Mediaboss Marketing

25 August 2021

The Swedish government must make a decision on the application to construct a final high-level waste repository and not consider it separately from that for an expansion of the existing Clab interim repository for used fuel, write World Nuclear Association's Director General Sama Bilbao y Len and Public Affairs Manager John Lindberg. Dividing the applications, they say, is a political game of 'Fox and Geese' that is extremely unworthy of an established democracy like Sweden.

The story of nuclear waste is one with countless chapters, an issue that has caused heated debate across the world for many decades. As a result of the Conditions Act of 1977 stipulating that Swedish nuclear reactor operators had to show they could safely manage its waste, the Swedish nuclear power industry has led the global work to find sustainable management methods for its waste. Even though the final repository model KBS-3, developed by Svensk Krnbrnslehantering AB (SKB), is undeniably a world leader from a scientific and technical perspective, it truly is in the work with local communities where Sweden has demonstrated international leadership. It is therefore extremely worrying to see how the Swedish government treats its more than 40-year-old democratic process, which has made Sweden a global role model.

It is no coincidence that while various repository projects around the world (e.g. the UK, the USA, Germany) have stalled due to lack of local acceptance, the projects in Sweden and Finland have slowly but surely moved forward. The Swedish model, with transparency, mutual trust and a process that involved stakeholders at every step, is widely regarded as best practice. The failed projects have one important common denominator: the permit process was politicised from an early stage. The Swedish government's attempt to politicise the process at the 11th hour, therefore, seems historically tone deaf.

That the Swedish government is now trying to break apart SKB's application for a final repository - even though it goes against decades of work and agreements across the political spectrum - is a political game of 'Fox and Geese' that is extremely unworthy of an established democracy like Sweden. It is particularly striking that the attempts at division take place despite the fact that both Oskarshamn and sthammar municipalities -future hosts of the intermediary and final repositories -have opposed this. When the county administrative boards in Uppsala and Kalmar counties - the government's own representatives - warned that "an examination of the interim storage as an individual case in this situation would entail significant problems and risks from a legal certainty perspective", the warning bells should have rung far and wide.

It is a tragic fact that the Swedish government's dogmatic energy policy not only undermines the country's low-carbon energy future and climate goals, but also damages Sweden's reputation abroad. The fact that Vattenfall had to warn of serious operational disruptions and the shutdown of the majority of Sweden's reactors from 2024 due to the CLAB intermediate storage facility reaching its licence limit has caused the world to raise its eyebrows. That a Swedish government has resorted to handicap 30% of the country's electricity generation, causing extensive economic damage, both for individuals and the country as a whole through democratically dubious methods is, to say the least, astonishing.

This will also lead to severely erode confidence in Sweden as a country with a transparent, reliable and fair business climate. When the government tears up best practices in this fashion, it inadvertently establishes new processes that not only risk scaring away investment, but also directly strike at the heart of democracy. Unfortunately, this does not seem to matter in the corridors of power in Stockholm.

The fact that nuclear power has played a key role in establishing Sweden as a climate policy superpower cannot be underestimated. Nuclear power acted as an anchor in a world that has become increasingly turbulent and the production of cheap and fossil-free energy since 1963 was directly decisive for the prosperity Sweden enjoys today. With nuclear power, Sweden succeeded once and for all in proving that it is possible to separate economic growth and carbon dioxide emissions. As the majority of the world's population has not yet undergone this development phase, there is much to learn from Sweden. Unfortunately, it seems that the Swedish government has itself forgotten these lessons.

Two fundamental cornerstones of modern Sweden are at stake: electricity production and a prosperous democracy. The Swedish government must now stand up for - and protect - Swedish industry and defend the democratic process that all preceding governments - regardless of political affiliation -have respected. SKB's application for the final repository must be processed in its entirety, in line with the democratically established process and consultation responses from various authorities, the business community and local representatives. Anything else would be an extremely dark day for Sweden.

Sama Bilbao y Len andJohn Lindberg

A version of this article was originally published by Second Opinion, titled Ovrdigt politiskt rvspel om slutfrvar

See more here:
Viewpoint: Why is Sweden's government sacrificing its democratic tradition on nuclear waste? : Perspectives - World Nuclear News

People evacuated from Kabul arrive at Hindon Air Force base near New Delhi, on Sunday. Despite entreaties from the Taliban, India choose to evacuate its diplomats earlier this month. AP hide caption

People evacuated from Kabul arrive at Hindon Air Force base near New Delhi, on Sunday. Despite entreaties from the Taliban, India choose to evacuate its diplomats earlier this month.

MUMBAI One of the most prominent symbols of Afghanistan's democracy the national parliament building, with its giant bronze dome and marble fountains was a gift from the world's largest democracy.

Alongside the United States, India has spent the past 20 years trying to foster a democratic system in Afghanistan. It invested $3 billion into building Afghan roads, bridges, schools and clinics.

In 2015, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi traveled to Kabul to inaugurate the $90 million parliament building, made with marble quarried from Rajasthan. He and then-Afghan President Ashraf Ghani spoke about their "special friendship" that was "bound by a thousand ties."

Now, with Ghani out of power, the U.S. withdrawing and the Taliban taking over, India is one of the countries that may stand to lose the most.

Diplomats and analysts say that for India, the power shift in Kabul almost certainly means the painful loss of a fellow democracy albeit a beleaguered one that rested on U.S. support in an otherwise largely hostile region. It could also mean a loss of safety and security for India, if militants from its neighbor and archrival, Pakistan, expand training bases into Afghanistan.

India financed construction of Afghanistan's parliament building, just one part of India's 20-year effort to foster a democratic system in Afghanistan. Rahmat Gul/AP hide caption

And it's very likely, they say, to mean a loss of Indian economic power and influence in a region increasingly dominated by another neighbor it's uneasy about: China.

First off, India has to figure out who its new contact is in Kabul or if it has any there at all. India reportedly has had communications with the Taliban. But Afghanistan's ambassador to New Delhi says he has had none yet with the militant group.

"The past week and a half has been very difficult. Our communications [with Indian officials] remain intact," Farid Mamundzay, the ambassador, tells NPR from New Delhi. As far as he knows, he's still Afghanistan's legal representative in India. "But as things become clearer in the weeks and months ahead, there may likely be changes."

Mamundzay will have to decide whether to stay on if asked under the Taliban. He has concerns about the group's record on women's rights, though the Taliban have said they will be more moderate than they were in the past.

A man carries the Guru Granth Sahib, the Sikh holy book, that was brought to India by Afghan Sikhs who landed at the Indira Gandhi International Airport in New Delhi on Tuesday. Money Sharma/AFP via Getty Images hide caption

"As of now, their messages and rhetoric have been quite soft. Now it's up to them to prove that they mean it," Mamundzay says. "If they mean it, then, of course, I would continue to serve my people. But if the meaning is missing, and only words exist then I would not continue cooperating with the future government."

When the U.S. timeline for withdrawal became clear earlier this year, New Delhi is believed to have quietly established back channels of communication with the Taliban though Indian officials won't confirm that.

As the Taliban rolled into Kabul on Aug. 15, they reportedly contacted Indian officials, saying they would guarantee Indian diplomats' safety if they would keep their embassy open in Kabul. According to the Hindustan Times, Indian officials weighed the Taliban's offer, but then received intelligence that gave them pause: that Pakistan-based militants may have entered Kabul with the Taliban. On Aug. 17, India evacuated its Kabul-based diplomats and shut its embassy. It had already closed its consulates in other Afghan cities.

India's worst fear is that Afghanistan will become a haven for militants from Pakistan. India and Pakistan are nuclear-armed neighbors and nemeses who've fought many wars. Pakistan has long-standing ties with the Taliban and has long given refuge to militants attacking India.

"Our strategic interest is definitely to make sure that our borders are secure and protected from the influx of terrorist groups, and that a neighbor like Pakistan doesn't exploit the situation in Afghanistan as it has in the past," Nirupama Rao, a former foreign secretary of India, tells NPR.

So when India reportedly picked up intelligence about the alleged presence of Pakistani militants in Kabul this month, it decided not to take any chances.

Rao, who has also served as India's ambassador to the U.S. and to China, says India would like Washington to put pressure on Pakistan to stop any flow of militants into Afghanistan.

"We obviously cannot let Afghanistan regress to a dark age," she says.

In addition to building Afghan infrastructure, India has helped organize trade routes to Afghanistan and through it, to countries in Central Asia. It secured waivers from U.S. sanctions to build the $8 billion Chabahar port in Iran, hoping it could be a key trade route to Afghanistan that bypasses Pakistan. India was also part of a consortium planning a 4,400-mile rail network linking Afghanistan with Europe.

Now those projects face uncertain futures.

"This is a strategic plan that India has nursed for a very long time, and now all that investment has come to a grinding halt, given the developments in Afghanistan," says Happymon Jacob, an associate professor of diplomacy at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi. "It may end up being too much work. It's better that India do its trade with other countries, rather than bending over backwards and reaching out to Central Asia."

India prioritized education for Afghans, too. It built girls' schools. Indian universities have educated thousands of Afghan students. This week, many of them watched with horror as Kabul fell to the Taliban, wondering if they'll ever return home.

"India has been a major historic partner of the Afghan people. Our relationship hasn't been only government to government. We had this relationship at multiple layers," Mamundzay says.

He hopes that will continue.

"We need Indian investment in Afghanistan. We need Indian technology, Indian resources," the ambassador says.

But China may be able to invest even more in Afghanistan.

India and China are the world's two most populous countries. They share the world's longest unmarked frontier, stretching more than 2,100 miles, and they've fought over it many times. Tensions have been especially high since a June 2020 border clash left 20 Indian troops dead. India chose to retaliate off the battlefield, by banning dozens of Chinese-owned apps, including TikTok.

Meanwhile, China has been building a giant global infrastructure network including roads, pipelines, power plants and ports, called the Belt and Road Initiative.

India is not part of it. But Pakistan is and Afghanistan soon could be, too.

"The ascendance of China in Afghanistan will try to unify the entire region minus, of course, India," Jacob says. "This will also sort of strengthen the fears in India that there is an actual Chinese encirclement taking place."

"They want to build that 'great wall of steel,' to use [Chinese leader] Xi Jinping's words," Rao says. Beijing, she says, is keen on "exploiting Afghanistan's rich natural resources, and bringing Afghanistan into this whole network of connectivity. And they are not going to be talking about human rights while doing this."

For India, the possible expansion of Chinese infrastructure into Afghanistan means the world's biggest democracy may be further isolated economically in its own backyard.

All this may make it harder for India to be the democratic bulwark against China that Washington wants it to be.

While not treaty allies, the U.S. and India have a close strategic partnership in the Indo-Pacific. Just this week, they've been conducting joint naval drills with Australia and Japan. In recent years, U.S. and Indian officials have said their ties are closer than ever. Visiting New Delhi in May, Secretary of State Antony Blinken said the U.S.-Indian partnership "is vital, it's strong, and it's increasingly productive."

But the U.S. withdrawal from Afghanistan may leave this close partner in a difficult situation.

"The credibility of the U.S. is completely down in Afghanistan and that definitely does echo through the region," Rao says. "Being from the region, India really sees this through the lens of this neighborhood."

The U.S. can leave, but in the end, she says, "We have to pick up the pieces."

Visit link:
As Taliban Take Over Afghanistan, India Fears An Increasingly Hostile Region - NPR

Washington, D.C. U.S. Senators Marco Rubio (R-FL), Ed Markey (D-MA), and Dick Durbin (D-IL) announced they will introduce the Cambodia Democracy and Human Rights Act to hold the Cambodian government accountable as Cambodian Prime Minister Hun Sen continues to engage in human rights abuses. Under Hun Sens leadership, the ruling Cambodian Peoples Party has maintained one-party control of the government, in violation of the Cambodian constitution, through corruption, banning political opposition, political persecutions, repressive laws, and cracking down on free speech and the media. The primary opposition party, the Cambodia National Rescue Party, has been banned and many of its leaders, including Khem Sokha and Sam Rainsy, have been persecuted, jailed, or exiled. Furthermore, credible evidence exists that Hun Sen has welcomed the Peoples Republic of China to operate military installations in Cambodiaa violation of the countrys constitution.Rubio is a senior member of the Senate Committee on Foreign Relations and Ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Human Rights.Under the authoritarian rule of dictator Hun Sen, Cambodia continues to backslide after making progress in earlier decades toward democratization, Rubio said. Im proud to co-lead this bipartisan effort, which seeks to hold Hun Sen accountable for his crackdown against political opponents, Radio Free Asia, among others.The Cambodian People deserve what was promised to them in the 1991 Paris Peace Agreements a representative democracy that reflects the popular will, not oppressive single party rule, Markey said. This legislation makes clear that the United States will not stand by as Hun Sen and his cronies corrupt Cambodian democracy, persecute and jail opposition and political activists, target free speech and independent media, and enrich themselves through rampant corruption."Let's be clear what little is left of Cambodian democracy is in serious danger. An oppressive ruler is violating Cambodias constitution and arresting, threatening, and harassing political opponents and peaceful activists," Durbin said. "Through the bipartisan Cambodia Democracy and Human Rights Act, my colleagues and I are standing together against Prime Minister Hun Sen's blatant human rights violations and calling for sanctions against those who undermine a better future for the Cambodian people.The Cambodia Democracy and Human Rights Act:

Excerpt from:
Rubio, Markey, and Durbin Announce Legislation to Hold Cambodian Government Officials Accountable for Undermining Democracy and Committing Human...

Governments, even democratic ones, are often ineffective or simply bad. Elections sometimes produce uninspiring results, particularly when a patchwork of parties forms an unwieldy coalition government that struggles to get much of anything done. This doesnt mean it should be overthrown. Nor should the United States ignore coup attempts staged in the name of bypassing the messiness of democracy. Yet in Tunisia, this is what the Biden administration appears to be doing, revealing the widening gulf between American words and deeds.

On Sunday, Tunisian President Kais Saied, who is supposed to share power with Parliament and a prime minister, suspended the former and dismissed the latter. In case anyone doubted his intentions, Saiedaddressed the nationwhile flanked by top military and security officials. On Monday, the army surrounded Parliament andblocked legislatorsfrom entering the building. Most Americans probably dont care that Tunisia isor, perhaps more precisely, wasthe lone success story of the Arab Spring. But the atmospherics of the story might resonate. A president longing to be a strongman is something that we in the United States recently experienced. As a long-standing democracy, America had institutions that rose to the challenge and restrained former President Donald Trumpsauthoritarian instincts. Young, fragile democracies are rarely so lucky.

From the very start of his presidency, Joe Biden identified the struggle between democratic and authoritarian governments as the central challenge of both the present and future. As heput itin his first press conference as president: It is clear, absolutely clear that this is a battle between the utility of democracies in the 21st century and autocracies. This lofty rhetoric was somewhat surprising, especially for a man who had viewed the 2011 Arab uprisings with evident skepticism. In one memorable moment, just two weeks before the Egyptian strongman Hosni Mubarak fell amid mass protests, Bidensaid: Look, Mubarak has been an ally I would not refer to him as a dictator.

Believing in the power and possibility of democracy is easy in theory. The problem with democracy in practice is that it is never quite as good as its proponents hope it might be. The same can be said for how the United States responds to breaches of democracy in the Middle East. Despite ostensibly being on the side of popular rule, the White House has so far refused to take sides in Tunisia, instead expressing concern over the developments there. White House Press Secretary Jen Psakiinformed reportersthat administration officials were in touch with their Tunisian counterparts to learn more about the situation, urge calm, and support Tunisian efforts to move forward in line with democratic principles. (After Egypts 2013 coup, it was Psaki whoinfamously said, We have determined we are not going to make a determination about whether to call it a coup.)

In the Middle East, Tunisias crisis is the first real test of Bidens professed commitment to anew democracy doctrine. During the unusual presidency of Donald Trump, Americans could easily forget that sustaining a gap between rhetoric and policy was a storied U.S. tradition. In his unapologetic disregard for supporting human rights and democracy abroad, Trump offered a natural experiment. The difference wasnt so much that he couldnt be bothered, but more that it didnt occur to him to be bothered in the first place. For the first time in decades, the gap between words and deeds closed considerably. The United States, under Trump, had becomelesshypocritical. Dissidents no longer had to wonder if the United States would come to their aid. Under no illusions about American interest in their plight, they could adapt their activism accordingly and focus exclusively on their own local context. In his frank disregard, Trump was simply incapable of betraying them.

Under Joe Biden, America is speaking in terms of values and morality once again, both at home and abroad. Other countries, particularly weak ones, do not have the luxury of high-minded idealism. To pretend, in other words, is a privilege, one that America has insisted on and even earned. Its unrivaled power allows it two things: the ability to have ideals but also the ability to ignore them. For the United States, the charge of hypocrisy is effective precisely because it speaks to something true: We would like to be better, but we cant.

Butwhycant we? Why cant we thwart a slow-motion coup in Tunisia, a relatively remote country where the risks of being too bold are minimal? Unlike Egypt, the Middle Easts most populous nation, Tunisia cant claim to be central to U.S. regional objectives, such as the promotion of a two-state solution to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict (howeverimaginary such a solution might be).

A related question is to what extent the United States can actually influence the internal affairs of faraway countries. Is there much Biden can do? The short answer is yes. If Tunisias president doesnt begin reversing course, the Biden administration can threaten a fullnot a partialsuspension of aid. Partial aid suspensions dont generally work, because they confuse and dilute American leverage. They are also self-undermining, because they communicate to authoritarian leaders that U.S. officials are hedging their bets and unwilling to follow through on their own stated commitments. Half measures can be the worst of both worldsthey anger target governments while failing to accomplish much besides virtue signaling to the foreign-policy community. If youre going to piss off an ally, at least make it count.

To be sure, threatening an aid suspension is risky. But all bold policy action is risky (otherwise it wouldnt be bold). We also know thatnotthreatening an aid suspension seems almost certain to lead to an undemocratic resulta continuation of Tunisias current course of elevating a would-be strongman over Parliament and other constitutional constraints. So one option, while risky, is considerably more promising than the other. Some observers legitimately worry that suspending assistance to the Tunisian government might backfire. But this perspective misunderstands the direction of leverage; Tunisia needs the U.S. more than the U.S. needs Tunisia. The Biden administration should of course coordinate any such effort with the European Union and individual member states. Considering Europes proximity to and influence in Tunisia, any pressure campaign is likely to fail without European buy-in.

Also capable of playing a decisive role is the International Monetary Fund, which has invested in bailing out Tunisias battered economy (exacerbated by some of theworst per capita COVID-19 death ratesin the world). The IMFsArticles of Agreementimpose no political conditions; autocrats and democrats alike are eligible for support. Even so, the U.S. and European nations, as the largest shareholders, can exercise their voting rights as they see fit. There is precedent for attaching conditions to prospective financial-support packages. During Egypts brief democratic opening in 2012 and 2013, the IMFrequestedthat the elected Islamist government secure broad support, including from opposition parties, for an IMF deal. In short, the claim that President Biden lacks sufficient leverage to pressure the Tunisian government simply does not stand up to scrutiny.

I realize that this may be a losing battle. To be disappointed is to be realistic. The Biden administration is unlikely to act boldly, however bold its rhetoric has been up until this moment. In a small, obscure Arab country, then, a surprise coup attempt may markafter a short interregnumthe return of American hypocrisy.

Read more here:
Tunisia, democracy, and the return of American hypocrisy - Brookings Institution

A major Democratic nonprofit group is taking aim at President Biden in a new television ad, urging the president to take a more aggressive and concrete stand on overhauling the filibuster to pass federal voting legislation.

The ad, aired by a group called End Citizens United and Let America Vote Action Fund, is the first to publicly call out the president by name on the issue and is yet another sign of growing tension between the White House and left-leaning voting rights groups over the federal response to a wave of new laws governing elections from states with Republican-controlled legislatures this year.

The ad, which will begin airing on Friday, is centered on comments by the Rev. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. made at a 1963 news conference. In those remarks, the civil rights leader denounced the filibuster, a procedural tool that requires a supermajority of 60 votes to bring bills to a final vote. Its use has often stymied major legislation.

In the ad, as the screen flickers between long voting lines in the 1960s and more recent elections, King says: Senators who will use the filibuster to keep the majority of people from even voting and certainly they would not want the majority of people to vote because they know they do not represent the majority of the American people.

The group said it would spend $1.1 million on the ad, which will air on broadcast and cable television in Washington, D.C.; Michigan; Pennsylvania; and Wisconsin, including during Olympics broadcasts.

This moment calls for presidential leadership, and were asking President Biden to fight like heck and use every tool available to him, including using his relationships in the Senate, to call for a reform to the filibuster to protect this sacred right, said Tiffany Muller, the president of End Citizens United and Let America Vote Action Fund.

The president has called on Congress to pass a federal voting rights law, including in an impassioned speech last month in Philadelphia in which he called restrictive voting laws in states like Georgia, Florida and Iowa the most significant test of our democracy since the Civil War.

But he has stopped short of publicly calling for a change to the filibuster, which would almost certainly be necessary to pass any kind of voting legislation in the Senate, where both parties hold 50 seats and Vice President Kamala Harris can break ties.

The ad closes with a clear directive: President Biden, please, tell the Senate: Reform the filibuster. Everything is at stake.

Read the original here:
Democratic Group's Ad Pushes Biden on Voting Rights and Filibuster - The New York Times