Antinuclear

Melissa Parke to spearhead International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons, as Oppenheimer thrusts issue into spotlight

ABC News, By David Weber, 11 Aug 23

As the film Oppenheimer and war in Ukraine both draw the world’s attention to the threat of nuclear weapons, Melissa Parke says there is no better time for change.

Key points:

Melissa Parke says a nuclear weapons ban is urgently needed
Ms Parke says the film Oppenheimer had raised public awareness around the issue
She says the war in Ukraine had also made people more aware of the risks

The former West Australian federal politician and UN Human Rights lawyer has been announced as the new executive director of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons.

With the majority of the world’s nations supporting the UN Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons, Ms Parke said there was no better time for Australia to sign up.

“There’s never been a more urgent time with the heightened tensions and conflict around the world to take action to eliminate nuclear weapons,” she said.

The former Labor MP for Fremantle called for “honest negotiations” around disarmament.

“Nuclear weapons do not make the planet safer, they make it an infinitely more dangerous place to be,” she said.

“Australia’s had a proud history of championing nuclear disarmament.

“The Australian Labor Party has made a commitment in its national policy platform … [and] when they were in opposition in 2018, they made a commitment that when Labor was in government it, would sign the treaty.”…………………………………………… more https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-11/melissa-parke-to-spearhead-campaign-to-abolish-nuclear-weapons/102715862

August 12, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | INTERNATIONAL, Opposition to nuclear | Leave a comment

The Coalition’s likely embrace of nuclear energy is high-risk politics

The Conversation. Michelle Grattan, 10 Aug 23

Crazy brave, or just crazy? If, as seems likely, the opposition embraces nuclear power in its 2025 election policy, it will be taking a huge political gamble.

The Coalition might argue this would be the best (or only) way to ensure we achieve net zero by 2050. But “nuclear” is a trigger word in the political debate, and the reactions it triggers are mostly negative.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has been open since the election about nuclear energy being on the Coalition’s agenda. It’s a “no surprises” tactic – but one that has allowed the government, especially Climate Change Minister Chris Bowen, to regularly attack and ridicule the idea.

This week opposition climate change and energy spokesman Ted O’Brien was spruiking nuclear power, writing in The Australian about the US state of Wyoming’s plans for a coal-to-nuclear transition.

……………………..O’Brien, a Queensland Liberal, has been a vociferous nuclear advocate; he chaired a parliamentary inquiry under the former government that recommended work to deepen understanding of nuclear technology and a partial lifting of the present moratorium, dating from 1998, on nuclear energy.

Nationals leader David Littleproud has also been central to the push for the Coalition to back nuclear energy.

The Nationals, by their climate scepticism and their deep attachment to coal, held back the Coalition on climate policy for more than a decade. Ahead of the 2022 election they were dragged by Scott Morrison to agree to the 2050 target with a massive financial bribe (some of which they didn’t receive because of the change of government).

Now, in opposition, some of the Nationals’ rump would like the party to ditch the 2050 commitment. The nuclear option would be one means of keeping them in the tent.

The “nuclear” the Coalition is talking about doesn’t involve old-style plants, but “new and emerging technologies” including small modular reactors.

That’s one of the problems for the policy – this is an emerging technology, not a quick fix to Australia’s challenges in transiting from fossil fuels.

That is, however, nothing compared with the challenge of public opinion. Notably, the 2019 parliamentary report was titled Nuclear Energy – Not without your approval.

A 2022 Lowy poll found Australians divided on the issue of nuclear power, although opinion appeared to be softening. Some 52% supported removing the ban, which was a five-point rise from 2021; 45% opposed this – six points down on the year before.

The government would have a ready-made “not in my backyard” campaign to launch against the Coalition’s policy. …………………… https://theconversation.com/grattan-on-friday-the-coalitions-likely-embrace-of-nuclear-energy-is-high-risk-politics-211346

August 12, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Atomic Bombing of Japan Was Not Necessary to End WWII. US Gov’t Documents Admit It

US government documents admit the atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki was not necessary to end WWII. Japan was on the verge of surrendering. The nuclear attack was the first strike in Washington’s Cold War on the Soviet Union.

By Ben Norton / Geopolitical Economy Report August 10, 2023 https://scheerpost.com/2023/08/10/atomic-bombing-of-japan-was-not-necessary-to-end-wwii-us-govt-documents-admit-it/

It is very common for Western governments and media outlets to tell the rest of the world to be afraid of North Korea and its nuclear weapons, or to fear the possibility that Iran could one day have nukes.

But the reality is that there is only one country in human history that has used nuclear weapons against a civilian population – and not once, but twice: the United States.

On the 6th and 9th of August, 1945, the US military dropped atomic bombs on the Japanese cities of Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Around 200,000 civilians were killed.

Today, nearly 80 years later, many US government officials, journalists, and educators still claim that Washington had no choice but to nuke Japan, to force it to surrender and thus end World War Two. Some argue that this horrifying atrocity was in fact a noble act, that it saved even more lives that would have been lost in subsequent fighting.

This narrative, although widespread, is utterly false.

US government documents have admitted that Japan was already on the verge of surrendering in 1945, before the nuclear strikes. It was simply not necessary to use the atomic bomb.

The US Department of War (which was renamed the Department of Defense later in the 1940s) conducted an investigation, known as the Strategic Bombing Survey, analyzing its air strikes in World War II.

Published in 1946, the Strategic Bombing Survey stated very clearly, “Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped”:

… it seems clear that, even without the atomic bombing attacks, air supremacy over Japan could have exerted sufficient pressure to bring about unconditional surrender and obviate the need for invasion.

Based on a detailed investigation of all the facts, and supported by the testimony of the surviving Japanese leaders involved, it is the Survey’s opinion that certainly prior to 31 December 1945, and in all probability prior to 1 November 1945, Japan would have surrendered even if the atomic bombs had not been dropped, even if Russia had not entered the war, and even if no invasion had been planned or contemplated

The nuclear strikes on Japan represented a political decision taken by the United States, aimed squarely at the Soviet Union; it was the first strike in the Cold War.

In August 1945, the USSR was preparing to invade Japan to overthrow its ruling fascist regime, which had been allied with Nazi Germany – which the Soviet Red Army had also just defeated in the European theater of the war.

Washington was concerned that, if the Soviets defeated Japanese fascism and liberated Tokyo like they had in Berlin, then Japan’s post-fascist government could become an ally of the Soviet Union and could adopt a socialist government.

The atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, therefore, were not so much aimed at the Japanese fascists as they were aimed at the Soviet communists.

This expressly political decision to use nuclear weapons against Japan was in fact opposed by several top US military officials.

As one of the most famous generals in US military history, Dwight Eisenhower led operations in the European theater of the war and oversaw the subsequent occupation of what was formerly Nazi Germany.

Eisenhower later became president of the United States, following Harry Truman, the US leader who had nuked Japan.

Eisenhower is renowned worldwide for his leadership in the fight against fascism in Europe. But what is little known is that he opposed the US nuclear attacks on Japan.

After leaving the White House, Eisenhower published a memoir titled Mandate for Change. In this 1963 book, the former top general recalled an argument he had in July 1945 with then US Secretary of War Henry Stimson.

Stimson had notified him that Washington was planning to nuke Japan, and Eisenhower criticized the decision, stating that he had “grave misgivings” and was convinced “that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary”.

Eisenhower wrote:

The incident took place in [July] 1945 when Secretary of War Stimson, visiting my headquarters in Germany, informed me that our government was preparing to drop an atomic bomb on Japan. I was one of those who felt that there were a number of cogent reasons to question the wisdom of such an act. … But the Secretary, upon giving me the news of the successful bomb test in New Mexico, and of the plan for using it, asked for my reaction, apparently expecting a vigorous assent.

During his recitation of the relevant facts, I had been conscious of a feeling of depression and so I voiced to him my grave misgivings, first on the basis of my belief that Japan was already defeated and that dropping the bomb was completely unnecessary, and secondly because I thought that our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives. It was my belief that Japan was, at that very moment, seeking some way to surrender with a minimum loss of “face”. The Secretary was deeply perturbed by my attitude, almost angrily refuting the reason I gave for my quick conclusions.

These “completely unnecessary” nuclear attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki killed some 200,000 civilians. But they had a political goal, aimed at the Soviet Union.

The political reasons behind the atomic bombing of Japan have been publicly acknowledged by the US Department of Energy’s Office of History, which runs a website with educational information about the Manhattan Project, the scientific initiative that developed the bomb.

The US government website conceded that the Truman administration’s decision to nuke Japan was politically motivated, writing:

After President Harry S. Truman received word of the success of the Trinity test, his need for the help of the Soviet Union in the war against Japan was greatly diminished. The Soviet leader, Joseph Stalin, had promised to join the war against Japan by August 15th. Truman and his advisors now were not sure they wanted this help. If use of the atomic bomb made victory possible without an invasion, then accepting Soviet help would only invite them into the discussions regarding the postwar fate of Japan.

Other historians argue that Japan would have surrendered even without the use of the atomic bomb and that in fact Truman and his advisors used the bomb only in an effort to intimidate the Soviet Union.

…

Truman hoped to avoid having to “share” the administration of Japan with the Soviet Union.

Mainstream historians have acknowledged this fact as well.

Ward Wilson, a researcher at the establishment London-based think tank the British American Security Information Council, published an article in Washington’s elite Foreign Policy magazine in 2013 titled “The Bomb Didn’t Beat Japan. Stalin Did”.

“Although the bombs did force an immediate end to the war, Japan’s leaders had wanted to surrender anyway and likely would have done so before the American invasion planned for Nov. 1. Their use was, therefore, unnecessary”, he wrote.

Wilson explained:

If the Japanese were not concerned with city bombing in general or the atomic bombing of Hiroshima in particular, what were they concerned with? The answer is simple: the Soviet Union.

…

Even the most hard-line leaders in Japan’s government knew that the war could not go on. The question was not whether to continue, but how to bring the war to a close under the best terms possible.

One way to gauge whether it was the bombing of Hiroshima or the invasion and declaration of war by the Soviet Union that caused Japan’s surrender is to compare the way in which these two events affected the strategic situation. After Hiroshima was bombed on Aug. 6, both options were still alive. … Bombing Hiroshima did not foreclose either of Japan’s strategic options.

The impact of the Soviet declaration of war and invasion of Manchuria and Sakhalin Island was quite different, however. Once the Soviet Union had declared war, Stalin could no longer act as a mediator — he was now a belligerent. So the diplomatic option was wiped out by the Soviet move. The effect on the military situation was equally dramatic.

When the Russians invaded Manchuria, they sliced through what had once been an elite army and many Russian units only stopped when they ran out of gas.

…

The Soviet invasion invalidated the military’s decisive battle strategy, just as it invalidated the diplomatic strategy. At a single stroke, all of Japan’s options evaporated. The Soviet invasion was strategically decisive — it foreclosed both of Japan’s options — while the bombing of Hiroshima (which foreclosed neither) was not.

Attributing the end of the war to the atomic bomb served Japan’s interests in multiple ways. But it also served U.S. interests. If the Bomb won the war, then the perception of U.S. military power would be enhanced, U.S. diplomatic influence in Asia and around the world would increase.

…

If, on the other hand, the Soviet entry into the war was what caused Japan to surrender, then the Soviets could claim that they were able to do in four days what the United States was unable to do in four years, and the perception of Soviet military power and Soviet diplomatic influence would be enhanced. And once the Cold War was underway, asserting that the Soviet entry had been the decisive factor would have been tantamount to giving aid and comfort to the enemy.

Thus, before World War II was even over, the United States launched a Cold War against its ostensible “ally”, the Soviet Union – and against the potential spread of socialism anywhere around the world.

US spy agencies began recruiting former fascists and Nazi collaborators. US officials freed Class A Japanese war criminals from prison, some of whom went on to lead the government in Tokyo.

Many of these figures were involved in founding the right-wing Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), which has essentially run Japan as a one-party state since 1955 (excluding a mere five years of opposition rule).

A textbook example of this was Nobusuke Kishi, a notorious war criminal who ran the Japanese empire’s Manchukuo puppet regime and oversaw genocidal atrocities in collaboration with the Nazis. He was briefly imprisoned, but later pardoned by US authorities and, with Washington’s support, rose to become prime minister of Japan in the 1950s.

Kishi’s fascist-linked family still commands significant control over Japanese politics. His grandson, Shinzo Abe, was the longest-serving prime minister in the East Asian nation’s history.

Today, it remains important to correct widespread myths about this history, because they have a profound impact on popular culture.

In July 2023, Hollywood released a blockbuster film, “Oppenheimer”, by award-winning director Christopher Nolan. The movie was a huge commercial success, but was also criticized for its politics.

The film humanized the eponymous physicist who directed the Manhattan Project’s Los Alamos laboratory, J. Robert Oppenheimer, commonly known as the “father of the atomic bomb”.

Later in life, Oppenheimer came to regret the role he played in developing the weapon, and he campaigned against nuclear proliferation.

Ironically, Oppenheimer also became a victim of the US government’s McCarthyism, and was persecuted for his links to left-wing groups.

But while the movie was celebrated for depicting Oppenheimer’s complex internal struggles, it was accused of whitewashing the brutality of the US atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

The Japanese civilians who lost their lives in these totally unnecessary attacks were eerily absent from the film.

By incessantly repeating the falsehood that nuking 200,000 people was the only way to get Japan to surrender, US officials have normalized this erasure of the civilian victims of its unnecessary, politically motivated war crimes.

…

August 12, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Chinese UN mission releases working paper on Fukushima nuclear-contaminated wastewater issue, urging Japan to discharge in responsible manner

By Global TimesP Aug 09, 2023 https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202308/1295954.shtml

Chinese UN mission releases working paper on Fukushima nuclear-contaminated wastewater issue, urging Japan to discharge in responsible manner

China’s Permanent Mission to the United Nations (UN) and Other International Organizations in Vienna has submitted the working paper on the disposal of nuclear-contaminated water of Japan’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station to the First Preparatory Committee for the Eleventh Review Conference of the Treaty on the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons (NPT).

The disposal of nuclear-contaminated water from Fukushima concerns the global marine environment and public health. There is no precedent for artificially discharging nuclear-contaminated water into the ocean and no internationally recognized disposal standards.

The international community should attach great importance to Japan’s ocean discharge of the nuclear-contaminated water and urge Japan to dispose of the contaminated water in a responsible manner, according to the working paper released on Wednesday.

The working paper pointed out that Japan had previously discussed five ways to dispose of the contaminated water, namely injection into the ground, discharge into the ocean, vapor release, release as hydrogen gas into the atmosphere, and underground burial. However, Japan did not conduct a thorough study of all disposal options and insisted on choosing ocean dumping, which was the lowest cost option, thus transferring the risk of nuclear contamination.

If the so-called ”treated-water” is really safe and harmless, why does Japan not dispose of it within its own territory or use it for industrial and agricultural purposes? The working paper pointed out.

The paper noted that Japan fails to prove the long-term effectiveness and reliability of the purification equipment for treating the contaminated water. According to the data released by Japan, nearly 70 percent of the nuclear-contaminated water treated by Japan’s ALPS (Advanced Liquid Processing System) still fails to meet the discharge standard and needs to be purified again.

Japan has failed to prove the authenticity and accuracy of the data on contaminated water. Fukushima power plant operator TEPCO has repeatedly concealed and falsified nuclear-contaminated water related data in recent years. The IAEA conducted its review and assessment solely based on the data and information provided by Japan, and carried out inter-laboratory comparative analyses of only a small number of nuclear-contaminated water samples collected by Japanese officials, read the working paper.

According to general international law and the provisions of UN Convention on the Law of the Sea, Japan has the obligation to protect and preserve the marine environment. The Convention on the Prevention of Marine Pollution by Dumping of Wastes and Other Matter 1972 (the London Convention) prohibits the dumping of radioactive waste into the sea by means of man-made structures at sea. Japan’s discharging of nuclear-contaminated water into the sea by means of submarine pipelines is in violation of the relevant provisions of the London Convention.

Japan has failed to demonstrate the perfection of the monitoring program. Tokyo must not start discharging until the long-term monitoring mechanism is established, and must stop discharging water once anomalies are detected in the data on the discharge of nuclear contaminated water.

The Chinese UN mission stressed that Japan should not confuse the concept of nuclear-contaminated wastewater with the wastewater from the normal operation of nuclear power plants.

The working paper warned Japan of not making use of IAEA’s comprehensive assessment report on the disposal of Fukushima nuclear-contaminated water as ”shield” or ”greenlight” for the dumping plan.

In addition, the paper urged Japan to fully respond to the concerns of China and the international community, and dispose of the nuclear-contaminated water in a responsible manner in line with its obligations under international law, stop pushing through the dumping plan, fully consult with stakeholders including neighboring countries, make sure to handle the nuclear contaminated water in a science-based, safe and transparent way, and subject itself to rigorous international oversight

August 12, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

TODAY: The Australian Labor Party embraces militarism- has it lost its soul?

Yes, I’m afraid so. Even when I left the Australian Labor Party in 1984, as then Prime Minister Bob Hawke compromised with the nuclear industry, I still had hope for Australia’s party that represented the workers and the ordinary people.

Not any more. What a huge disappointment is Anthony Albanese. Once he seemed to be a champion for the workers, and for peace, and for a nuclear-free Australia. Now he is Joe Biden’s best friend, and leading Australia into militarism with more fervour even than the Liberals and Nationals.

A glimmer of hope. Labor Against War – a newly formed body within the ALP will be pushing for an end to AUKUS, AUSMIN and the whole war-mongering madness. And they’re not a bunch of extremists – they represent some of the brightest minds and most respected people in the ALP, as well as some powerful trade unions and anti-nuclear activists in many ALP branches.

Labor Against War is not going away . The corporate media today is proclaiming their unimportance – “AUKUS is safe – the coming ALP National Conference will not be troubled by such movement”

Well, we will see. No wonder that so many disenchanted Labor voters have moved to the Greens, as I did. But even within Labor, we still have like-minded people who oppose the suicidal lunacy that is AUKUS.

August 11, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Marcus Strom: AUKUS is a mad, bad and dangerous war policy, Labor Against War

And that’s what Labor Against War is about. We can’t sit silently on this. We only formed only a few months ago. Already, we are working branch by branch, moving motions, winning many, losing some, making alliances with the Maritime Union, the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, the Electrical Trades Union, the Construction Union. Unions New South Wales has a policy opposed to AUKUS.

By Marcus StromAug 10, 2023 https://johnmenadue.com/marcus-strom-aukus-is-a-mad-bad-and-dangerous-war-policy/

Anthony Albanese likes to think of himself as a Bob Hawke unifying type. But if he keeps dragging us along this war path, he will be remembered as our Tony Blair.

We hear a lot about how AUKUS is going to be about getting the balance right, rebalancing the region as China expands. And yes, China has its interests, and is building a military in the region and that is also to be concerned about. But I wonder about balance. And we’ve just been reminded again the stories from Guam and from Okinawa. There are 343 US bases in East Asia alone. Now, I don’t know how eight nuclear submarines adds to the balance in the region.

AUKUS is a policy of empire. And empire means violence. And I am amazed having worked in Canberra until recently at the blithe, consequence-free approach that our political leaders seem take to this. It’s “just the price of doing business on the world stage” is how it’s presented.

This is not what the Labor Party should be fighting for.

Alongside the obscene violence of joint war games happening in Australia at the moment, we’ve had the AUSMIN meeting between leading Australian ministers and US ministers. I read this in the press yesterday about what AUSMIN means. “Australia is now being asked to pull more of its weight in the alliance, play a bigger role in helping stabilise the regional balance of power and be integrated as a base of operations into US force projections into the region or into US war planning for a possible conflict with China in Asia.”

That’s from the very radical editorial column of the Australian Financial Review. Also from the Australian Financial Review today, “The AUSMIN talks over the weekend continue the trend since the late 1990s of tying Australia more tightly into both American grand strategy and war planning in Asia. The permanent American military presence on Australian soil is now at a scale unprecedented since the Second World War.”

They are preparing us for war.

That is why I could no longer work for this government. Up until February I was press secretary to Ed Husic, and the AUKUS policy is one of the main reasons I resigned from that position.

As I said to somebody coming in, “The secret to never being disillusioned with the Labor Party is never be illusioned with the Labor Party.” But the Labor Party, despite its many flaws, does have a tradition of opposing some unjust wars. This was pointed out by Paul Keating at a recent National Press Club speech he gave.

Labor was against the Vietnam War, eventually; Labor did stand against the second Iraq War. Although Bob Hawke did support the first Iraq war. So there’s a chequered history.

I’m going to talk about Tom Uren. Tom Uren many of you will know was a lone voice to start with against the Vietnam War in the Labor Party.

Keating pointed out that the ALP opposed Vietnam. But that’s not always how it was. Tom Uren points out in an interview he gave in 1996, that he and Jim Cairns, who went on to become treasurer, moved a motion to Labor caucus in 1965 opposing US bombing of North Vietnam. They lost that vote.

The left then of the Labor Party voted against it. But seven years later Gough Whitlam on a wave of anti-war sentiment took power and one of the first acts was to bring the remaining Australian troops home from Vietnam.

So we can fight back and we can make change. While Tom Uren started as a lone voice, on AUKUS in the Labor Party, I can say we are not alone. Already people like Paul Keating, Bob Carr, Carmen Lawrence, Doug Cameron, Peter Garrett are speaking out against the insanity of this policy.

War is a deadly business. It can’t be treated as a gambit against wedge politics from the opposition, but that is how it’s being treated.

The war in Iraq killed hundreds of thousands of people, left millions displaced, sparked regional destabilisation, engendered the ISIS calamity. A war with China would make Iraq look like a tea party; it would threaten nuclear catastrophe. This is what we’re facing with AUKUS.

It is also a threat to Australian sovereignty. AUSMIN and the military interoperability it is producing, means that there will be US soldiers enmeshed with Australian forces on a continual basis.

And this Australian government, this Labor government, is now allowing the rotation of B-52s through the Tindal base in the Northern Territory. Now, those planes carry nuclear weapons. They neither confirm nor deny. Australia’s quite relaxed at that policy. But we know that makes Australia a nuclear target.

It makes Australia not just a target and a victim, but an aggressor in the region; a host to war machines that could slaughter millions of people. We have to say, “No” to that.

I’m reminded of something Henry Kissinger said, “Being an enemy of the United States is very dangerous. Being a friend is fatal.”

Simon Crean was Labor leader when the Iraq war happened, and he bravely stood against the war drums. When Simon Crean died recently, Prime Minister Anthony Albanese said, “History has vindicated Simon’s judgment, but at the time his stance was deeply counter to the prevailing political and media climate.”

We are again looking for such courage in a Labor leader.

Instead, we have meekly inherited a Scott Morrison policy. When I speak at Labor Party meetings I say, “If we’d lost the last election, and Scott Morrison was pursuing this policy, you’d all be up in arms. You’d all be screaming about the injustice of it, the war mongering of it. Just because our guy’s doing it doesn’t mean you should shut up.”

And that’s what Labor Against War is about. We can’t sit silently on this. We only formed only a few months ago. Already, we are working branch by branch, moving motions, winning many, losing some, making alliances with the Maritime Union, the Australian Manufacturing Workers Union, the Electrical Trades Union, the Construction Union. Unions New South Wales has a policy opposed to AUKUS.

The South Coast Labor Council, which is facing having a nuclear submarine base in Port Kembla, has stood up and said, “No”.

Branch by branch anti-war activists are passing resolutions. We’ve now going into National Conference. We are hoping we can force at least a bit of a debate onto that conference. To not even discuss this would be an absolute travesty of Labor Party democracy.

We’re not expecting to win at the first hurdle, but neither did Tom Uren. This is a long campaign to win the Labor Party from being a war party to being a peace party.

Assurances count for nothing. The danger we face in a multi-decade, multibillion-dollar program is we don’t know who will be prime minister in ten years, five years. We don’t know who’s going to be in the White House at the end of next year. And yet we are going to be lumbered with a nuclear alliance with two fading Anglo powers on the other side of the world.

AUKUS is a mad, bad and dangerous war policy. And to borrow from the French, we don’t just think this, we know this. As an aside, I was absolutely gobsmacked by the chutzpah of Macron speaking in the Pacific, complaining about the ‘new imperialism’ recently.

Anthony Albanese likes to think of himself as a Bob Hawke unifying type. But if he keeps dragging us along this war path, he will be remembered as our Tony Blair.

Believe it or not, the ALP is meant to be a democratic socialist party. Read it, it’s in the rules.

It’s meant to fight for a better world. But we should no longer be satisfied for fighting for Chifley’s Light on the Hill. This is a labour of Sisyphus, a goal that we never reach. It is time to bring the light down into the shadows, to enlighten the world, to bring hope to today, not tomorrow.

Capitalism is a war system. We have to oppose capitalism to stop war.

Hope is rising. We will make a difference. Use that anger that you felt to really get active. We are rebuilding a peace movement, an anti-war movement.

I look here today; we need to double, triple our numbers. At our last Labor Against War meeting in Sydney, we had somebody there in their 80s telling us about how they fought against the Vietnam War. And there were people in the room in their school uniforms. Now that is a sign for hope that we can raise our voices fight a really bad policy.

And we have to win this because the alternative is cataclysmic.

These are extracts from a speech by Marcus Strom at a public meeting organised by IPAN at the ANU, Canberra, 1 August 2023

August 10, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Nuclear waste dump plans scrapped for South Australia

By Andrew Brown August 10 2023 –

Plans for a nuclear waste dump in regional South Australia have been scrapped by the federal government following a court decision blocking its construction.

The waste facility was earmarked to be built on land at Napandee near the town of Kimba in the Eyre Peninsula by the previous coalition government in 2021.

The decision was challenged in the Federal Court by traditional owners, the Barngarla people, who said the decision was made without them being consulted.

The court ruled in July the facility could not be built.

Resources Minister Madeleine King told federal parliament the government would look for a new location for the nuclear waste storage.

“I’m deeply sorry for the uncertainty the process has created for the Kimba community, for my own department, for the Australian Radioactive Waste Agency workers and for the workers involved in the project,” she said.

“I also acknowledge the profound distress this process has caused the Barngarla people.”

Ms King said any work near Kimba had stopped after the court’s decision.

She said the government would not appeal against the court decision.

“We have to get this right. This is long lasting, multi-generational government policy for the disposal of waste that can take thousands of years to decay,” she said.

“We must consult widely and bring stakeholders including First Nations people along with us. We remain bipartisan in our approach.”…………………………………………………………….. https://www.canberratimes.com.au/story/8303272/nuclear-waste-dump-plans-scrapped-for-south-australia/

August 10, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | aboriginal issues, Federal nuclear waste dump, South Australia | Leave a comment

Australia’s peak environmental body welcomes ‘king hit’ for nuclear waste dump at Kimba.

The Australian Conservation Foundation has welcomed the Albanese government’s decision to fully withdraw the former Coalition government’s proposal to establish a radioactive waste facility on South Australia’s Eyre Peninsula against the wishes of Traditional Owners.

Last month the Federal Court ruled in favour of Barngarla Traditional Owners, setting aside former Resources Minister Keith Pitt’s declaration of the Kimba site.

“This is a welcome and sensible decision by Minister King and federal Labor to scrap this plan, which it inherited from the previous government and which was inconsistent with international best practice and community sentiment,” said ACF’s nuclear free campaigner Dave Sweeney.

“Today’s decision is a credit to the tenacity and courage of the Barngarla people, who have been utterly determined to protect their country.

“Labor’s decision is consistent with the Federal Court ruling and with Labor values on listening to First Nations’ wishes for their Country.

“This divisive and deficient plan has caused a lot of pain and division.

“Today’s announcement signals a different approach.

“ACF looks forward to constructive dialogue with the Albanese government to help develop a new and responsible approach to radioactive waste management in Australia.

“Minister Madeleine King is right to say the previous government’s plan to double-handle the transport of this waste – first from Lucas Heights in Sydney to temporary storage at Kimba, then on to an as-yet undetermined permanent disposal site – raised concerns regarding international best practice and safety.

“The first step to getting something right is to stop getting it wrong.

“Today, the government took that important step.”

Further comment or context: Dave Sweeney 0408 317 812

August 10, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Yes in my backyard: Nationals happy to go nuclear

SMH, yMike Foley and James Massola, August 10, 2023

Nationals leader David Littleproud has declared he is open to having a nuclear power plant in his Queensland electorate, as the Coalition pushes a new plan to convert Australia’s existing fleet of coal plants to the controversial source of electricity generation.

Coalition energy spokesman Ted O’Brien said on Wednesday nuclear energy was a crucial emissions-reduction technology. He called for a national discussion about ending Australia’s moratorium, and argued that existing coal plants could be supplanted with the developing nuclear technology of small modular reactors.

Federal parliament banned nuclear power in 1998, and the moratorium has remained in place with bipartisan support.

“I would support a process to explore small-scale modular reactor technology in my electorate with appropriate consultation and education of the community if a moratorium was removed,” Littleproud said.

The Maranoa MP, whose electorate sprawls across western Queensland, was joined by two Nationals colleagues in supporting nuclear in their patch.

Michelle Landry, who represents Capricornia in Queensland, said she would support a coal-to-nuclear transition in her electorate at a “coal-fired power station that is no longer being used”.

Former leader Barnaby Joyce, whose electorate of New England in northern NSW does not have coal plants, emphatically backed developing the technology in his electorate.

O’Brien, however, would not be drawn on his position on a nuclear power plant in his Sunshine Coast electorate of Fairfax. He said a selection of nuclear locations could be addressed if the moratorium was lifted.

“If we end up with a clean energy policy that includes zero-emissions nuclear energy, a cheap NIMBY [not-in-my-backyard] campaign will inevitably come and we’ll deal with those sort of childish debates then,” O’Brien said.

O’Brien said small modular reactors would be key to a nuclear energy policy………………………

CSIRO and the Australian Energy Market Operator’s GenCost report into the cost of electricity generation based on technology type found that an energy grid running on 90 per cent renewables, including transmission lines and back-up battery or gas power, would cost between $70 to $100 a megawatt hour in 2030.

Small modular reactors would cost between $200 and $350 a megawatt hour, were that technology available by 2030.

Former chief scientist of Australia Alan Finkel, writing in the Financial Review this week, said it was unlikely small modular reactors could be deployed before 2040 in Australia, which meant “we must continue our investment in renewables”.

Climate Change and Energy Minister Chris Bowen has rejected the deployment of nuclear power and on Wednesday reiterated the Albanese government’s goal to cut power bills by supplying 82 per cent of electricity through renewable energy by 2030.

“We look forward to the costings and the locations of the nuclear power stations when [O’Brien] releases them. I’ve been a bit confused about why a party claiming to be economically rational would propose the most expensive form of energy as a way to reduce prices,” Bowen told parliament.

On Wednesday, Bowen announced energy rule changes to force companies building transmission lines to engage in earlier and more frequent “genuine” community consultation. The move is designed to reduce community opposition, which is now the main obstacle to the government’s goal to decarbonise the electricity grid.

Opposition Leader Peter Dutton has backed the coal-to-nuclear plan and Canning MP Andrew Hastie said small modular reactors should be considered as replacement for coal plants given “we already have four to five small modular reactors on order” to power Australia’s next generation of nuclear submarines.

When asked if he backed nuclear in his northern NSW electorate, Joyce said: “Not only would I be happy to have a small modular reactor in New England, but I suggested the policy to accompany it.”…………………………………….https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/yes-in-my-backyard-nationals-happy-to-go-nuclear-20230809-p5dv43.html

August 10, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, politics | Leave a comment

Government abandons plan to dump nuclear waste near Kimba, sparking new hunt for dump site

ABC , By political reporter Matthew Doran, 10 Aug 23

Key points:

The planned nuclear waste site near Kimba, SA, has been formally abandoned
The Federal Court ruled against Coalition plans to dump nuclear waste there
The Opposition claims it is a massive setback

…………………………………………………………. In parliament, Federal Resources Minister Madeleine King said the government respected the court decision.

“The Albanese Labor government does not intend to pursue Napandee as a potential site for the facility, nor is the government pursuing the previously shortlisted Lyndhurst and Wallerberdina sites,” Ms King said.

She revealed all work on the Napandee site had ceased.

“Any activities that have already been conducted were non-permanent and will be reversed or remediated,” Ms King said.

“The site is currently being supervised to ensure it remains safe and cultural heritage is protected while we work through dispossession of the land.”

The Coalition immediately took aim at the announcement, accusing Labor of a “legacy failure” and “abandoning years of work”………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Nuclear storage site still needed

Ms King said Australia needed a nuclear storage facility, but argued it could not be at the Napandee site.

……………………………….. “The site of Australia’s only nuclear reactor at Lucas Heights can safely store waste on site for some time, but we must ensure this waste has an appropriate disposal pathway.”

She argued the government remained committed to finding a solution. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2023-08-10/kimba-nuclear-dumping-plan-abandoned/102711320

August 10, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA - NATIONAL, Federal nuclear waste dump | Leave a comment

Coalition’s aim for nuclear energy criticised by the Australian government.

A radical proposal to change Australia forever has been criticised by the Australian government amid the nation’s energy crisis.

news.com.au Alex Blair 10 Aug 23

The Coalition is reportedly considering a “coal-to-nuclear transition” as part of its 2025 energy policy.

The strategy aims to secure long-term baseload power, reduce emissions, and lower electricity prices, with plans to tap into Australia’s abundant uranium reserves.

Australian regions the party believes are vulnerable to the shift from coal to renewables, including the Hunter Valley and Queensland, have reportedly been floated as potential candidates for the development of small modular reactors.

Opposition energy and climate change spokesman Ted O’Brien emphasises that local community input is crucial and that a “social license” should be obtained before any major infrastructure project is undertaken………………………………………………………………

However, Labor party representatives say the Coalition’s plan is riddled with holes. A spokesperson for Climate Change minister Chris Bowen said the Coalition had previously voiced support for a nuclear Australia but is yet to provide rock solid details to the public.

“They’re yet to come up with a plan with where the reactors can go and how much they will cost,” the spokesperson told news.com.au.

“Even if we started today, having nuclear power ready within 10 years is being generous. They’re very much against renewables, where we are backing it. Labor has implemented the $20b rewiring the nation policy, which has produced an actual change for the future.

There are credible reports that nuclear is the most expensive source of energy in the world, so they really need to show people the plan.”

The spokesperson noted the Coalition has long had a stance against Labor’s renewable energy plan, which aims to provide Australia with 82 per cent of its energy by 2030.

Last year, renewables accounted for roughly 36 per cent of Australia’s energy, with coal generation falling from 59.1 per cent in 2021 to 54.6 per cent in 2022……………………………..

Bowen said Australia needs more investments in order to reach its net-zero goals, calling for more industry figureheads to get behind the clean energy scheme.

“Sector by sector plans are important for Australia because each sector is so different,” he said.

“I’ve been struck by the level of support and engagement from Australian businesses — big and small, and from international investors.” https://www.news.com.au/national/politics/show-people-the-plan-coalition-criticised-over-calls-to-transition-australia-to-nuclear-energy/news-story/48e3f1e14e9e72275ab1d2df91992d0a

August 10, 2023 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics | Leave a comment

Australia news LIVE: Joe Biden to host PM for official US visit; Coalition pushes nuclear energy plan

Pesarl’