97 billion)
Even if the reprocessing plant is completed, it can treat only 800 tons of spent nuclear fuel annually at full capacity, compared with 19,250 tons of spent fuel stored nationwide.
“They have invested too much money in the program to give up on it halfway,“
Another delay feared at nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in Aomori
By AKI FUKUYAMA/ Staff Writer, April 1, 2024, https://www.asahi.com/ajw/articles/15183716
Long-flustered nuclear fuel cycle officials fear there could be another delay in the project.
In a surprise to hardly anyone, the “hopeful outlook” for completion in June of a spent fuel reprocessing plant, a key component in Japan’s nuclear fuel cycle project, was pushed back in late January.
The facility is supposed to extract plutonium and uranium from used nuclear fuel. The recycled fuel can then be used to create mixed-oxide (MOX) fuel, which can run certain nuclear reactors.
But the incompletion of the plant has left Japan with 19,000 tons of spent nuclear fuel with nowhere to go.
The nuclear waste stockpile will only grow, as the administration of Prime Minister Fumio Kishida is turning to nuclear energy to cut Japan’s greenhouse gas emissions and reduce the country’s dependence on increasingly expensive fossil fuels.
Under the plan, 25 to 28 reactors will be running by 2030, more than double the current figure. Tokyo Electric Power Co. is seeking to restart reactors at its Kashiwazaki-Kariwa nuclear power plant in Niigata Prefecture this year.
31 YEARS AND COUNTING
A sign reading “village of energy” stands near Japan Nuclear Fuel Ltd.’s nuclear fuel reprocessing plant in Rokkasho, Aomori Prefecture.
The site, which is 159 times the size of Tokyo Dome, is lined with white buildings with no windows.
Construction started 31 years ago. It was still being built in late November last year, when it was shown to reporters.
The reprocessing plant is located on the Shimokita Peninsula at the northern tip of the main Honshu island.
Crops in the area are often damaged by cold humid winds during summer, so Rokkasho village accepted the plant in 1985 for local revitalization in place of agriculture.
Employees of privately-run Japan Nuclear Fuel, which is affiliated with nine major power companies, and other industry-related personnel account for more than 10 percent of Rokkasho’s population.
After repeated readjustments to the schedule, Naohiro Masuda, president of Japan Nuclear Fuel, said in December 2022 that the plant’s completion should come as early as possible during the first half of fiscal 2024, which is April to September 2024. More specifically, he pointed to “around June 2024.”
But at a news conference on Jan. 31 this year, Masuda said it is “inappropriate to keep saying the plant will be completed in June.”
The reprocessing plant was initially scheduled for completion in 1997.
Many insiders at the plant say it will be “quite difficult” to complete the work within the first half of fiscal 2024.
If officially decided, it will be the 27th postponement of the completion.
PROLONGED SCREENING, ACCIDENTS
One of the reasons for the delay of the completion is prolonged screenings by the Nuclear Regulation Authority.
Flaws were identified one after another in the company’s documents submitted to the nuclear watchdog, and around 400 Japan Nuclear Fuel employees are working on the papers within a gymnasium at the plant site.
Mechanical problems have also hampered progress. In 2022, for example, a system to cool high-level radioactive liquid waste broke down.
Masuda visited industry minister Ken Saito on Jan. 19 to report on the situation at the plant.
Saito told Masuda about the construction, “I expect you to forge ahead at full tilt.”
Masuda stressed his company “is fully devoted to finishing construction as soon as possible,” but said safety “screening is taking so much time because we have myriad devices.”
The cost to build the reprocessing plant, including new safety measures, has ballooned to 3.1 trillion yen ($20.57 billion), compared with the initial estimate of 760 billion yen.
Including expenditures for the future decommissioning of the plant, the total budget has reached 14.7 trillion yen. (close to $97 billion)
Even if the reprocessing plant is completed, it can treat only 800 tons of spent nuclear fuel annually at full capacity, compared with 19,250 tons of spent fuel stored nationwide.
Kyushu Electric Power Co. said in January that it would tentatively suspend pluthermal power generation at the No. 3 reactor of its Genkai nuclear power plant in Saga Prefecture. The reactor uses MOX fuel.
Kyushu Electric commissioned a French company to handle used fuel, but it recently ran out of stocks of MOX fuel.
Kyushu Electric has a stockpile of plutonium in Britain, but it cannot take advantage of it because a local MOX production plant shut down.
HUGE INVESTMENT
Calls have grown over the years to abandon the nuclear fuel cycle project.
Many insiders of leading power companies doubt whether the reprocessing plant “will really be completed” at some point.
But the government has maintained the nuclear fuel cycle policy, despite the huge amounts of time and funds poured into it.
“The policy is retained just because it is driven by the state,” a utility executive said.
Hajime Matsukubo, secretary-general of nonprofit organization Citizens’ Nuclear Information Center, said the government’s huge investment explains why the fuel cycle program has yet to be abandoned.
“They have invested too much money in the program to give up on it halfway,” Matsukubo said.
Xi Jinping’s Thoughts on China’s Nuclear Weapons
Xi noted the increased readiness those new silos might provide was necessary to prepare to respond to foreign military intervention. That sounds more defensive than aggressive. ……………….. China’s long-standing commitment not to use nuclear weapons first at any time or under any circumstances.
UCS is concerned about the future direction of Chinese nuclear weapons policy. We agree with Gen. Cotton that “the PRC’s long-term nuclear strategy and requirements remain unclear.” We urge influential US voices, including the media, to refrain from encouraging the public, and especially US decision-makers, to jump to conclusions the available evidence does not support. We also urge the Biden administration, and the US Congress, to wait until they have a clearer understanding of Chinese nuclear thinking before making precipitous decisions about the future of the US nuclear arsenal.
April 1, 2024, Gregory Kulacki, China Project Manager, This blog was co-authored with UCS China analyst Robert Rust. https://blog.ucsusa.org/gregory-kulacki/xi-jinpings-thoughts-on-chinas-nuclear-weapons/
Last month UCS published a critique of a New York Times article that claimed Chinese military strategists, “are looking to nuclear weapons as not only a defensive shield, but as a potential sword — to intimidate and subjugate adversaries.” We examined the evidence and found it did not support that claim.
However, there was one piece of evidence in the article we could not examine; a speech by Chinese leader Xi Jinping to China’s Second Artillery in December of 2012. It operates China’s conventional and nuclear missiles and was renamed the People’s Liberation Army Rocket Force in 2016. We’ve since obtained a copy of that speech and found it doesn’t support the New York Times claim either. There is no language in Xi’s speech that suggests he thinks about the purpose of China’s nuclear arsenal differently than his predecessors.
We posted the original Chinese text with an English translation. It is classified as an “internal publication” that should be “handled with care.” It was printed and distributed to all Chinese military officers at the regimental level and above by the General Political Department of the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) in February 2014.
Why is this speech worth reading?
UCS first learned about the speech ten years ago when a Chinese colleague drew our attention to language in a commentary on the speech by generals Wei Fenghe and Zhang Haiyang, the commander and party secretary of the Second Artillery at the time. Our colleague noticed it contained new language describing the alert level of Chinese missiles. He thought the two officers might be trying to influence Xi’s thinking. UCS took note of that the new language in our 2016 report on a possible change in China’s nuclear posture.
That report concluded China may shift some of its nuclear forces to what is called a “launch on warning” or “launch under attack” alert status that would give Chinese leaders the option to launch those nuclear missiles quickly before they could be destroyed by an incoming attack. Traditionally, China kept its nuclear missile force off-alert, and the Second Artillery trained to launch a retaliatory nuclear strike only after being struck first. Currently, China is believed to keep most of its nuclear warheads in storage, separated from the missiles that carry them, to prevent an accidental or unauthorized launch.
Although China may still be moving to a launch on warning posture, the full text of Xi’s December 2012 speech, and the phrase it contains related to alert levels, reveals Xi did not discuss nuclear strategy or announce an intention to put Chinese nuclear forces on alert. He addresses more general concerns about the combat readiness, ideological orientation, and human qualities of Chinese military officers. Every Chinese head of state since 1842, when the United Kingdom defeated Imperial China in the Opium War, shared the same concerns. Xi did not say anything new, specific, or surprising. There is no language in his speech that justifies the suggestion he communicated aggressive new nuclear ambitions that day.
What did Xi say?
Continue readingUK Court Gives Biden Chance to Dodge Assange Appeal by “Assuring” His Rights
The WikiLeaks publisher could be extradited if the US gives “satisfactory assurances” of rights and no death penalty.
By Marjorie Cohn , TRUTHOUT 29 Mar 24, https://truthout.org/articles/uk-gives-biden-opportunity-to-dodge-assange-appeal-by-assuring-his-rights/
WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange is closer than ever to being extradited to the United States for trial on 17 counts under the Espionage Act and one count of conspiracy to commit computer intrusion over WikiLeaks’s 2010-2011 revelation of evidence of U.S. war crimes in Iraq, Afghanistan and Guantánamo Bay. He faces 175 years in prison.
“This is a signal to all of you that if you expose the interests that are driving war they will come after you, they will put you in prison and they will try to kill you,” said Stella Assange, Julian’s wife, of his prosecution.
On March 26, the United Kingdom Divisional Court denied Assange the opportunity to make most of his appellate arguments. But the two-judge panel of Justice Jeremy Johnson and Dame Victoria Sharp left open the possibility that Assange could appeal on three grounds. They found that Assange “has a real prospect of success” on the following issues: If extradited to the U.S., he will be denied the right to freedom of expression, will suffer discrimination because he’s not a U.S. citizen and could be sentenced to death.
Rather than simply allowing Assange to argue the three issues on appeal, however, the panel gave the Biden administration an out. If the U.S. provides the court with “satisfactory assurances” that Assange won’t be denied any of these rights, his extradition to the U.S. can proceed without an appeals hearing.
Stella Assange called the decision “astounding,” adding, “The court’s recognized that Julian has been exposed to flagrant denial of his freedom of expression rights, that he is being discriminated against on the basis of his nationality and that he remains exposed to the death penalty.”
At an earlier stage in this case, the U.S. gave the U.K. High Court “assurances” that Assange would be treated humanely if extradited. That caused the court to reverse the magistrate judge’s denial of extradition (which was based on the likelihood of suicide if Assange is held in harsh conditions of confinement in the U.S.). The High Court accepted those assurances at face value in spite of the U.S.’s history of reneging on similar assurances.
The current ruling, however, requires U.S. assurances to be “satisfactory” and the defense will have an opportunity to challenge them at a hearing.
“Mr. Assange will not, therefore, be extradited immediately,” the panel wrote, implying that if they had denied his appeal outright, the U.K. authorities would put him on a plane to the U.S. forthwith. They gave the U.S. three weeks to come forward with satisfactory assurances.
If the U.S. fails to provide any assurances, Assange will be granted a hearing on the three grounds. If the U.S. does give assurances, a hearing to decide whether they are satisfactory will occur on May 20.
“The Biden administration should not offer assurances. They should drop this shameful case that should never have been brought,” Stella Assange said.
These are the grounds the High Court will review if the U.S. fails to provide “satisfactory assurances”:
1. Extradition Would Violate Freedom of Expression Guaranteed by Article 10 of European Convention on Human Rights
Assange would argue at trial that his actions were protected by the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. “He contends that if he is given First Amendment rights, the prosecution will be stopped. The First Amendment is therefore of central importance to his defence,” the panel concluded.
The First Amendment provides “strong protection” to freedom of expression, similar to that provided by Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, the panel noted. Article 10 (1) of the convention says, “Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart information and ideas without interference by public authority and regardless of frontiers.”
Gordon Kromberg, assistant U.S. attorney in the Eastern District of Virginia, where Assange’s trial would be held, said the prosecution might argue at trial that “foreign nationals are not entitled to protections under the First Amendment,” the panel noted. In 2017, then-CIA Director Mike Pompeo said that Assange “has no First Amendment freedoms” because “he is not a U.S. citizen.”
In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in the 2020 case of Agency for International Development v. Alliance for Open Society International that “it is long settled as a matter of American constitutional law that foreign citizens outside United States territory do not possess rights under the US Constitution.”
The panel wrote that if Assange “is not permitted to rely on the First Amendment, then it is arguable that his extradition would be incompatible with article 10 of the Convention.”
But even if the U.S. Department of Justice prosecutors give “satisfactory assurances” that Assange’s First Amendment rights would be protected, that is no guarantee. Prosecutors are part of the executive branch, which cannot bind the judicial branch due to the constitutional doctrine of separation of powers.
“The ruling reveals that the High Court does not understand the American system of government,” Stephen Rohde, who practiced First Amendment law for almost 50 years and writes extensively about the Assange case, told Truthout. “It only has before it the executive branch of the U.S. government. Whatever ‘satisfactory assurances’ the Department of Justice may give the High Court, they are not binding on the judicial branch.”
Moreover, Rohde said, “The High Court is obligated to uphold Assange’s rights to ‘freedom of expression’ under Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights, which protects Assange even if the U.S. courts refuse to do so. The only way to do that is to deny extradition.”
2. The U.K. Extradition Act Forbids Discrimination Based on Nationality
Julian Assange is an Australian citizen who would be tried in the U.S. if the Biden administration’s pursuit of extradition is successful.
Section 81(b) of the U.K. Extradition Act says that extradition is barred for an individual who “might be prejudiced at his trial or punished, detained or restricted in his personal liberty by reason of his … nationality.”
Due to the centrality of the First Amendment to Assange’s defense, the panel noted, “If he is not permitted to rely on the First Amendment because of his status as a foreign national, he will thereby be prejudiced (potentially very greatly prejudiced) by reason of his nationality.”
3. Extradition Is Barred by Inadequate Death Penalty Protection Required by the Extradition Act
Section 94 of the U.K. Extradition Act says, “The Secretary of State must not order a person’s extradition … if he could be, will be or has been sentenced to death for the offence” in the receiving state. That limitation does not apply if a written “assurance” that is “adequate” says “that a sentence of death- (a) will not be imposed, or (b) will not be carried out (if imposed).”
None of the charges that Assange is currently facing carry the death penalty. But if extradited to the U.S., he could be charged with aiding and abetting treason or espionage, both of which are capital offenses.
Ben Watson KC, secretary of state for the Home Department, admitted that:
a.) The facts alleged against [Assange] could sustain a charge of aiding or abetting treason, or espionage.
b.) If [Assange] is extradited, there is nothing to prevent a charge of aiding or abetting treason, or a charge of espionage, from being added to the indictment.
c.) The death penalty is available on conviction for aiding or abetting treason, or espionage.
d.) There are no arrangements in place to prevent the imposition of the death penalty.
e.) The existing assurance does not explicitly prevent the imposition of the death.
The panel noted that when former President Donald Trump was asked about WikiLeaks publishing the leaked documents, he said, “I think it was disgraceful…. I think there should be like a death penalty or something.” If Trump is reelected, he may seek to ensure that his Justice Department adds capital charges to the indictment.
In concluding that Assange could raise this issue on appeal subject to “satisfactory assurances,” the panel cited “the potential, on the facts, for capital charges to be laid; the calls for the imposition of the death penalty by leading politicians and other public figures; the fact that the Treaty does not preclude extradition for death penalty charges, and the fact that the existing assurance does not explicitly cover the death penalty.”
Appeal Grounds Denied by Panel
Remaining grounds for appeal that Assange requested were denied by the panel. They include prosecution for a political offense, prosecution based on political opinion; violation of right to a fair trial; violation of right to life; and violation of right to be free from torture and inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment. In addition, since no publisher has ever been prosecuted under the Espionage Act for publishing government secrets, Assange could not have known it was a crime.
The panel also ruled that Assange could not introduce new evidence adduced after the magistrate judge’s ruling. This includes a Yahoo News report detailing the CIA’s plan to kidnap and kill Assange when he was living under a grant of asylum in the Ecuadorian Embassy in London.
If the U.S. offers “satisfactory assurances” and extradition is ordered, Assange could appeal to the European Court of Human Rights and raise these additional issues as well.
Meanwhile, there is a possibility that instead of filing “assurances,” the Biden administration will opt to avoid the political pitfalls of Assange’s extradition to the U.S. and offer a plea bargain to end the case.
Marjorie Cohn is professor emerita at Thomas Jefferson School of Law, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, and a member of the national advisory boards of Assange Defense and Veterans For Peace, and the bureau of the International Association of Democratic Lawyers. She is founding dean of the People’s Academy of International Law and the U.S. representative to the continental advisory council of the Association of American Jurists. Her books include Drones and Targeted Killing: Legal, Moral and Geopolitical Issues.
Senior Western Australia Liberal calls for Australia to become nuclear weapons power
Brisbane Times, Hamish Hastie, March 11, 2024
A two-time WA Liberal candidate and party office bearer says Australia should have nuclear weapons.
Jim Seth made the argument at a Liberal Party state council meeting this month, saying nuclear weapons had made North Korea untouchable and suggested Australia should follow suit.
At the party’s March 2 meeting, details of which were leaked to WAtoday, Seth asked the question-and-answer panel:
“North Korea, a small country, has got nuclear fire, right? Nobody can do a mimicry [sic] on them, no neighbour can touch them, why we as first world country not nuclear react?”
Seth, who was a WA Liberals candidate for Bassendean in 2017 and for Morley in 2021 and is now the marketing committee chair and state executive member, furthered his point in a follow-up question about the Australian Navy’s capabilities to counter drone attacks…………………..
Seth claimed $90 million was being paid every day to Canberra public servants to create federal policies and suggested this money could be better spent on making Australia a nuclear power.
“We could have spent that money into making Australia a nuclear power, so nobody can come and do mimicry [sic] on us,” he said………………………….
WAtoday contacted Seth to clarify whether he was talking about nuclear energy or weapons, and he said “as a patriotic Australian” he believed Australia should have nuclear weapons.
He did not respond to follow-up requests for comment.
Australia has since 1970 been a signatory to the United Nations Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, which binds the country to an agreement not to acquire nuclear weapons.
According to the Department of Foreign Trade and Affairs Australia has been one of the treaty’s strongest supporters and was a key player in ensuring the treaty was extended indefinitely in 1995.
Seth’s comments alarmed Nuclear Free WA co-convener Mia Pepper who said nuclear weapons would make Australia a target, not safer.
“Nuclear weapons have no strategic utility and would not enhance Australia’s defence or security,” she said.
“In a time of growing conflict and uncertainty, Australia should be proliferating peace and diplomacy, not fuelling nuclear tensions and threat.”………………… https://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/politics/western-australia/senior-wa-liberal-calls-for-australia-to-become-nuclear-weapons-power-20240308-p5fazr.html?ref=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_source=rss_feed
The UK and US could send nuclear waste to Australia under our AUKUS deal
https://www.crikey.com.au/2024/04/02/misbehaving-mps-pay-aukus-nuclear-waste/
The UK and US could send nuclear waste to Australia under our AUKUS deal, the Australian Conservation Foundation’s Dave Sweeney told a parliamentary inquiry.
It’s exploring Labor’s draft Australian Naval Nuclear Power Safety Bill, as Guardian Australia reports, which proposed facilities that could store or dispose of radioactive waste from AUKUS submarines — defined as either an Australian or a UK/US one, the Defence Department’s domestic nuclear policy branch assistant director general Kim Moy confirmed.
Basically, we’d be in prime position to become a poison portal, Sweeney claimed, though Defence Minister Richard Marles has before vowed it won’t happen. In any case, one expert told the inquiry we need a plan to store the nuclear waste from the subs for as long as 100,000 years — and so far, no-one in AUKUS has quite worked it out.
‘Like a radioactive cloud’: elegance and horror combine in powerful Yhonnie Scarce exhibition
Australia’s forgotten nuclear history and its dehumanisation of Aboriginal people come together in First Nations glass artist’s fiercely intellectual work.
Guardian, by Rosamund Brennan, 2 Apr 24
Yhonnie Scarce grew up in the grim aftermath of nuclear weapons testing in South Australia in the 50s and 60s, not far from her birthplace of Woomera. From the tender age of ten, she heard stories from elders about a cataclysmic roar, the sky turning red and a poisonous black mist hovering over the desert, like an apparition.
Born in 1973, the Kothakha and Nukunu glass artist has spent much of her career researching the British government’s testing of nuclear weapons in Maralinga and Emu Field, which she says “lit a fire in my heart that hasn’t been extinguished”.
The blasts wreaked havoc on generations of Aboriginal people, as well as military personnel and non-Aboriginal civilians – sending radioactive clouds thousands of kilometres, causing burns, blindness, birth defects and premature death.
When the toxic plumes reached Ceduna, where Scarce’s family lived, radioactive slag rained down from the sky, singeing their skin. Their concerns about the burns were rebuffed by doctors, who spuriously claimed there was a measles outbreak. But today, according to Scarce, cancer is prevalent in the town.
“I call this a mass genocide,” Scarce says. “I don’t know if we’ll ever find out how many Aboriginal people died over that 10-year period. But I can imagine it’s thousands.”………………………………………………………………………………………………..
The series is revelatory of Scarce’s practice: at once fiercely intellectual, deeply felt and elegant in its materiality. As a glass-blower, Scarce quite literally breathes life into her work, animating its delicate, molten surface, giving form to invisible pain and loss.
Glass holds special significance for Scarce: crafted from silica, or sand, it emerges from the very essence of the landscape. As Australia’s only professional Indigenous glass-blower, she veered away from working with traditional forms like decorative vases or bowls, instead drawing from what she calls the “bush supermarket”: depicting yams, plums and bush bananas to convey the history of her people.
Conceived by Wardandi and Badimaya curator Clothilde Bullen, the career-spanning exhibition at AGWA also features works which examine the dehumanisation and exploitation of Aboriginal people through displacement, indentured labour and institutionalised racism. One such work is In The Dead House, which features glass bush bananas laid out on a mortuary trolley, their bodies split wide open.
……………………………………………………………………………………………… In a seemingly fated moment, when those monstrous atomic bombs exploded at Maralinga almost 70 years ago, the red desert sand melted into thousands of green shards of glass that still litter the site today. Across Scarce’s 20-year career, it’s as if she’s been slowly collecting the disaster’s shattered remains and, piece by piece, crystallising a dark, hidden chapter of Australia’s history. Like a radioactive cloud, her astonishing body of work engulfs you in its sheer power and potency.
https://www.theguardian.com/artanddesign/2024/apr/02/yhonnie-scarce-light-of-day-art-gallery-western-australia
- Yhonnie Scarce: Light of Day is showing at the Art Gallery of Western Australia until 19 May 2024
UK govt lawyers conclude Israel in breach of humanitarian law – media
A view of damaged buildings at Maghazi refugee camp after Israeli attack in Deir al-Balah, Gaza on March 29, 2024.
Sun, 31 Mar 2024, https://www.sott.net/article/490269-UK-govt-lawyers-conclude-Israel-in-breach-of-humanitarian-law-media
British authorities, however, have apparently opted to keep the findings out of the public domain.
Lawyers for the UK government have established Israel has been breaking humanitarian law amid its ongoing conflict in Gaza with the Palestinian militant group Hamas, a senior Tory is claiming, according to leaked audio revealed by the Observer newspaper on Saturday.
Chair of the Foreign Affairs Select Committee, Alicia Kearns, made the remarks earlier this month during a Conservative Party fundraising event. “The Foreign Office has received official legal advice that Israel has broken international humanitarian law but the government has not announced it,” Kearns, a former official with the Foreign Office and Ministry of Defence, who has been pressing the government on the matter, said during the event.
The legal experts’ assessment effectively makes the UK complicit in the Israeli military’s violations, and defense cooperation should have been severed by London immediately after they produced their evaluation of the situation in Gaza.
“They have not said it, they haven’t stopped arms exports. They have done a few very small sanctions on Israeli settlers and everyone internationally agrees that settlers are illegal, that they shouldn’t be doing what they’re doing, and the ways in which they have continued and the money that’s been put in,” Kearns stated.
During the event, Kearns insisted that she, like the UK Foreign Secretary James Cameron, strongly believes in Israel’s right to “self defense,” noting however that there were legal boundaries for exercising it.
“The right to self defense has a limit in law. It is not limitless,” she explained, warning that Israel’s approach to handling the escalation may end up putting its own – and Britain’s – long-term security at risk.
The authenticity of the recordings obtained by the Observer appears beyond question, given that Kearns has been rather vocal about her position on the matter. On Saturday, she produced similar remarks as well, once again urging the government to make public its legal assessment of the Israeli actions.
“I remain convinced the government has completed its updated assessment on whether Israel is demonstrating a commitment to international humanitarian law, and that it has concluded that Israel is not demonstrating this commitment, which is the legal determination it has to make,” she stated, arguing that “transparency” was absolutely needed to “uphold the international rules-based order.”
Israel launched the operation in Gaza following an incursion by Hamas militants into the southern part of the country last October. During the attack, over 1,200 people were killed and scores of hostages were taken into Gaza. The Israeli campaign inflicted heavy damage on the Palestinian enclave, causing widespread destruction and leaving at least 32,000 people dead, according to the Palestinian Health Ministry.
Comment: Suppressing findings which are inconvenient is nothing new for Western governments so it’s no real surprise that the findings have not been made public. Whether anything changes now that the findings are public remains to be seen (don’t hold your breath).
1 This month
Help Aunty Sue Protect Her Land and Sacred Sites From Destructive Rocket Testing.
.
Australians deserve the truth
about
AUKUS – https://aukuspublicinquiry.com/
PETITION – To: Prime Minister Anthony Albanese and the Australian Labor Government
of the week – Australians for War Powers Reform (AWPR)
To see nuclear-related stories in greater depth and intensity
