Declassification of documents on Banderite crimes

The Russian government has declassified documents relating to the trials of banderites at the end of the Great Patriotic War (World War II). These documents bring light to the atrocious war crimes perpetrated by the banderites against Ukrainian civilians, in 1944 and 1945, during the retreat of the Nazis faced with the advance of the Soviet Army. In particular, a document from the ministry devoted to the eastern territories occupied by the Third Reich, headed by Alfred Rosenberg, uncovers (...)

Poland planning to occupy Western Ukraine again

The Polish government has established contact with Ukrainian opposition leaders to propose the deployment of a peacekeeping force in the west of the country. The proposal is not without ulterior motives. Indeed, during the interwar period, Poland had occupied Western Ukraine to protect it from Bolshevism. She then annexed these territories in agreement with the USSR. A month ago, Polish officials laid claim to the enclave of Kaliningrad, which has never belonged to Poland . It was (...)

The Sweet Sound of Censorship: The Biden Administration Seeks the Perfect Pitch for Disinformation Governance

undefined

Many politicians and pundits are in full panic over Elon Musk’s threat to restore free speech values to Twitter. While Hillary Clinton has called upon Europeans to step in to maintain such censorship and Barack Obama has called for US regulations, the Biden Administration has created a new Disinformation Governance Board in the Department of Homeland Security. It appointed an executive director, Nina Jankowicz, who is literally pitch perfect as an advocate for both corporate and state censorship.

It would have been hard to come up with a more Orwellian name short of the Ministry of Truth. However, the DGB needed a true believer to carry out the monitoring of political speech in the United States. It found that person in Jankowicz, who has long been an outspoken anti-free speech advocate.

Indeed, Jankowicz put her extreme views to music and posted it on TikTok in a rendition of Mary Poppins’ “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.”

What is clear is that Jankowicz has a far better hold on the musical scale than constitutional values. With what is a remarkably impressive singing voice, Jankowicz croons that “You can just call me the Mary Poppins of disinformation.”
It was a poignant and prophetic line.

Jankowicz was selected by the Biden Administration after years of pushing disinformation on the left while calling for censorship of the right.

Jankowicz previously argued that Congress should create new laws to block mockery of women online by reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and including “provisions against online gender-based harassment.”
Jankowicz testified before British House of Parliament last year about “gender misinformation” being a “national security concern” and a threat to democracy requiring government censorship.

She has demanded that both tech companies and government should work together using “creativity and technological prowess to make a pariah of online misogyny.”

On the Hunter Biden laptop, Jankowicz pushed the false narrative that it was a false story and that “we should view it as a Trump campaign product.” She continued to spread that disinformation, including tweeting a link to a news article that she said cast “yet more doubt on the provenance of the NY Post’s Hunter Biden story.” In another tweet, she added “not to mention that the emails don’t need to be altered to be part of an influence campaign. Voters deserve that context, not a [fairy] tale about a laptop repair shop.”

She even cites the author of the Steele Dossier as a guide for how to deal with disinformation. In August 2020, Jankowicz tweeted “Listened to this last night – Chris Steele (yes THAT Chris Steele) provides some great historical context about the evolution of disinfo. Worth a listen.”

She also joined the panic over the Musk threat to reintroduce free speech values to Twitter. In an interview on NPR, she stated “I shudder to think about if free speech absolutists were taking over more platforms, what that would look like for the marginalized communities.”

Pitch perfect. Indeed, in seeing how we all “measure up,” Nina Jankowicz “is practically perfect in every way.”

Reprinted with permission from JonathanTurley.org.

The Sweet Sound of Censorship: The Biden Administration Seeks the Perfect Pitch for Disinformation Governance

undefined

Many politicians and pundits are in full panic over Elon Musk’s threat to restore free speech values to Twitter. While Hillary Clinton has called upon Europeans to step in to maintain such censorship and Barack Obama has called for US regulations, the Biden Administration has created a new Disinformation Governance Board in the Department of Homeland Security. It appointed an executive director, Nina Jankowicz, who is literally pitch perfect as an advocate for both corporate and state censorship.

It would have been hard to come up with a more Orwellian name short of the Ministry of Truth. However, the DGB needed a true believer to carry out the monitoring of political speech in the United States. It found that person in Jankowicz, who has long been an outspoken anti-free speech advocate.

Indeed, Jankowicz put her extreme views to music and posted it on TikTok in a rendition of Mary Poppins’ “Supercalifragilisticexpialidocious.”

What is clear is that Jankowicz has a far better hold on the musical scale than constitutional values. With what is a remarkably impressive singing voice, Jankowicz croons that “You can just call me the Mary Poppins of disinformation.”
It was a poignant and prophetic line.

Jankowicz was selected by the Biden Administration after years of pushing disinformation on the left while calling for censorship of the right.

Jankowicz previously argued that Congress should create new laws to block mockery of women online by reauthorizing the Violence Against Women Act (VAWA) and including “provisions against online gender-based harassment.”
Jankowicz testified before British House of Parliament last year about “gender misinformation” being a “national security concern” and a threat to democracy requiring government censorship.

She has demanded that both tech companies and government should work together using “creativity and technological prowess to make a pariah of online misogyny.”

On the Hunter Biden laptop, Jankowicz pushed the false narrative that it was a false story and that “we should view it as a Trump campaign product.” She continued to spread that disinformation, including tweeting a link to a news article that she said cast “yet more doubt on the provenance of the NY Post’s Hunter Biden story.” In another tweet, she added “not to mention that the emails don’t need to be altered to be part of an influence campaign. Voters deserve that context, not a [fairy] tale about a laptop repair shop.”

She even cites the author of the Steele Dossier as a guide for how to deal with disinformation. In August 2020, Jankowicz tweeted “Listened to this last night – Chris Steele (yes THAT Chris Steele) provides some great historical context about the evolution of disinfo. Worth a listen.”

She also joined the panic over the Musk threat to reintroduce free speech values to Twitter. In an interview on NPR, she stated “I shudder to think about if free speech absolutists were taking over more platforms, what that would look like for the marginalized communities.”

Pitch perfect. Indeed, in seeing how we all “measure up,” Nina Jankowicz “is practically perfect in every way.”

Reprinted with permission from JonathanTurley.org.

Iraqis’ Oil Did Not Pay for Rebuilding Iraq; Russians’ Yachts Will Not Pay for the US War on Russia.

undefined

In March of 2003, as the United States military prepared for its imminent invasion of Iraq, Paul Wolfowitz suggested to US Congress members that the US would not foot the bill for rebuilding Iraq after the devastation the US invasion would bring to the country. Wolfowitz, who was then then deputy secretary of defense, assured Congress members that Iraq, through its oil revenue, could pay for its own reconstruction.

Reality turned out much different. As Krishnadev Calamur wrote at The Atlantic in 2018, “15 years later, Iraq has yet to fully rebuild after the American-led invasion, a civil war, and the isis takeover of large parts of the country, and has never been able to fund a substantial portion of the reconstruction itself.”

Inquisitive, informed individuals would have had plenty of reason back in 2003 to be very skeptical when Wolfowitz dangled before them the prospect of a reconstruction of Iraq at no cost to the US government. But, many people, included among them Congress members, were seeking talking points to sell the war against Iraq, not predictions based in reality.

Here we are 19 years later with a similar tactic being used to propagandize to the American people and provide pro-war talking points to Congress members in regard to the US going to war against Russia. So far, the US war on Russia is largely being pursued via aid to the Ukraine government and sanctions. US troops, at least overtly, are not fighting Russians troops on the ground, in the air, or at sea, but it is war nonetheless. Indeed, in a Thursday Twitter post, White House Chief of Staff Ronald Klain bluntly affirmed this while saying the war cost can be paid by selling yachts the US seizes from Russians. “Seize yachts, fund the war,” Klain declared.

Be ready for Klain’s declaration to prove as far off as Wolfowitz’s has. For now, though, the curt assertion of a free war can help keep Americans from paying critical attention to the unfolding US foreign policy disaster and give politicians an excuse for helping move the war forward.

Klain’s Twitter post came the same day as the Biden administration announced its proposal for legislation to expand and streamline the US government’s confiscating and selling of Russians’ property wherever it may be found. This activity is already an unconstitutional travesty, before being amped up as proposed by the Biden administration.

The Russian property conversion racket is sure to bring in far less money than the US government spends in its anti-Russia effort, not to mention the additional costs born by Americans due to shortages and price increases arising from the disruption of commerce caused by US sanctions on Russia. And, the more the war ramps up, the more costs to the US government and Americans can be expected to rise.

The Biden administration’s announcement of its plans for expanded and streamlined confiscation and sale of Russians’ property begins with a mention that this plan is being pursued “ in concert with [President Joe Biden’s] supplemental request to Congress to support Ukraine.” That supplemental request is for 33 billion dollars. This is on top of tens of billions of dollars the US has spent already on Ukraine this year. Of course, the money was flowing from the US to Ukraine consistently, though at a slower pace, for many years before as well. Included was funding for the 2014 overthrow of the country’s elected government.

Compared to the money the US government has spent and will spend on the Ukraine government and against Russia, money from selling yachts and other property of Russians is sure to be a drop in the bucket. The Biden administration, in its Thursday announcement, talks of the Department of Treasury having “sanctioned and blocked vessels and aircraft worth over $1 billion, as well as frozen hundreds of millions of dollars of assets belonging to Russian elites in U.S. bank accounts.” That is already way behind expenses. Deficit spending is the US government’s way. So also is war.

Iraqis’ Oil Did Not Pay for Rebuilding Iraq; Russians’ Yachts Will Not Pay for the US War on Russia.

undefined

In March of 2003, as the United States military prepared for its imminent invasion of Iraq, Paul Wolfowitz suggested to US Congress members that the US would not foot the bill for rebuilding Iraq after the devastation the US invasion would bring to the country. Wolfowitz, who was then then deputy secretary of defense, assured Congress members that Iraq, through its oil revenue, could pay for its own reconstruction.

Reality turned out much different. As Krishnadev Calamur wrote at The Atlantic in 2018, “15 years later, Iraq has yet to fully rebuild after the American-led invasion, a civil war, and the isis takeover of large parts of the country, and has never been able to fund a substantial portion of the reconstruction itself.”

Inquisitive, informed individuals would have had plenty of reason back in 2003 to be very skeptical when Wolfowitz dangled before them the prospect of a reconstruction of Iraq at no cost to the US government. But, many people, included among them Congress members, were seeking talking points to sell the war against Iraq, not predictions based in reality.

Here we are 19 years later with a similar tactic being used to propagandize to the American people and provide pro-war talking points to Congress members in regard to the US going to war against Russia. So far, the US war on Russia is largely being pursued via aid to the Ukraine government and sanctions. US troops, at least overtly, are not fighting Russians troops on the ground, in the air, or at sea, but it is war nonetheless. Indeed, in a Thursday Twitter post, White House Chief of Staff Ronald Klain bluntly affirmed this while saying the war cost can be paid by selling yachts the US seizes from Russians. “Seize yachts, fund the war,” Klain declared.

Be ready for Klain’s declaration to prove as far off as Wolfowitz’s has. For now, though, the curt assertion of a free war can help keep Americans from paying critical attention to the unfolding US foreign policy disaster and give politicians an excuse for helping move the war forward.

Klain’s Twitter post came the same day as the Biden administration announced its proposal for legislation to expand and streamline the US government’s confiscating and selling of Russians’ property wherever it may be found. This activity is already an unconstitutional travesty, before being amped up as proposed by the Biden administration.

The Russian property conversion racket is sure to bring in far less money than the US government spends in its anti-Russia effort, not to mention the additional costs born by Americans due to shortages and price increases arising from the disruption of commerce caused by US sanctions on Russia. And, the more the war ramps up, the more costs to the US government and Americans can be expected to rise.

The Biden administration’s announcement of its plans for expanded and streamlined confiscation and sale of Russians’ property begins with a mention that this plan is being pursued “ in concert with [President Joe Biden’s] supplemental request to Congress to support Ukraine.” That supplemental request is for 33 billion dollars. This is on top of tens of billions of dollars the US has spent already on Ukraine this year. Of course, the money was flowing from the US to Ukraine consistently, though at a slower pace, for many years before as well. Included was funding for the 2014 overthrow of the country’s elected government.

Compared to the money the US government has spent and will spend on the Ukraine government and against Russia, money from selling yachts and other property of Russians is sure to be a drop in the bucket. The Biden administration, in its Thursday announcement, talks of the Department of Treasury having “sanctioned and blocked vessels and aircraft worth over $1 billion, as well as frozen hundreds of millions of dollars of assets belonging to Russian elites in U.S. bank accounts.” That is already way behind expenses. Deficit spending is the US government’s way. So also is war.

Australia’s Pacific Neglect: Distractions from Climate Change Security

The hysteria in Canberra and Washington over the Sino-Solomon Islands security pact has shown, again, how irrelevant the individual affairs of Pacific Island states are in the chess game of geopolitics. The one thing conspicuously missing has been the issue of climate change, near and dear to those whose lands are gradually being inundated by rising sea levels.

In a desperate attempt to understand why Honiara courted Chinese interest in defiance of Australian wishes, opposition Labor figures pointed the finger at climate change.  Australia’s sniffly approach to such a vital issue was key in pushing the country into the arms of Beijing.  According to the Shadow Education Minister Tanya Plibersek, Canberra had “left a vacuum” on the matter.  Senator Penny Wong stated the obvious in remarking that Pacific leaders had been less than impressed by the Morrison government’s indifference to climate change as the “number one economic and national issue”.

The indifference, even contempt, shown by Canberra to that most existential of concerns has made itself present on several occasions.  In September 2015, banter ensued between Immigration Minister Peter Dutton waiting alongside Prime Minister Tony Abbott and Social Services Minister Scott Morrison.  Abbott recalled the rather casual approach to punctuality that had taken place at a Pacific Islands Forum meeting the previous day in Papua New Guinea.  “Time doesn’t mean anything,” remarked Dutton, “when you’re about to have water lapping at your door.”

In August 2019, Fiji Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama was already giving signals that a turning might well be in the offing.  After the Pacific Island nations summit held that month, Bainimarama noted how Morrison had been “very insulting, very condescending”, behaviour that had hardly been “good for the relationship” with Pacific Island states.  The Chinese, on the other hand, “don’t insult us.”  They did not “go down and tell the world that we’ve given this much money to the Pacific Islands.  They don’t do that.  They’re good people, definitely better than Morrison.”

Australia’s then Deputy Prime Minister, Michael McCormack, had also caught the attention of the Fijian PM for less than flattering observations.  In remarks published in the Guardian, Morrison’s deputy made light of the environmental threats posed to the region’s states.  They would continue to survive, he suggested, “because many of their workers come here to pick our fruit, pick our own fruit grown with hard Australian enterprise and endeavour”.  Such states would also “continue to survive on large aid assistance from Australia.”

The comments drew criticism from the former Australian Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull, who stated the matter in terms the most simple, coal-loving politician could understand.  “If you are a Pacific Islander and your home is going to be washed away from rising sea levels caused by global warming then this is not a political issue, it’s an existential one.”

Despite such remarks, the Morrison government remained deaf.  In 2020, it was still hostile to the idea of committing to net zero carbon emissions by 2050.  Fourteen Pacific leaders responded by penning an open letter to the Prime Minister.  Made up of former presidents, prime ministers, archbishops and church leaders, the authors took issue with Australia’s “current Paris Agreement emission reduction target” as “one of the weakest among wealthy nations.”

The letter condemned Canberra’s practice of using Kyoto Protocol carryover credits “which legally cannot, and morally should not, be used to meet Australia’s 2030 Paris Agreement target”.  As the children and grandchildren of the region faced “unprecedented risks due to climate change, now is the time to stand together and work together to secure their future safety and prosperity.”

Wilful blindness to the region on the subject of climate security has persisted, with Dutton, now Defence Minister, adamant that Canberra had “a fantastic relationship with the Solomon Islands”.  Using the ugly, infantilising language of “the Pacific family,” which presumably is made up of hectoring parents and obedient children, who the children are is never in doubt.  “As part of the Pacific family, it is obvious we want to work together and we want to resolve the issues within that family, within our region.” Some issues are just bigger than others.

While Wong and Plibersek are trying to squeeze every bit of critical comment about the Sino-Solomon Islands pact, it was only one aspect of the broader condescension that powers have shown to the smaller states in the region.  In all the fuss and angst about the Honiara-Beijing agreement and whether it would permit the stationing of Chinese military personnel, the Pacific Elders’ Voice had to reiterate “that the primary security threat to the Pacific is climate change.”

The group also recalled the content of the 2018 Boe Declaration on Regional Security: “We affirm that climate change remains the single greatest threat to the livelihoods, security and wellbeing of the peoples of the Pacific and our commitments to progress and the implementation of the Paris Agreement.”

For the elders, the major powers “including the US, Japan and Australia, are developing strategies and policies for the ‘Indo-Pacific’ with little, if any, consultation with the Pacific Island countries.”  The Pacific region comprising states – known as the Moana – faced “a set of unique challenges.”  It was primarily those countries, not external powers, who should determine the security and future of the region.  Accordingly, all nations were called upon “to respect the sovereignty of all Pacific Island countries and the right of Pacific peoples to develop and implement their own security strategies without undue coercion from outsiders.”

The observation is well-reasoned and well-meant; but those same external powers, goggle-eyed about nuclear-powered submarines, the establishment of rival military bases and geopolitical strutting, have long ignored the sovereign wishes of those in the Pacific.  It is a nasty habit that persists, even as sea levels rise.

The post Australia’s Pacific Neglect: Distractions from Climate Change Security first appeared on Dissident Voice.

The Walk for Appalachia’s Future

From May 24th to June 4th, climate justice and social justice activists will be walking and riding from Charleston, West Virginia into southwest Virginia, down to Rockingham/Alamance counties in North Carolina, ending up in Richmond, Virginia. For most of the time the Walk for Appalachia’s Future will take place along the route of the planned but deeply troubled, 303 miles long, fracked gas Mountain Valley Pipeline.

This action is happening first and foremost to kill the MVP, but it also calls for jobs with justice, for renewable energy, and for mobilizing the resources so that the people of Appalachia can exercise control over their lives and communities. In the words of West Virginia farmer, activist, and one of the Walk leaders Maury Johnson:

There is no reason to build new pipelines. We have far too many destructive pipelines already. We need to fully electrify our energy sector with renewable energy and build a smart, modern electrical grid. Senator Joe Manchin, MVP supporter and coal plant owner, is not only wrong, he is DEAD wrong, and the human race will be too if we continue down the path that he is pushing.

The primary purpose of the Walk is to amplify the voices of frontline Appalachian communities and others in their fight for environmental justice and renewables. The mission statement goes on:

We will say loudly and clearly that politicians need to stop doing the bidding of the fossil fuel industry and get serious about the urgent need to shift in a just way from coal, oil and gas to renewables. All along the pipeline route we will inspect damages to water, air, animals, and the Earth, and the people who depend on them; and we will every morning have ceremonies honoring the heroes in our states who have died during these fights to protect Appalachia.

The first, long, multi-day political walk I was ever on took place in Appalachia, in 2011, the March on Blair Mountain. Over the course of a week we walked from Charleston down into coal country in the southwest part of West Virginia. That march had four demands: preserve Blair Mountain, abolish mountaintop removal, strengthen labor rights and invest in sustainable job creation for all Appalachian communities. Blair Mountain is where 10,000 armed coal miners fought in 1921 against the coal operators and their supporters who were severely repressing them as the miners attempted to organize. The 2011 action was well attended, received much state and national media attention and was a big deal.

Organizers for this Walk 11 years later are from West Virginia, Virginia, North Carolina and beyond. They are active members of organizations such as 7 Directions of Service, POWHR, Beyond Extreme Energy, NC Alliance to Protect the People and the Places We Live, Chesapeake Climate Action Network, Th!rd Act, and others. Hopefully, this Walk will come to be seen as an important part of what put the final nails in the coffin of the MVP, as well as advancing the urgently needed, justice-grounded, community-involving transition from fossil fuels to a jobs-creating, renewable energy economy, toward thriving and prosperous Appalachian communities.

The post The Walk for Appalachia’s Future first appeared on Dissident Voice.

Japan’s Toxic Dumping Faces Growing Protests

Storage tanks for radioactive water at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant. (Photograph: Issei Kato/Reuters)

The Japanese government’s decision one year ago to dump radioactive water from Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant storage tanks into the Pacific Ocean, starting in the spring of 2023, is facing increasing pressure to back off, especially in light of the facts that not only is it illegal but also morally reprehensible as well as a despicable disregard for the lifeblood of the ocean.

Meanwhile, in a startling maneuver indicative of desperation to convince citizens of its true worthiness, the Japanese government is using mind control tactics reminiscent of Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World (Chatto & Windus, 1932), which depicts harmful effects that the expansion and development of a capitalist ideology can impose on a society.

To wit: Japanese citizens are outraged over a new government policy of brainwashing children by distributing flyers to primary school students claiming TEPCO’s “diluted, nuclear-contaminated water is safe.”

The government sent a total of 2.3 million booklets directly to elementary, junior and senior high schools across the nation in December in an effort to prevent reputational damage caused by the planned water discharge. The school staffers say the leaflets are unilaterally imposing the central government’s views on children. 1

A Fukushima resident surnamed Kataoka told the Global Times on Wednesday that the Japanese government’s move was a kind of mind control, and she was strongly opposed to it.2

Japanese citizens are fighting back as four separate civic organizations from Fukushima and Miyagi prefectures submitted a petition signed by 180,000 people to the Ministry of Economy, Trade and Industry and to Tokyo Electric Power Company on March 30th, 2022 expressing opposition to the government’s plan.

Additionally, Japanese environmental protection groups have organized national rallies in Tokyo and Fukushima, stating they will continue to rally in the streets until the government revokes its decision: “Once the nuclear-contaminated water is discharged into the sea, the result is irreversible. It’s not only Fukushima. The ocean connects the whole world. We hope we don’t discharge toxic substances into the sea,” said protester Ayumu Aoyanagi. “I am angry. They completely ignored public opinion. I hope people understand that the danger may not appear soon but will definitely affect our health in the future,” said another protester named Makiyo Takahashi.”3

Zhao Lijian of the Chinese Foreign Ministry claims the Japanese government has turned a deaf ear to any and all opposition, failing to provide any convincing evidence of the legitimacy of the discharge program, no reliable data on the contaminated water and effectiveness of purification devices, and no convincing evidence about environmental impact. 4

Moreover, “this water adds to the already nuclear polluted ocean. This threatens the lives and livelihoods of islanders heavily reliant on marine resources. These include inshore fisheries as well as pelagic fishes such as tuna. The former provides daily sustenance and food security, and the latter much needed foreign exchange via fishing licenses for distant water fishing nation fleets,” Vijay Naidu, adjunct professor at the School of Law and Social Sciences at the University of the South Pacific in Fiji, told Al Jazeera5

The principal radioactive isotope to be released “tritium is a normal contaminant from the discharges, the cooling water from normal reactor operations, but this is the equivalent of several centuries worth of normal production of tritium that’s in this water, so it is a very large amount,” according to Tilman Ruff, a Nobel laureate and associate professor at the Institute for Global Health at the University of Melbourne in Australia. 6

Japan claims the radioactive water dump will be safe, however: “Obviously, the higher the level of exposure [to radiation], the greater the risk, but there is no level below which there is no effect,” Ruff said. “That is now really fairly conclusively proven, because in the last decade or so there have been impressive very large studies of large numbers of people exposed to low doses of radiation. At levels even a fraction of those that we receive from normal background [radiation] exposure from the rocks, from cosmic radiation. At even those very low levels, harmful effects have been demonstrated.”6

Chang Yen-chiang, director of the Yellow Sea and Bohai Sea Research Institute of Dalian Maritime University is urging the international community to stop the discharge by first requesting the International Court of Justice to issue an advisory opinion on the illegality of Japan’s dumping plan followed by motions to stop the process by China, South Korea, Russia, North Korea, and Pacific Island nations at the UN General Assembly.

Japan, as a signatory to: (1) the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (2) the Convention on Early Notification of a Nuclear Accident (3) the Convention on Nuclear Safety (4) the Joint Convention on the Safety of Spent Fuel Management, and (5) the Safety of Radioactive Waste Management has clearly and knowingly breached its obligations under international law.

According to the plan released by TEPCO for the disposal of nuclear-contaminated water generated by Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant, the country will soon begin official preparations for the release of the contaminated water and plans to begin long-term discharge of radioactive water into the Pacific Ocean in the spring of 2023.

However, according to an article in People’s Daily Online d/d April 15, 2022: “Data from TEPCO showed that the contaminated water from the Fukushima nuclear accident still contains many kinds of radionuclides with a long half-life even after secondary treatment.”

Shaun Burnie, senior nuclear specialist at Greenpeace East Asia, claims the toxic water dump risks additional nuclear debris into the Pacific Ocean whereas the discharge is not the only option as “ the Japanese government once admitted that there is enough space near the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant and areas around Fukushima prefecture to build more storage facilities for the water.” (Global Times)

The Citizens Committee on Nuclear Energy recommends proper storage on land in Japan similar to storage the country uses for its national oil and petroleum reserves. “The argument that they make… is that, if this water was stored not for an indeterminate period, but even for a period of about 50-60 years, then, by then, the tritium will have decayed to a tiny fraction of what it is today and hardly be an issue.” (Al Jazeera)

Even though the US boldly approves of the dumping plan, the Northern Mariana Islands, a US territory with a population of over 50,000 people, has declared Japan’s plan as “unacceptable.” In December 2021, the US territory adopted a joint resolution opposing any nation disposing of nuclear waste in the Pacific Ocean as well as suggesting the only acceptable option is long-term storage and processing using the best technology available.

In all similar circumstances, historical events have a way of swinging back and forth in time and landing smack dab in the middle of new controversies; for example, when it comes to radioactivity in the Pacific, memories are long. More than 300 atmospheric and underwater nuclear tests by the US, UK, and France from the 1940s, especially in the Republic of the Marshall Islands and French Polynesia, left uninhabitable land in many locations as well as long-term health disorders throughout the region. Japan’s dumping plans bring back haunting memories.

“Satyendra Prasad, the Chair of Pacific Islands Forum Ambassadors at the United Nations, reminded the world in September last year of the Pacific’s “ongoing struggle with the legacy of nuclear testing from the trans boundary contamination of homes and habitats to higher numbers of birth defects and cancers.” (Al Jazeera)

Meantime, and especially over the past couple of decades, Japan increasingly and fearlessly adheres to, and puts into actual practice, the overriding theme as expressed in Aldous Huxley’s Brave New World, which is “the dangers of state control” whilst the father of liberalism John Locke (1632-1704) not surprisingly spins in his grave.

For example, in December 2013 Japan passed the Protection of Specially Designated Secrets Act providing for whistleblowing civil servants to face up to 10 years in prison and the journalists who work with them could face up to five years for leaking state secrets.

Here’s a major twist to that law: The guidelines empower the heads of 19 ministries and agencies to subjectively “designate which documents and subjects comprise state secrets.” In short, subjective judgment by any given state official determines who goes to jail.

“The result is that while civil servants will be aware of a document’s classification, journalists cannot be sure just what comprises a state secret. Whistleblowing civil servants and journalists could face arrest even if they are convinced they are acting in the public’s interest.”  7

Since Japan appears to be adhering to the precepts of Brave New World, it’s interesting to note that thirty years following publication of Brave New World, Huxley wrote Brave New World Revisited ((Aldous Huxley, Brave New World Revisited, Harper & Brothers, 1958.)) :

If the first half of the twentieth century was the era of the technical engineers, the second half may well be the era of the social engineers— and the twenty-first century, I suppose, will be the era of World Controllers, the scientific caste system and Brave New World.

Huxley warned that a Brave New World type of order could be the “final” or “ultimate” revolution when people have their liberties taken from them, but “they will enjoy their servitude and so never question it, let alone rebel.”

Really?

  1. “Booklets Touting Fukushima Plant Water Discharge Angers Schools”, The Asahi Shimbun, March 7, 2022.
  2. “Japanese Groups Voice Growing Opposition, Organize Rallies Over Govt’s Nuclear-Contaminated Water Dumping Plan Decided One Year Before”, Global Times, April 13, 2022.
  3. “Fukushima Residents Oppose Government Dumping Radioactive Water Into Ocean”, CGTN News, April 14, 2022.
  4. “Japan Severely Breaches Obligations Under International Law by Persisting in Discharge of Nuclear-contaminated Water Into Ocean”, People’s Daily Online, April 15, 2022.
  5. “‘Not a Dumping Ground’: Pacific Condemns Fukushima Water Plan”, Al Jazeera, February 14, 2022.
  6. Ibid.
  7. “Japan’s State Secrets Law, A Minefield for Journalists”, Committee to Protect Journalists-NY, November 4, 2014.
The post Japan’s Toxic Dumping Faces Growing Protests first appeared on Dissident Voice.