THE BIGGEST LIE – ADDICTED TO WAR – WHAT MOST AMERICAN PEOPLE DON’T KNOW and DON’T WANT TO KNOW

The mainstream media will never tell the truth about this, as they are owned by the very people and corporations who make huge profits from U.S. wars. 

THE BIG LIE is so big and so complete in the United States. It’s like mass hypnosis. Like mass brainwashing. ………  Most Americans are taught to believe that we are The Good Guys. And once again, most people are not taught about the true nature of U.S. foreign policy

 THE BIG LIE is so big and so complete in the United States. It’s like mass hypnosis. Like mass brainwashing. ………  Most Americans are taught to believe that we are The Good Guys. And once again, most people are not taught about the true nature of U.S. foreign policy

https://www.addictedtowar.com/the-big-lie, By Frank Dorrel – Publisher of ADDICTED To WAR: www.addictedtowar.com, 31 Oct 22,

What Is This BIG LIE – I Am Talking About? ………………..

Well, it’s not Donald Trump claiming that he won the 2020 election for President……….

I’m not talking about Climate Change/Global Warming.…. now heating faster than expected

I’m not talking about Systemic Racism in the United States.………. this terrible situation.

I’m not talking about The Prison Industrial Complex…………  this sad story is not really a secret

I’m not talking about Poverty and Homelessness…………. very sad situation happening to millions of American people.

I’m not talking about COVID, the pandemic that has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of American people in the last two years

THE BIG LIE

The BIG LIE I am talking about has to do with U.S. foreign policy and U.S. wars, both overt and covert. We are not told the truth about them or that the U.S. is a Global Empire that controls much of the World through force and power and threatens Third World countries, who are not willing to do as we say. Most American people do not know these things. Most do not believe these things are true. And most people are not willing to take a closer look at all of this.

I suggest you go to my website to see what I am talking about. Go to the Film Page: www.addictedtowar.com/films  and watch as many of these important anti-war films as you can. They are all on YouTube and can be watched for free. Take as long as you need. I do not think you will find another list like this anywhere on the Internet. I have watched all of these films at least two or more times. Every one of them is very well done. Altogether, they reveal THE BIG LIE. These films are never aired on television. Not even on PBS.

Go to the Talks and Interviews Page: www.addictedtowar.com/talks-interviews  – and watch and listen to as many of them as you can. The very first talk is by Martin Luther King Jr. It’s titled – BEYOND VIETNAM: A Time To Break Silence. Once again, take your time to watch these talks by these activists. They reveal the horrors our country has been committing all of these years with its many wars against innocent poor people around the World.

THE BIG LIE

I am talking about is what Martin Luther King Jr. said in his BEYOND VIETNAM Speech: “The Greatest Purveyor of Violence in The World Today, My Own Government.” The Military, the Oil Companies, the Corporations, the Weapon Makers, the Bankers, the Mainstream Media & the Politicians, also known as The Military-Industrial-Complex. They make war for profit and also to control the resources of the World. And WE, the PEOPLE are LIED to about this. One of their biggest weapons is propaganda. And they really know how to use it. It is a global battle of the rich versus the poor. And war is, for the most part, racist. We bomb, invade and kill mostly people of color.

Read this article by James Lucas titled: THE UNITED STATES HAS KILLED MORE THAN 20 MILLION PEOPLE IN 37 NATIONS SINCE WWII: https://popularresistance.org/us-has-killed-more-than-20-million-in-37-nations-since-wwii  

Read this article by Professor Larry Mosqueda of Evergreen State College titled: SHOCKED and HORRIFIED, written on September 15th, 2001: www.globalissues.org/article/257/shocked-and-horrified

The mainstream media will never tell the truth about this, as they are owned by the very people and corporations who make huge profits from U.S. wars. Most people in the government will not talk about or look at this. If they were to do so, they would become outcasts and pariahs, shunned by others in the government. And for the most part, people in the military will not look at or talk about these things. However, some have spoken out. And many of them are listed on my site. The one group that does look at this issue is the Anti-War Movement. We are part of the alternative media in this country. You can see who some of these organizations are by going to: www.addictedtowar.com/sources-and-websites  . CovertAction DEMOCRACY NOW, is on this list.

There is an anti-war movement in this country. But it’s just not big enough to make much of a difference. Most people are not taught about these things in their schools, in their churches, or by their parents. And they won’t learn about THE BIG LIE by watching the mainstream news on television or by reading the mainstream newspapers.

HOW DID I LEARN ABOUT THE TRUE NATURE OF U.S. FOREIGN POLICY?

I first started learning about all of this when I discovered KPFK 90.7 FM Radio in 1980. KPFK is part of the Pacifica Network: https://pacificanetwork.org   – consisting of five radio stations in this country. They are KPFA in Berkeley, KPFK in Los Angeles, WBAI in New York, WPFW in Washington DC and KPFT in Houston. The first Pacifica station was KPFA in Berkeley. It was started in 1949 by Lou Hill, a man who refused to go to World War II. He wanted to have a station that was against war, dealt with social injustice and had no commercial sponsors so that the truth could be told. I discovered KPFK by chance. No one told me about it.

I had a job as a driver for the University of Southern California. I drove about 200 miles a day. One day in 1980, I was turning the FM channels and heard Alan Watts talking on KPFK. He was an amazing storyteller, a philosopher of sorts, and very interesting to listen to. He was already dead when I started listening to him. So every Monday at 2:00 PM, I put on KPFK. Then one Monday, I left the station on and heard Noam Chomsky talking about U.S.-supported death squads in El Salvador.

That was the beginning for me. From that time on, I listened to KPFK as much as possible. I discovered many other truth-tellers on KPFK, talking about U.S. foreign policy, who you would never hear on the mainstream media. People like Howard Zinn, Ramsey Clark, Michael Parenti, Daniel Ellsberg, John Stockwell, Philip Agee, S. Brian Willson, Roy Bourgeois, Medea Benjamin, Kathy Kelly & many others. Then I discovered Blase Bonpane, who had his own weekly program on KPFK called WORLD FOCUS.

I began listening to Blase every week. Soon he became my mentor. The more I learned about what the U.S. had been doing with its foreign policy, the more upset I got. During the listener-sponsored fund-drives, I would order books and talks by these truth-tellers. Whenever they came to Los Angeles to speak, I would go to listen to them in person. I joined the Veterans For Peace group in Los Angeles and would go to their meetings. It was there that I met Tony Russo and learned so much about what he called THE U.S. WAR IN VIETNAM. Tony had been partners with Daniel Ellsberg in revealing The Pentagon Papers.

At that time, I was learning about what was happening in Nicaragua, with the U.S. supporting the Contra’s and the history of U.S. interventions there. The more I learned, the worse it got. I had no idea that my country, the United States, had been doing so many terrible things to innocent poor people all over the World. I went to hear John Stockwell at least three times. He had been a marine and was the CIA Station Chief in Angola. The stories he told about the atrocities the CIA had been committing around the World were absolutely chilling. You can hear him giving an amazing talk in 1989 here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=bmYZ_kWHk3Q  .

It was on KPFK that I first heard about S. Brian Willson, as he and three other veterans began their VETERANS FAST FOR LIFE on the Capitol Steps in Washington DC in 1986. They were protesting U.S. foreign policy in Central America; in Nicaragua,

El Salvador and Guatemala. They fasted for something like 40 days and got a lot of attention all over the country through the Pacifica Network and the anti-war movement. I sent them a $100 donation and a letter of support. And I went on a march supporting these four veterans, S. Brian Willson, Charlie Liteky, Duncan Murphy and George Mizo – in Downtown Los Angeles and marched with a big crowd, right behind Jackson Browne and Kris Kristofferson.

On September 1st, 1987, I heard Blase Bonpane say on KPFK that Brian Willson had been run over at The Concord Naval Weapons Station in Northern California by a train that was carrying weapons to be shipped to Central America and used to kill innocent people there. Brian lost both legs but survived the attack. One year later, he came to Los Angeles to give a talk, which I heard about on KPFK. I went to hear him and my life was changed forever. To this day, I have never heard anyone speak quite like Brian did that night. He was so clear with his message against the U.S. war in Vietnam. I’ll never forget one thing he said: “How could I have gone 10,000 miles across the ocean to take part in killing people I did not know anything about”. Brian had been a believer in that war. He was a conservative republican, an anti-communist and an All-American young man. But he had his epiphany when he witnessed a fishing village in Vietnam that we had bombed & napalmed. He was sent to inspect the success of this mission. He saw maybe 100 people, all of them dead or dying. No soldiers. No weapons. Only women, children and a few older men. He went to four other villages that week and observed the same thing. We were killing villagers and reporting that they were V.C. or Viet Cong. Brian started to speak out against what he had witnessed and soon he was sent back to the States. Some years later, he became a full-time anti-war activist. Brian’s mantra is: We Are Not Worth More. They Are Not Worth Less.

Everything that Brian writes about on his website is well worth reading: www.brianwillson.com . You can watch Brian at: www.youtube.com/watch?v=mZ_cO1wC0yI  – An excellent film about Brian titled: “PAYING THE PRICE FOR PEACE: The Story of S. Brian Willson” – can be rented or bought at: www.addictedtowar.com/about-paying-the-price . I was the associate producer on this amazing film. Brian is the last segment in my film: “What I’ve Learned About U.S. Foreign Policy: The War Against The 3^rd  World.”  If you have never seen my film, please take the time to watch it: www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gMGhrkoncA  . And once again, watch the films on The Film Page and the talks on The Talks & Interviews Page. In doing so, you could earn what would be like the equivalent of a PH.D in: The True History of U.S. Foreign Policy.

There is also the Book Page, which lists over 90 excellent books you can read, most on the topic of U.S. Foreign Policy: www.addictedtowar.com/books  .

HOW DO THEY GET AWAY WITH ALL OF THIS?  WHY MOST PEOPLE CAN’T SEE THESE TRUTHS?

Here is why I believe that most Americans cannot and will not see these truths that I have been talking about. THE BIG LIE is so big and so complete in the United States. It’s like mass hypnosis. Like mass brainwashing. Like something out of Orwell’s book 1984. I believe the biggest tool for brainwashing is the television set that we watch. Most Americans are taught to believe that we are The Good Guys. And once again, most people are not taught about the true nature of U.S. foreign policy in their schools, in their churches or by their parents. And they won’t learn about THE BIG LIE by watching the mainstream news on television or by reading the mainstream newspapers.

I Think The Following Is A Very Important Point In All of This!

Many people have lived a pretty good life here in the United States. They have had a lot of freedom and have been given a lot of opportunity to do what they want, to go for their own special dreams. Not everyone gets there, but at least, many have had that chance. This doesn’t necessarily happen if you are Black or Latinx or Native American or poor. And many people have had various problems fitting in our society and end up unhappy and discontented. But this is America. The Land of The Free and The Home of The Brave. There are so many things here that people appreciate. This is certainly true in my case. And many people have come here from other countries in order to have a better life. And ironically, many of these people have come from some of the very countries we have attacked and invaded. We have had it good here compared to them.

But do these facts make it OK to have a foreign policy that has literally killed millions of innocent people and ruined the lives of many millions more, all for lies?

We are told that our military goes into other countries to help the people and bring freedom and democracy. But of course, that is not what has been happening with our foreign policy. How do you help people when you invade them, drop bombs on them, send in drones to kill them, place sanctions on them and support dictators who oppress them. Most Americans do not want to believe or accept that our country has been doing these horrendous things and still is. And the policies of the U.S. also has ruined the lives of millions more people all over the World. This is not what most American’s believe. It’s much easier being ignorant than it is to realize that this is happening and has been happening all along.

For those of us who have come to understand these things, it is not easy, as we learn that others do not want us to tell them about this or to try to educate them about this. And since the vast majority of Americans do not know or believe these things, it’s very easy to dismiss those of us who do, calling us crazy or conspiracy theorists, without ever looking at the evidence we have to show them. I cannot tell you how many friends I have had in my life who are no longer my friends. Many will not call me back or respond to emails I have sent them about this. It is an amazing thing to experience. After over 40 years of being an activist, I do understand why people do not want to know. It’s just too painful to know. It’s simply easier not to know. Life can be hard. Life can be difficult. And it certainly is now with all that we are dealing with. But life is so much easier not having to deal with the information I have been talking about. However, by denying these truths, we unknowingly support the deaths and destruction of millions.

I do want to say that most of the people who have been involved, in one way or another, in carrying out these barbarous acts committed by the U.S. are not necessarily lying. For the most part, they are simply following orders. The soldiers follow orders. The politicians go along with what they are told. And the reporters in the mainstream media don’t really do true journalism. They get their stories from the State Department, the CIA or other government sources. They don’t investigate on their own to see if these stories are really true or not. The victims of U.S. foreign policy are in other countries, out of sight, out of mind. And the people I have just mentioned will not look at the information we in the anti-war movement try to give them. So the terrible, horrible and unbelievable things our country does happens because we live THE BIG LIE here in the United States.

I want to close with something important that Blase Bonpane said back in 2009. He said:

“The reason he did his anti-war work was because he wanted to stop his country (United States) from killing millions of innocent people all over the world”.

What Blase said is the very same reason why I have been doing my anti-war work all of these years. Blase was loved and respected by so many people. He died in 2019.

And I also want to thank all of the Truth-Tellers and Anti-War Activists I have mentioned in this article and who are on my website – for being my teachers, and for continuing to do this important work. The question is how can we reach enough people to change from being a war-like country to a Peace-Like country? Peace means that we help people in other countries and in our own country. We do not invade them, we do not bomb them, we do not starve them and we do not kill them.

You can read the 2004 edition of ADDICTED To WAR: www.addictedtowar.com/read-book  . The 2015 edition can be purchased here: www.addictedtowar.com/store  . ADDICTED To WAR is a book that most everyone (12 years and older) can read and understand. Hundreds of high school teachers and college professors have used it in their classrooms. We need to have more teachers and professors using it. When I was in high school, a book like ADDICTED To WAR could never have been used in class at all.  I have read it every year since we first published it in 2002. I always think what a fantastic, one-of-a-kind book ADDICTED To WAR is.

In 2000, I put together my film compilation titled: “WHAT I’VE LEARNED ABOUT U.S. FOREIGN POLICY: The War Against The Third World.” I updated it in 2015, adding three new segments.

It can be seen here: www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gMGhrkoncA  –  If you have not seen it, please do. 

Publisher: ADDICTED To WAR

Associate Producer: PAYING THE PRICE FOR PEACE: The Story of S. Brian Willson

Producer: What I’ve Learned About U.S. Foreign Policy:

Member: Veterans For Peace

310-838-8131

us.addicted.to.war@gmail.com

frank.dorrel@gmail.com  

www.addictedtowar.com

October 31, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

All at Once Mainstream Pundits Push for WW III

When they’re not arguing that World War Three is coming and we must all prepare to fight it and win, they’re arguing that a global conflict is already upon us and we must begin acting like it, as in last month’s New Yorker piece “What if We’re Already Fighting the Third World War with Russia?”

These Beltway swamp monster pontifications are directed not just at the general public but at government policymakers and strategists as well, and it should disturb us all that their audiences are being encouraged to view a global conflict of unspeakable horror like it’s some kind of natural disaster that people don’t have any control over.

Every measure should be taken to avoid a world war in the nuclear age. If it looks like that’s where we’re headed, the answer is not to ramp up weapons production and create entire industries dedicated to making it happen, the answer is diplomacy, de-escalation and detente.

 https://consortiumnews.com/2022/10/28/all-at-once-mainstream-pundits-push-for-ww-iii/ October 28, 2022, Caitlin Johnstone says it should disturb everyone in the nuclear age that writers at influential publications frame the rise of a multipolar world as something that must inevitably bring on unspeakable violence and human suffering.

Mainstream punditry in the latter half of 2022 is rife with op-eds arguing that the U.S. needs to vastly increase military spending because a world war is about to erupt, and they frame it as something that happens to the U.S. as though its own actions would have nothing to do with it.

As though it would not be the direct result of the U.S.-centralized empire continually accelerating towards that horrific event while refusing every possible diplomatic off-ramp due to its inability to relinquish its goal of total unipolar, planetary domination.

The latest example of this trend is an article titled “Could America Win a New World War? — What It Would Take to Defeat Both China and Russia” published by Foreign Affairs, a magazine that is owned and operated by the supremely influential think tank the Council on Foreign Relations.

“The United States and its allies must plan for how to simultaneously win wars in Asia and Europe, as unpalatable as the prospect may seem,” writes Thomas G. Mahnken, adding that in some ways “the United States and its allies will have an advantage in any simultaneous war” on those two continents.

Mahnken doesn’t claim a world war against Russia and China would be a walk in the park; he also argues that in order to win such a war the U.S. will need to — you guessed it — drastically increase its military spending.

“The United States clearly needs to increase its defense manufacturing capacity and speed,” Mahnken writes. “In the short term, that involves adding shifts to existing factories. With more time, it involves expanding factories and opening new production lines. To do both, Congress will have to act now to allocate more money to increase manufacturing.”

But exploding U.S. weapons spending is still inadequate, Mahnken argues, saying that “the United States should work with its allies to increase their military production and the size of their weapons and munitions stockpiles” as well.

Mahnken says this world war could be sparked “if China initiated a military operation to take Taiwan, forcing the United States and its allies to respond,” as though there would be no other options on the table besides launching into nuclear-age World War Three to defend an island next to the Chinese mainland that calls itself the Republic of China.

He writes that “Moscow, meanwhile, could decide that with the United States bogged down in the western Pacific, it could get away with invading more of Europe,” demonstrating the bizarre Schrödinger’s cat Western propaganda paradox that Putin is always simultaneously (A) getting destroyed and humiliated in Ukraine and (B) on the cusp of waging hot war with NATO.

Again, this is just the latest in an increasingly common genre of mainstream Western punditry.

In “The skeptics are wrong: The U.S. can confront both China and Russia,” The Washington Post’s Josh Rogin wags his finger at Democrats who think aggressions against Russia should be prioritized and Republicans who think that military and financial attention should be devoted to China, arguing por que no los dos? (Why not both?}

In “Could The U.S. Military Fight Russia And China At The Same Time?“, 19FortyFive’s Robert Farley answers in the affirmative, writing that “the immense fighting power of the U.S. armed forces would not be inordinately strained by the need to wage war in both theaters” concluding that “the United States can fight both Russia and China at once… for a while, and with the help of some friends.”

In “Can the U.S. Take on China, Iran and Russia All at Once?” Bloomberg’s Hal Brands answers that it would be very difficult and recommends escalating in Ukraine and Taiwan and selling Israel more advanced weaponry to get a step ahead of Russia, China and Iran respectively.

In “International Relations Theory Suggests Great-Power War Is Coming,” the Atlantic Council’s Matthew Kroenig writes for Foreign Policy that a global democracies-versus-autocracies showdown is coming “with the United States and its status quo-oriented democratic allies in NATO, Japan, South Korea, and Australia on one side and the revisionist autocracies of China, Russia, and Iran on the other,” and that aspiring foreign policy experts should adjust their expectations accordingly.

When they’re not arguing that World War Three is coming and we must all prepare to fight it and win, they’re arguing that a global conflict is already upon us and we must begin acting like it, as in last month’s New Yorker piece “What if We’re Already Fighting the Third World War with Russia?”

These Beltway swamp monster pontifications are directed not just at the general public but at government policymakers and strategists as well, and it should disturb us all that their audiences are being encouraged to view a global conflict of unspeakable horror like it’s some kind of natural disaster that people don’t have any control over.

Every measure should be taken to avoid a world war in the nuclear age. If it looks like that’s where we’re headed, the answer is not to ramp up weapons production and create entire industries dedicated to making it happen, the answer is diplomacy, de-escalation and detente.

These pundits frame the rise of a multipolar world as something that must inevitably be accompanied by an explosion of violence and human suffering, when in reality we’d only wind up there as a result of decisions that were made by thinking human beings on both sides.

It doesn’t have to be this way. There’s no omnipotent deity decreeing from on high that we must live in a world where governments brandish Armageddon weapons at each other and humanity must either submit to Washington or resign itself to cataclysmic violence of planetary consequence. We could just have a world where the peoples of all nations get along with each other and work together toward the common good rather than working to dominate and subjugate each other.

As Jeffrey Sachs recently put it, “The single biggest mistake of President Biden was to say ‘the greatest struggle of the world is between democracies and autocracies’. The real struggle of the world is to live together and overcome our common crises of environment and inequality.”

We could have a world where our energy and resources go toward increasing human thriving and learning to collaborate with this fragile biosphere we evolved in. Where all our scientific innovation is directed toward making this planet a better place to live instead of channeling it into getting rich and finding new ways to explode human bodies.

Where our old models of competition and exploitation give way to systems of collaboration and care. Where poverty, toil and misery gradually move from accepted norms of human existence to dimly remembered historical record.

Instead we’re getting a world where we’re being hammered harder and harder with propaganda encouraging us to accept global conflict as an unavoidable reality, where politicians who voice even the mildest support for diplomacy are shouted down and demonized until they bow to the gods of war, where nuclear brinkmanship is framed as safety and de-escalation is branded as reckless endangerment.

We don’t have to submit to this. We don’t have to keep sleepwalking into dystopia and Armageddon to the beat of manipulative sociopaths. There are a whole lot more of us than there are of them, and we’ve got a whole lot more at stake here than they do.

We can have a healthy world. We’ve just got to want it badly enough. They work so hard to manufacture our consent because, ultimately, they absolutely do require it.

October 31, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Rooftop solar take another significant bite out of Origin customer volumes — RenewEconomy

Rooftop solar takes more volume away from retail markets, but Origin gains from big business wind and LPG windfall. The post Rooftop solar take another significant bite out of Origin customer volumes appeared first on RenewEconomy.

Rooftop solar take another significant bite out of Origin customer volumes — RenewEconomy

October 31, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

WA takes next big step towards Made-in-WA turbine industry ahead of wind energy boom — RenewEconomy

State government commissions a full feasibility study to find out what it will take to start building wind turbines in WA. The post WA takes next big step towards Made-in-WA turbine industry ahead of wind energy boom appeared first on RenewEconomy.

WA takes next big step towards Made-in-WA turbine industry ahead of wind energy boom — RenewEconomy

October 31, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

World is heading for 2.4°C to 2.8°C warming: State of the climate ahead of Cop27 — RenewEconomy

Emissions are still rising, pledges to 2030 put the world on track for 2.5C of warming but fossil fuel demand is nearing its peak. The post World is heading for 2.4°C to 2.8°C warming: State of the climate ahead of Cop27 appeared first on RenewEconomy.

World is heading for 2.4°C to 2.8°C warming: State of the climate ahead of Cop27 — RenewEconomy

October 31, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

State and federal support key to Australia becoming a critical minerals super power — RenewEconomy

Australian public financial capital initiatives will pay a fundamental role in accelerating the development of critical mineral supply chain value-adding projects. The post State and federal support key to Australia becoming a critical minerals super power appeared first on RenewEconomy.

State and federal support key to Australia becoming a critical minerals super power — RenewEconomy

October 31, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Crushing blow to French President Macron as EDF braces for £28billion hit over nuclear shortfall

Macron dealt crushing blow as EDF braces for £28billion hit over nuclear
shortfall. Boris Johnson last month announced plans to invest £700million
into EDF’s Sizewell C project, in one of his final acts as Prime Minister.

 Express 27th Oct 2022

https://www.express.co.uk/news/world/1688454/emmanuel-macron-news-edf-nuclear-power-fr

October 31, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

French nuclear power group EDF to have a bigger loss than previously expected

French nuclear power group EDF is expecting a hit of around 32 billion
euro ($32.18 billion) to its full-year core earnings from lower nuclear
production, a bigger loss than previously forecast and its sixth profit
warning this year.

The French government, which already owns 84% of EDF, is
in the process of fully re-nationalising the company, the debt-laden
operator of Europe’s largest fleet of nuclear power plants.

 Reuters 27th Oct 2022

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/french-utility-giant-edfs-history-2022-07-08/

October 31, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Steps towards multilateral nuclear disarmament – but media silence

An even more momentous UN vote occurred during the same session, when 124 member states affirmed their support for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).

Once again, all the nuclear-armed powers (the US, Russia, Britain, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea) opposed the aim of a nuclear weapons-free world. They were joined for the first time by Finland and Sweden, now pledged to enter Nato together.

Once upon a time, we would have heard Labour voices at Westminster speaking out against Britain’s nuclear weapons and Nato’s war-mongering.

 https://morningstaronline.co.uk/article/e/steps-towards-multilateral-nuclear-disarmament-media-silence 31 Oct 22

THE “international community” has spoken. Twice in the past three days, a very large majority of United Nations member states have made clear their position on two vital issues of life and death.

Unfortunately, this was not the “international community“ comprising the United States, Britain, other major Western powers and those other countries they can bribe, bully or bamboozle to fall into line.

Hence the shroud of silence that has fallen over most of Britain’s mass media when it comes to reporting two significant votes at the UN.

Last Friday, the general assembly’s first committee decided by 152 to five that Israel should sign up to the Non-Proliferation of Nuclear Weapons Treaty (NPT).

The resolution on “the risk of nuclear proliferation in the Middle East” noted that Israel is the only country in the Middle East — and one of the few among the 193 UN member states — not to accede to the NPT.

Accession to the treaty would oblige Israel to submit its nuclear facilities to Atomic Energy Agency safeguards and not to develop, produce, test or acquire nuclear weapons.

Israel refuses to admit its possession of the atomic bomb and kidnapped, drugged, abducted and imprisoned nuclear scientist Mordechai Vanunu who spilled the beans to the British press 36 years ago.

Freed after 18 years and subsequent short incarcerations, he survives under severe restrictions in Israel.

While some of Israel’s accusers are also serial abusers of human rights, this should not detract from the sheer weight of world opinion against nuclear proliferation.

Only the US, Canada and the US military protectorates of Micronesia and Palau joined Israel in opposing the NPT resolution. Britain, India and most European countries abstained.

An even more momentous UN vote occurred during the same session, when 124 member states affirmed their support for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW).

Once again, all the nuclear-armed powers (the US, Russia, Britain, France, China, Israel, India, Pakistan and North Korea) opposed the aim of a nuclear weapons-free world. They were joined for the first time by Finland and Sweden, now pledged to enter Nato together.

This backward step is yet another consequence of Russia’s disastrous decision to invade Ukraine, which has strengthened reactionary forces across Europe, Ukraine and — at least for the time being — Russia itself.

On a brighter note, Australia turned towards sanity by abstaining on the TPNW for a change. The US Pentagon is not happy, but Australia’s vigorous peace movement can celebrate this symbolic blow against the US-UK-Oz anti-China military pact.

Naturally, this decision by most of the “international community” to accelerate the drive to multilateral nuclear disarmament has been ignored by the mainstream media in Britain.

There will be no US or EU sanctions against those rogue states — such as themselves — who brazenly flout UN resolutions and international law when it suits them.

Once upon a time, we would have heard Labour voices at Westminster speaking out against Britain’s nuclear weapons and Nato’s war-mongering.

Alas, silence now reigns as the ghosts of Sydney Silverman, Ian Mikardo, Joan Maynard, SO Davies and Emrys Hughes look on in despair.

October 31, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Bring voices from the coast into the Fukushima treated water debate

October 28, 2022

More than a decade has passed since the accident at the Fukushima Dai’ichi nuclear power plant in Japan—but the most contentious aspect of bringing the site under control is only just beginning. The Japanese Government has approved plant operator TEPCO’s plan to release treated water into the Pacific Ocean. That water is currently being stored onsite and retains some radioactive substances after treatment. The decision to release this water has provoked political contention and societal concern. South Korea, China, and Taiwan, as well as international environmental nongovernmental organizations, have expressed strong concern; and fisheries cooperatives in Japan remain opposed to the releases for fear of possible reputational impacts on Fukushima seafood. TEPCO are confirming specific details of the release process, and an International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) task force has made multiple visits to the Fukushima Dai’ichi site at the behest of the Japanese Government and TEPCO. The releases are scheduled to start in 2023 and run for many years.

A technical committee within Japan, formed by the Ministry of Economy, Trade, and Industry, made the recommendation to release the treated water; it’s unlikely that the Japanese Government or TEPCO will revisit their decision. And so, a key role for technical and policy communities, both within Japan and internationally, is to ensure that the concerns of affected stakeholders are identified and addressed as the releases proceed. However, despite significant global science–policy interest in the treated water situation at Fukushima Dai’ichi (1, 2), the concerns of local fishers and coastal communities in Fukushima, key stakeholders living in the shadow of the nuclear site who will live with the consequences of the releases on a daily basis, have had only limited visibility in the science–policy discourse surrounding the aftermath of the Fukushima disaster.

Even if TEPCO and the government minimize environmental impacts through careful management of the process, as some international experts believe possible (3), the indirect socioeconomic impacts of the treated water releases on Fukushima’s coastal fishing communities are likely to be experienced over the long term. Proposals made by the community of researchers and institutions working at the science–policy interface for Fukushima treated water must be informed by a deep understanding of the local community context—and they must be responsive to the concerns of local stakeholders. We believe local community concerns can be more fully incorporated into decision making for treated water at Fukushima Dai’ichi.

Local Influence

Within Japan, the government expert committees advising the management of treated water are dominated largely—albeit not exclusively—by engineering and physical science expertise (4). Despite fisheries cooperatives’ long-standing and vocal opposition to the releases, plant operator TEPCO explained in August 2021 that they had not at that point had direct consultations with fisheries representatives regarding the discharges (5). Formal dialogue between the operator and the fisheries sector in Fukushima on the topic of releases did not start until TEPCO and the Japanese Government had determined most of the technical details. This left little room for the plans to be adjusted in response to any concerns from Fukushima’s fishers or coastal residents.

Decisions over treated water at Fukushima Dai’ichi rest with the Japanese authorities and plant operator. However, the global community of researchers and organizations working at the interface of science and policy can influence local community engagement at Fukushima in at least three ways. The first is participation as experts in intergovernmental forums, such as the IAEA and United Nations Scientific Committee on the Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR), which provide actors such as the Japanese Government with evidence-based guidelines and oversight on the management of environmental radioactivity. The second is peer-reviewed research into the marine environment in Fukushima and potential impacts of treated water releases (e.g., 6, 7), which often contains policy recommendations and forms part of the scientific record that’s drawn on to justify decisions taken about management of treated water. The third is reports and opinion pieces, grounded in scholarly evidence, on an individual or organizational basis with the intention of influencing government actions within Japan or initiating broader civil society action towards specific outcomes for the management of treated water (e.g., 8).

Both within Japan and internationally, Fukushima’s fishers and coastal residents, although not completely absent, have received limited consideration as stakeholders. Fishers and residents tend to be caricatured as being concerned over rumors and reputational damage to Fukushima seafood owing to the treated water releases (9, 10)—or as harboring “irrational” safety fears over the relatively small amounts of radioactivity from pollutants such as tritium that are contained in the tanks currently storing treated water onsite (e.g., 3). Many suggest that fishers and coastal residents can eventually be appeased with the right compensation strategies along with judicious use of language. This, they argue, would promote a precise understanding of the science behind the releases and avoid potentially stigmatizing or misleading language around radioactivity.

Missing Local Context

The Japanese Government is unlikely to reverse their decision to release treated water. Even so, it’s important to recognize that fishing is both an economic activity and the subject of deep emotional investment on the Fukushima coast. When issues of value are at stake, the social sciences have long argued (11) that providing “more and better” technical information or economic compensation alone is unlikely to be an effective risk governance approach. The resilience of Fukushima’s fishing communities during the treated water releases depends on careful engagement with and deep understanding of fishers’ and residents’ concerns.

One aspect is the significant effort that has gone into revitalizing fisheries to date and concerns over these revitalization efforts being jeopardized by the treated water releases. Trial fishing operations commenced off the Fukushima coast in 2012, with the aim of restarting fisheries on a smaller-scale basis (about 10% of pre-disaster levels) once government fisheries scientists failed to detect radioactive cesium in different species.

In spring 2021, the trial phase ended and coastal fisheries moved to a new “expansion” phase, with an aspiration to return to pre-disaster capacity. Fishers have responded positively to the gradual recovery and expansion of fisheries in Fukushima, citing factors such as renewed opportunity for interaction with and mutual support from their peers, a chance to reduce down time spent in the family home with associated tensions, and the return of a sense of pride and purpose in being out fishing and doing “their” work (12).

The revitalization of fisheries has hence brought significant benefit to the Fukushima coast, both for sales of seafood and also fishers’ wellbeing, which cannot be offset through economic compensation alone. Moreover, the amount of effort that has gone into this revitalization, through re-engaging fishers and building trust with consumers and brokers, should not be underestimated, nor should the time taken to reach a stage where local seafood is once again part of daily life (13). When viewed through this lens, any actions that may jeopardize this recovery—such as releases of water perceived as “tainted” into the marine environment—are likely to be met with concern or opposition.

A second aspect receiving little explicit attention in the debates over Fukushima treated water centers around the social and cultural significance of fisheries to the Fukushima coast. The distinctive environmental characteristics of Fukushima waters—where the warm Kuroshio and cold Oyashio currents meet—have led to particular pride in the uniqueness and quality of Fukushima’s fish (14). Consumers and Fukushima residents have responded positively to the return of Fukushima seafood to menus and supermarket shelves, with events celebrating locally landed and seasonally caught fish. If Fukushima’s waters are again perceived as being degraded, fishers’ and residents’ attitudes towards the releases may stem at least in part from concerns over the implications for their livelihoods and sense of belonging and identity—it’s not simply about their incomes.

There are actions that can be taken to more fully understand coastal communities’ concerns and hence mitigate societal impacts in Fukushima. These action have implications both within Japan and internationally.

We recommend the establishment of a body to independently evaluate the effects of treated water releases on the marine environment and fish stocks. Right now, there are good indications that the Japanese public questions the competence of government and regulatory agencies to manage radioactive waste (15). To ensure that claims of Fukushima seafood remain credible, we must create institutions viewed as trustworthy and independent assessors of marine environmental quality.

A good model may be the Environmental Evaluation Group established to monitor the Waste Isolation Pilot Plant in New Mexico from 1978 to 2004. The group was federally funded, but the state did not control the issues the group researched, the staff it hired, or the reports it published (16). There are already independent groups in Fukushima that invite citizens to collaborate with researchers to assess marine and land-based environmental quality. It’s important that such groups receive long-term core funding to undertake environmental monitoring perceived as independent and trustworthy, while, at the same time, retaining a regulatory firewall to prevent government influence. This will help maintain societal trust in the quality of Fukushima waters and seafood during the releases.

We also recommend that there be a greater diversity of experiences and stakeholders participating in committees responsible for designing and implementing the treated water releases. As outlined earlier, local and experiential knowledge, and to a lesser extent social science and humanities expertise, are under-represented on the technical committees advising the Japanese Government on treated water.

A possible template is the partnership approach adopted as part of low- and intermediate waste management in Belgium in the late 1990s. Sundqvist (17) explains partnerships involving site operators, local governments, and potentially affected stakeholders were established in candidate host communities. The Belgian national waste agency handed the partnerships power to decide on all aspects of the project (with the operator retaining a veto on proposals that were technically unfeasible) and granted budget to commission additional studies or ask for second opinions on proposals. Social science researchers were embedded and tasked with developing ground rules for fair and equitable formation and operation of the partnerships.

Stakeholder engagement exercises can sometimes be more contentious than harmonious, and there is no guarantee that collaborative models of decision making will lead to more satisfactory outcomes. Fukushima represents an extreme case, but also one where there is opportunity for innovation and setting precedents. Fishers, citizens, and local governments could work with marine scientists and plant engineers to decide on timing, locations, and monitoring strategies for releases, by drawing on fishers’ and coastal dwellers’ own knowledge of how fish move around the coastal environment. Partnerships could collate anecdotal and narrative accounts from restaurants, fishmongers, and brokers of how consumers’ perceptions of Fukushima seafood change after the releases, and they can use these accounts in combination with market data to determine compensation levels and additional support requirements for fishing communities. Funding from the national government is needed to sustain these partnerships long-term. Periodic reviews every six months, led by partnership representatives, would give an opportunity for technical details of the releases or communication and compensation strategies to be altered in response to emerging concerns.

However, we need to ensure that committees and partnerships can initiate tangible change rather than “rubber stamping” predetermined recommendations. It is also important that the technical experts who advise on releases have a diversity of opinion among themselves and are able to participate in healthy and constructive disagreement on how the releases ought to proceed. To reduce the risk of “groupthink,” technical committees should also include overseas experts as advisors or observers, individuals who may have relevant experience effectively engaging stakeholders on radioactivity. This could involve government officials who have set up and run stakeholder partnerships for radioactive waste management, scientists who have engaged publics and stakeholders in the aftermath of nuclear accidents such as Chernobyl, or even citizens from other places globally who can share first-hand experience of living with environmental radioactivity.

Last, we believe that international institutions and the science-policy community have an important role to play in informing best practice within Japan. We challenge this community to expand their remits to more explicitly incorporate the societal dimensions of treated water and to engage more fully with local researchers within Japan. At present, social science perspectives have only a marginal role within the IAEA’s work on Fukushima and the sea (18, 19) and indeed lie largely outside the remit of UNSCEAR (20).

From a natural and physical science standpoint, research into the marine environment in the wake of the Fukushima disaster stands as a good example of international collaboration on a complex scientific issue, a collaboration whose activities are meant to inform decision making. This ethos of cooperation in Fukushima’s seas could be further enhanced by more international collaboration with the social sciences, especially with researchers based in Japan who have rich contextual knowledge, spanning research and practice, into how fishers and communities on the Fukushima coast have engaged with the treated water problem (see, e.g., 21, 22).

The treated water issue at Fukushima is a cautionary tale. Investigations into environmental controversies that have international implications and require global scientific cooperation can overlook impacts on local communities. The management of the treated water releases could prove to be an important case study for how local stakeholders, such as fishers, can be embedded into the decision-making for complex marine environmental issues with long-term implications. Yet, for this learning to be realized, local community “on the ground” experiences in Fukushima, related to treated water, need to be better connected to a national and global audience.

References

1 K.O. Buesseler, Opening the floodgates at Fukushima. Science369(6504), 621–622 (2020).

2 D. Normile, Japan plans to release Fukushima’s wastewater into the ocean. Sciencehttps://doi.org/10.1126/SCIENCE.ABI9880 (2021).

3 B. Nogrady, Scientists OK plan to release one million tonnes of waste water from Fukushima. Naturehttps://doi.org/10.1038/D41586-021-01225-2 (2021)

4 METI, Measures against decommissioning, contaminated water, and treated water: Portal site (2021). https://www.meti.go.jp/earthquake/nuclear/hairo_osensui/index.html.

5 Reuters, Tepco to consult fishing communities over water release plan-official (2021, August 26). https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/tepco-consult-fishing-communities-over-water-release-plan-official-2021-08-26/. Accessed 21 October 2022.

6 R. Bezhenar, H. Takata, G. de With, V. Maderich, Planned release of contaminated water from the Fukushima storage tanks into the ocean: Simulation scenarios of radiological impact for aquatic biota and human from seafood consumption. Mar. Pollut. Bull.173 (Pt B), 112969 (2021).

7 Z. Xixi, Q. Tongkun, W. Yecheng, Optimal strategies for stakeholders of Fukushima nuclear waste water discharge in Japan. Mar. Policy135, 104881 (2022).

8 National Bureau of Asian Research, Japan’s role in the Indo-Pacific following the Fukushima nuclear disaster: Through the Pacific Islands’ lens (2022, February 8). https://www.nbr.org/publication/japans-role-in-the-indo-pacific-following-the-fukushima-nuclear-disaster-through-the-pacific-islands-lens/. Accessed 21 October 2022.

9 OECD-NEA, Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant Accident, Ten Years On Progress, Lessons and Challenges (OECD-NEA, 2021).

10 R. Rao, Will Fukushima’s Water Dump Set a Risky Precedent? – IEEE Spectrum. IEEE Spectrum. (2021, September 24). https://spectrum.ieee.org/fukushima-wastewater-cleanup-questions#toggle-gdpr.

11 R. Kasperson, Four questions for risk communication. J. Risk Res.17, 1233–1239 (2014).

12 L. Mabon et al., Inherent resilience, major marine environmental change and revitalisation of coastal communities in Soma, Fukushima Prefecture, Japan. Int. J. Disaster Risk Reduct.51, 101852 (2020).

13 T. Morita, D. Ambe, S. Miki, H. Kaeriyama, Y. Shigenobu, “Impacts of the Fukushima Nuclear Accident on Fishery Products and Fishing Industry” in Low-Dose Radiation Effects on Animals and Ecosystems: Long-Term Study on the Fukushima Nuclear Accident, M. Fukumoto, Ed. (Springer Singapore, 2020), pp. 31–41.

14 L. Mabon, M. Kawabe, “Fighting against harmful rumours, or for fisheries? : Evaluating framings and narrations of risk governance in marine radiation after the Fukushima nuclear accident” in Split Waters: The Idea of Water Conflicts, L. Cortesi, K. Joy, Eds. (Routledge India, 2021), pp. 51–68.

15 M. Aoyagi, The impact of the Fukushima accident on nuclear power policy in Japan. Nat. Energy6, 326–328 (2021).

16 Southwest Research and Information Center, Environmental Evaluation Group Archives (2022). http://www.sric.org/nuclear/eeg.php. Accessed 21 October 2022.

17 G. Sundqvist, ‘Heating up’ or ‘cooling down’? Analysing and performing broadened participation in technoscientific conflicts. Environ. Plann. A46, 2065–2079 (2014).

18 IAEA. Review Report: IAEA Follow-up Review of Progress Made on Management of ALPS Treated Water and the Report of the Subcommittee on Handling of ALPS treated water at TEPCO’s Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station. (IAEA, 2020).

19 IAEA, International Conference on a Decade of Progress after Fukushima-Daiichi: Building on the Lessons Learned to Further Strengthen Nuclear Safety (IAEA, 2021).

20 UNSCEAR. UNSCEAR 2020 Report SCIENTIFIC ANNEX B: Levels and effects of radiation exposure due to the accident at the Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Station: implications of information published since the UNSCEAR 2013 Report (UNSCEAR, 2020).

21 Y. Igarashi, H. Kainuma, Jobancentrism (Kawade, 2015) (in Japanese).

22 Y. Igarashi, Nuclear Accidents and Food: Market, Communication, Discrimination (Chuokoron-Shinsha, 2018) (in Japanese).

https://www.pnas.org/doi/10.1073/pnas.2205431119

October 31, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

October 30 Energy News — geoharvey

Opinion: ¶ “The Demented Gift American Politicians Handed To China” • Once America was great. We had a political system that was the hope of the world. But we also had the best science, with the greatest researchers, finding the best ways to do things. But we walked away from our greatness, and now the […]

October 30 Energy News — geoharvey

October 31, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment

Reporters Without Borders leads 16 organisations urging UK Home Secretary to intervene in extradition of Julian Assange.

UK: RSF leads a coalition of 16 organisations in urging Home Secretary Suella Braverman to urgently intervene in Assange extradition

Reporters Without Borders (RSF) has led a coalition of 16 organisations in urging the new UK Home Secretary, Suella Braverman, to intervene in the US government’s request to extradite Wikileaks publisher Julian Assange. These groups, representing press freedom, free expression, and journalists’ organisations, have also requested a meeting with Braverman to discuss concerns in the case, after a request for a meeting with former Home Secretary, Priti Patel, went unanswered. The full text of the letter is below.

The Rt. Hon Suella Braverman

Secretary of State for the Home Department

2 Marsham Street

London

SW1P 4DF

7 October 2022 

Dear Home Secretary, 

We, the undersigned press freedom, free expression and journalists’ organisations, are writing to raise the case of WikiLeaks publisher Julian Assange and request you to urgently intervene to ensure he is not extradited to the United States. 

In June your predecessor, Priti Patel, signed the order to extradite Mr Assange, despite widespread international concern that his extradition would have alarming implications for journalism and press freedom. In fact, many of the signatories in this letter wrote to Ms Patel warning that Assange’s prosecution “would set a dangerous precedent that could be applied to any media outlet that published stories based on leaked information, or indeed any journalist, publisher or source anywhere in the world.”

Our request for a meeting was unfortunately left unanswered. We are therefore now asking you, Home Secretary, to meet with the signatories of this letter to discuss the case in detail. 

We urge you, Home Secretary, to intervene in this extradition request as a matter of priority. In the US, Mr Assange would face trial on 17 counts under the Espionage Act and one count under the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act, which combined could see him imprisoned for up to 175 years. He is highly likely to be detained there in conditions of isolation or solitary confinement despite the US government’s assurances, which would severely exacerbate his risk of suicide. 

Further, Mr Assange would be unable to adequately defend himself in the US courts, as the Espionage Act lacks a public interest defence. This would not align with the values of fairness, justice and a public commitment to media freedom that the UK continues to promote. 

You now have an opportunity to ensure that this extradition does not proceed. An opportunity to demonstrate through action that the UK means what it says in its commitment to media freedom. And most importantly, the opportunity to reunite Mr Assange with his young family after many years of separation – an act that may ultimately save his life. We ask you to seize this opportunity as a matter of urgency and ensure that the UK government acts in the interest of journalism and press freedom and does not enable the US government to continue to pursue this more than decade-old, politically motivated case.

We look forward to hearing from you and discussing the case further. We would be grateful for a prompt response. Please reply via Azzurra Moores at Reporters Without Borders (RSF) at amoores@rsf.org.

Sincerely,

Rebecca Vincent, Director of Operations and Campaigns, Reporters Without Borders (RSF)

Laurens Hueting, Senior Advocacy Officer, European Centre for Press and Media Freedom (ECPMF)

Séamus Dooley, Assistant General Secretary, National Union of Journalists

Ricardo Gutiérrez, General Secretary, European Federation of Journalists (EFJ)

Ruth Smeeth, Chief Executive, Index on Censorship

Mark Johnson, Legal & Policy Officer, Big Brother Watch

Peter Tatchell, Director, Peter Tatchell Foundation

Dr Suelette Dreyfus, Executive Director, Blueprint for Free Speech

Romana Cacchioli, Executive Director, PEN International 

Daniel Gorman, Director, English PEN

Ricky Monahan Brown, President, Scottish PEN

Alix Parodi, President, PEN Suisse Romand 

Tanja Tuma, President, Slovene PEN

Alix Parodi, President, PEN Suisse Romand 

Zoë Rodriguez, joint President, PEN Sydney, and Chair of the PEN International Women Writers 

Jesper Bengtsson, President, Swedish PEN

October 29, 2022 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Uncategorized | Leave a comment