CND Press Roundup Friday 8th April 2022
 

War in Ukraine

• A good letter to the Guardian from former co-chair of the World Disarmament Campaign, Frank Jackson, on the need for peaceful solutions to the conflict in Ukraine: “In January, the five primary nuclear weapon powers, the US, Russia, France, China and the UK, made a joint statement, echoing the original declaration by Reagan and Gorbachev in 1985, that “a nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought”. Just months later, the response to the carnage in Ukraine, and the threat to use nuclear weapons, is not to draw back from the precipice, but to accelerate the drive to the cliff edge. When are the (mis)leaders of the world going to recognise that the only answer to the many existential threats that face us is cooperation at all levels to find peaceful solutions to potential, and actual, conflicts?

• The European Commission announced that the EU is stockpiling its reserves of protective equipment, decontamination gear, medicines and vaccines that could be useful in case of chemical, nuclear or biological incidents.

• Foreign Affairs asks “was Ukraine wrong to give up its nukes?” It notes: “Ukraine could have begun a nuclear weapons program, but doing so would have taken a great deal of time, money, and effort….Setting aside these technological challenges, to become a full-fledged nuclear possessor, Ukraine would have had to endure international opprobrium, isolation, and sanctions. The United States and its allies promised in no uncertain terms that Ukraine would become the North Korea of eastern Europe if it chose a nuclear path. Ukraine would have been shunned in international forums. It would have been denied access to Western-controlled international financial institutions, such as the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank, whose help Ukraine sorely needed to dig itself out of a deep post-Soviet economic crisis.”

• Responsible Statecraft writes on the interventionists in the US and the “do-somethingism” running amok in Washington: “Despite Russian military reverses and the withdrawal of Russian forces from the vicinity of Kyiv, there is an increasing clamour for some form of Western military intervention in the war in Ukraine from quite a few prominent analysts, pundits, and even some reporters.”

• Hungary has started to receive nuclear fuel from Russia via air, after overland routes were cut off due to the war in Ukraine. The shipment was able to travel over Belarussian, Polish and Slovak airspace as nuclear fuel is not subject to Western sanctions against Russia.

• The New Statesman speaks to writer, linguist, and activist Noam Chomsky, on the climate crisis and the threat of nuclear war. On the war in Ukraine and the call for more military support from Kiev he says: “What we do know is that Ukraine will be further devastated. And we may move on to terminal nuclear war if we do not pursue the opportunities that exist for a negotiated settlement.”

UK Nuclear Energy

• CND’s coverage of the UK government’s Energy Strategy – which includes provisions for eight new nuclear reactors. Comments from Kate Hudson and Dr Ian Fairlie. On the plan, Ian says: “The Government’s apparent obsession with nuclear power is ill-considered. It should instead be concerned about fuel poverty and the recent 60% hike in energy costs. This, plus the recent NI increase and inflation, will force millions of poor people into desperate choices between eating and heating. The Government is supporting the most expensive, by far, of all the energy options available to it. How is that going to help fuel poor people? CND asks why the Government sidelines the renewables which are the fastest and most effective means of alleviating high energy costs and gas dependence and presses for the most expensive option that can do nothing for over a decade?”

• A good article from Scientists for Global Responsibility on the links between civilian nuclear energy and its military uses.

• This Guardian cartoon sums up Boris Johnson’s nuclear energy ambitions. Meanwhile, more scrutiny of his energy strategy and the noticeable absence of onshore wind from the plans: “It is perverse to apply a handbrake to “one of the cheapest forms of renewable power”, to use the government’s own description, when public opinion is broadly supportive of turbines on land. Objections from Tory backbenchers should have been ignored.” On the cost of eight nuclear reactors: “The government is not, though, at the stage where it can have sufficient confidence to back EPRs wholeheartedly and mean it. Talk of ‘leading the world’ in nuclear construction should therefore be filed under ‘believe it when you see it’. You have to know what you plan to build to make such boasts. There is an alarming nuclear-sized question mark at the heart of this strategy.”

• The Times reports on how UK energy bills will not decrease for three years, casting shadow over yesterday’s energy strategy announcement. Mike Thompson of the Climate Change Committee said it was “disappointing not to see more on energy efficiency and on supporting households to make changes that can cut their energy bills now.”

• “Has the PM forgotten how Japan’s Hitachi spent four years trying to power up that project before jacking it in and writing off £2.1 billion?” asks Alistar Osborne in his commentary of the strategy for the Times. He adds that instead of improving energy efficiency, Boris Johnson has “produced plans for the big, shiny projects he likes that may never happen. Call it what you like, but it’s not a strategy.”

• The Financial Times also reports on the “missed opportunity” in yesterday’s strategy. “The prime minister’s decision to back nuclear and offshore wind, which both have long lead times, over cheaper technologies, such as land-based turbines that are quicker to install, was widely criticised.”

• However the Telegraph is more sympathetic in its coverage with a focus on how planning obstacles will be unblocked as part of Boris Johnson’s “green energy revolution.” And while this commentarybemoans the strategy and its impact on consumers, the Telegraph still echoes Boris Johnson’s nuclear nationalism: “Shamefully, we’ve lost our nuclear expertise alongside everything else, even though Britain was first to split the atom and an early pioneer in civil nuclear power generation. All of today’s foreign-owned nuclear technologies build on that legacy, yet beyond plans from Rolls Royce for small modular reactors, they are almost wholly forgotten. Desire to regulate has replaced the urge to innovate.”

• Meanwhile the Express can’t resist a chance to have a pop at the French – whose EDF nuclear company will be big winners in UK nuclear plans.

• What is nuclear energy? If you didn’t know the Independent has an explainer. On just how dirty nuclear power is, it writes: “While radioactive waste and its disposal remains the primary drawback of nuclear power – alongside the considerable expense involved in the construction of the necessary infrastructure – the good news is that it produces very little carbon dioxide compared to fossil fuels so is less harmful to the atmosphere while providing a steady, dependable source of power.”

Trident

• A litter picker in Scotland recently found a sealed police evidence bag containing gloves originally from Royal Naval Armaments Depot (RNAD) Coulport – the storage and loading facility for the UK’s Trident nuclear warheads. The bag dates back to 2007 and the MoD has opened an investigation.

Iran Nuclear Deal

• The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has said Iran has moved all its machines that make centrifuge parts from its mothballed workshop at Karaj to its sprawling Natanz site, just six weeks after it set up another site at Isfahan to make the same parts. Inspectors from the UN’s nuclear watchdog had visited Karaj in December to reinstall surveillance cameras after Iran claimed that previous cameras installed at the site had been destroyed and damaged by Israeli sabotage – forcing Iran to remove all four cameras.

North Korea

• A US official said North Korea is likely to be gearing up for its first nuclear test in five years. Sung Kim, the State Department’s North Korea envoy, said the test could take place during Day of the Sun celebrations on April 15th to mark the birthday of North Korea’s founder Kim Il-sung. “I don’t want to speculate too much, but I think it could be another missile launch, it could be a nuclear test. Hopefully, the anniversary can pass without any further escalation,” Sung Kim said.