Saturday, August 06, 2022

Warnings over nuclear dangers as Hiroshima marks anniversary of atomic bombing

6 August 2022

Doves fly over the cenotaph dedicated to the victims of the atomic bombing during the ceremony marking the 77th anniversary of the world’s first atomic bombing, at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park in Hiroshima, western Japan
Japan Hiroshima Anniversary. Picture: PA

The United States dropped the world’s first atomic bomb on Hiroshima on August 6 1945, destroying the city and killing 140,000 people.

Hiroshima has remembered the atomic bombing 77 years ago as officials, including the head of the United Nations, warned against nuclear weapons build-up and as fears grow of another such attack amid Russia’s war on Ukraine.

“Nuclear weapons are nonsense. They guarantee no safety – only death and destruction,” said UN secretary general Antonio Guterres, who joined the prayer at the Hiroshima Peace Park.

“Three quarters of a century later, we must ask what we’ve learned from the mushroom cloud that swelled above this city in 1945,” he said.

The United States dropped the world’s first atomic bomb on Hiroshima on August 6 1945, destroying the city and killing 140,000 people.

Visitors observe a minute of silence for the victims of the atomic bombing, at 8.15am, the time the atomic bomb exploded over the city, at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park
Visitors observe a minute of silence for the victims of the atomic bombing, at 8.15am, the time the atomic bomb exploded over the city, at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park (Kyodo News via AP)

It dropped a second bomb three days later on Nagasaki, killing another 70,000.

Japan surrendered on August 15, ending the Second World War and Japan’s nearly half a century of aggression in Asia.

Fears of a third atomic bombing have grown amid Russia’s threats of nuclear attack since its war on Ukraine began in February.

“Crises with grave nuclear undertones are spreading fast” in the Middle East and the Korean Peninsula, Mr Guterres said.

“We are one mistake, one misunderstanding, one miscalculation away from Armageddon.”

Hiroshima mayor Kazumi Matsui, in his peace declaration, accused Russian President Vladimir Putin of “using his own people as instruments of war and stealing the lives and livelihoods of innocent civilians in another country”.

Russia’s war on Ukraine is helping build support for nuclear deterrence, Mr Matsui said, urging the world not to repeat the mistakes that destroyed his city nearly eight decades ago.

On Saturday, attendees including government leaders and diplomats observed a moment of silence with the sound of a peace bell at 8.15am, the time when the US B-29 dropped the bomb on the city.

UN secretary general Antonio Guterres lays a wreath at the cenotaph for the atomic bombing victims at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park during the ceremony marking the 77th anniversary of the atomic bombing in the city, in Hiroshima, western Japan
UN secretary general Antonio Guterres lays a wreath at the cenotaph for the atomic bombing victims at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park (Kenzaburo Fukuhara/Kyodo News via AP)

About 400 doves, considered symbols of peace, were released.

Mr Guterres met with Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida after the ceremony and raised alarm over the global retreat in nuclear disarmament, stressing the importance for Japan, the world’s only nation to have suffered nuclear attacks, to take leadership in the effort, Japan’s Foreign Ministry said.

Mr Kishida escorted Mr Guterres in the peace museum, where they each folded an origami crane – a symbol of peace and nuclear weapons abolition.

Russia and its ally Belarus were not invited to this year’s peace memorial.

Russian ambassador to Japan Mikhail Galuzin on Thursday offered flowers at a memorial epitaph in the park and told reporters his country would never use nuclear weapons.

The world continues to face threats from nuclear weapons, Mr Kishida said at the memorial.

“I must raise my voice to appeal to the people around the world that the tragedy of nuclear weapons use should never be repeated,” he said.

“Japan will walk its path toward a world without nuclear weapons, no matter how narrow, steep or difficult that may be.”

Japan’s Prime Minister Fumio Kishida delivers a speech during the ceremony marking the 77th anniversary of the August 6 atomic bombing in the city, at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park in Hiroshima, western Japan
Japan’s Prime Minister Fumio Kishida delivers a speech at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park (Kenzaburo Fukuhara/Kyodo News via AP)

Mr Kishida, who will host a Group of Seven summit meeting next May in Hiroshima, said he hoped to share his pledge with other G7 leaders “before the peace monument” to unite them to protect peace and international order based on the universal values of freedom and democracy.

Mr Matsui criticised nuclear weapon states, including Russia, for not taking steps despite their pledge to abide by obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

“Rather than treating a world without nuclear weapons like a distant dream, they should be taking concrete steps toward its realisation,” he said.

Critics say Mr Kishida’s call for a nuclear-free world is hollow because Japan remains under the US nuclear umbrella and continues to boycott the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Mr Kishida said the treaty, which lacks the US and other nuclear powers, is not realistic at the moment and that Japan needs to bridge the divide between non-nuclear and nuclear powers.

Many survivors of the bombings have lasting injuries and illnesses resulting from the explosions and radiation exposure and face discrimination in Japan.

The government began to provide medical support to certified survivors in 1968 after more than 20 years of effort by them.

Visitors pray in front of the cenotaph dedicated to the victims of the atomic bombing at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park in Hiroshima, western Japan
Visitors pray in front of the cenotaph dedicated to the victims of the atomic bombing at the Hiroshima Peace Memorial Park (Kenzaburo Fukuhara/Kyodo News via AP)

As of March, 118,935 survivors, whose average age now exceeds 84, are certified as eligible for government medical support, according to the Health and Welfare Ministry.

But many others, including those who say they were victims of the “black rain” that fell outside of the initially designated areas, are still without support.

Ageing survivors, known in Japan as hibakusha, continue to push for a nuclear ban and hope to convince younger generations to join the movement.

Mr Guterres had a message for younger people: “Finish the work that the hibakusha have begun. Carry their message forward. In their names, in their honour, in their memory – we must act.”

By Press Association


77th anniversary of Hiroshima atomic bombing: UN Chief to attend ceremony at Peace Memorial Park

Khabarhub
August 6, 2022

TOKYO: On the 77th anniversary of the Hiroshima atomic bombing by the United States, UN Secretary-General Antonio Guterres will become the first UN chief to attend the annual ceremony at the Peace Memorial Park on Saturday after his predecessor Ban Ki Moon’s visit in 2010.

The USA bombed the Japanese cities of Hiroshima (August 6, 1945) and Nagasaki (August 9, 1945) during World War II in what was the first use of atomic weapons in war.

Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, who represents a constituency in Hiroshima, will also give remarks at the ceremony for the first time since being elected premier last October.

At the memorial ceremony, Japanese Mayor Kazumi Matsui is expected to caution dependence on nuclear deterrence is gaining momentum in the world, reported Kyodo News.

Tens of thousands were killed in the initial explosions and many more would later succumb to radiation poisoning. Three days after the bomb nicknamed “Little Boy” decimated Hiroshima, a second atomic bomb was dropped on Nagasaki. It was then followed by Japan’s surrender to the Allied forces six days later, marking the end of World War II.

A moment of silence will be observed at 8:15 a.m., the exact moment a uranium bomb dropped from a U.S. bomber detonated over the city on August 6, 1945, killing an estimated 140,000 people by the end of the year.

Hiroshima will host a summit meeting of the Group of Seven industrialized nations next May, and Japan aims to send out a message of peace.

World War II conflict during the years 1939-45 included — the Axis powers–Germany, Italy, and Japan–and the Allies–France, Great Britain, the United States, the Soviet Union, and, to a lesser extent, China.

The ceremony is expected to be attended by representatives from a record 101 nations and the European Union. The mayor will call on the Japanese government to act as a bridge between nuclear weapon states and non-nuclear weapon states, ratify a U.N. treaty banning nuclear weapons and participate in the next conference of parties to the treaty after Japan skipped the first one held in June, even as an observer.

As COVID-19 restrictions have been eased nationwide, this year’s ceremony will be on a larger scale than last year’s, although still reduced in terms of the number of attendees, as per the media portal.

The combined number of officially recognized survivors of the two nuclear attacks, known as hibakusha, stood at 118,935 as of March, down 8,820 from a year earlier, the Ministry of Health, Labor and Welfare said. Their average age was 84.53. (ANI)


Hiroshima vows nuke ban at 77th memorial amid Russia threat

Via AP news wire
Fri, 5 August 2022 

Japan Hiroshima Anniversary (ASSOCIATED PRESS)

Hiroshima on Saturday remembered the atomic bombing 77 years ago as officials, including the head of the United Nations, warned against nuclear weapons buildup and fears grow of another such attack amid Russia's war on Ukraine.

“Nuclear weapons are nonsense. They guarantee no safety — only death and destruction," said U.N. Secretary General Antonio Guterres, who joined the prayer at the Hiroshima Peace Park.

“Three quarters of a century later, we must ask what we’ve learned from the mushroom cloud that swelled above this city in 1945," he said.

The United States dropped the world’s first atomic bomb on Hiroshima on Aug. 6, 1945, destroying the city and killing 140,000 people. It dropped a second bomb three days later on Nagasaki, killing another 70,000. Japan surrendered on Aug. 15, ending World War II and Japan’s nearly half-century of aggression in Asia.

Fears of a third atomic bombing have grown amid Russia’s threats of nuclear attack since its war on Ukraine began in February.

Hiroshima Mayor Kazumi Matsui, in his peace declaration, accused Putin of “using his own people as instruments of war and stealing the lives and livelihoods of innocent civilians in another country."

Russia’s war on Ukraine is helping build support for nuclear deterrence, Matsui said, urging the world not to repeat the mistakes that destroyed his city 77 years ago.

On Saturday, attendees including government leaders and diplomats observed a moment of silence with the sound of a peace bell at 8:15 a.m., the time when the U.S. B-29 dropped the bomb on the city. About 400 doves, considered symbols of peace, were released.

Russia and its ally Belarus were not invited to this year's peace memorial. Russian Ambassador to Japan Mikhail Galuzin on Thursday offered flowers at a memorial epitaph in the park and told reporters his country would never use nuclear weapons.

The world continues to face threats from nuclear weapons, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida said at the memorial.

"I must raise my voice to appeal to the people around the world that the tragedy of nuclear weapons use should never be repeated," he said. “Japan will walk its path toward a world without nuclear weapons, no matter how narrow, steep or difficult that may be.”

Kishida, who will host a Group of Seven summit meeting next May in Hiroshima, said he hoped to share his pledge with other G7 leaders “before the peace monument” to unite them to protect peace and international order based on the universal values of freedom and democracy.

Matsui criticized nuclear weapon states, including Russia, for not taking steps despite their pledge to abide by obligations under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty.

“Rather than treating a world without nuclear weapons like a distant dream, they should be taking concrete steps toward its realization,” he said.

Critics say Kishida's call for a nuclear-free world is hollow because Japan remains under the U.S. nuclear umbrella and continues to boycott the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons.

Kishida said the treaty, which lacks the U.S. and other nuclear powers, is not realistic at the moment and that Japan needs to bridge the divide between non-nuclear and nuclear powers.

Many survivors of the bombings have lasting injuries and illnesses resulting from the explosions and radiation exposure and face discrimination in Japan.

The government began to provide medical support to certified survivors in 1968 after more than 20 years of effort by them.

As of March, 118,935 survivors, whose average age now exceeds 84, are certified as eligible for government medical support, according to the Health and Welfare Ministry. But many others, including those who say they were victims of the “black rain” that fell outside of the initially designated areas, are still without support.


Hiroshima marks 77th anniversary of world's first atomic bombing

Around 140,000 people were killed when Hiroshima was bombed by the US on August 6, 1945 –– a toll that includes those who perished after the blast from radiation exposure.

Hiroshima catastrophe was followed by US' atomic bombing of Nagasaki city on August 9, instantly killing more than 75,000 people. (Reuters)

Bells have tolled in Hiroshima as the Japanese city marked the 77th anniversary of the world's first atomic bombing, with officials including the United Nations chief warning of a new arms race following Russia's conflict with Ukraine.

UN head Antonio Guterres on Saturday joined the thousands packed into the Peace Park in the centre of the city to mark the anniversary of the bombing that killed 140,000 people, only the second time a UN head has taken part in the annual ceremony.

"Nuclear weapons are nonsense. They guarantee no safety –– only death and destruction," Guterres said.

"Three-quarters of a century later, we must ask what we've learned from the mushroom cloud that swelled above this city in 1945."

Hiroshima Mayor Kazumi Matsui, whose city this year did not invite the Russian ambassador to the ceremony, was more pointed and critical of Moscow's military actions in Ukraine.

"In invading Ukraine, the Russian leader, elected to protect the lives and property of his people, is using them as instruments of war, stealing the lives and livelihoods of civilians in a different country," Matsui said.

"These errors betray humanity's determination, born of our experiences of war, to achieve a peaceful world free from nuclear weapons. To accept the status quo and abandon the ideal of peace maintained without military force is to threaten the very survival of the human race."

'Nuclear war cannot be won'

At 8:15 am on August 6, 1945, the US B-29 warplane Enola Gay dropped a bomb nicknamed "Little Boy" and obliterated the city with an estimated population of 350,000.

Thousands more died later from wounds and radiation-related illnesses.

On Saturday, as cicadas shrilled in the heavy summer air, the Peace Bell sounded and the crowd, including Prime Minister Fumio Kishida, who is from Hiroshima, observed a moment of silence at the exact time the bomb exploded.

"At the start of this year, the five nuclear-weapon states issued a joint statement: 'Nuclear war cannot be won and must never be fought,'" Matsui added.

"Why do they not attempt to fulfill their promises? Why do some even hint at using nuclear weapons?"

Kishida, who has chosen Hiroshima as the site of next year's Group of Seven summit, called on the world to abandon nuclear weapons.

The Hiroshima catastrophe was followed by the US military's atomic bombing of Nagasaki on August 9, instantly killing more than 75,000 people.

Japan surrendered on August 15, ending World War II and Japan's nearly half-century of aggression in Asia.


Hiroshima Day: 10 haunting images from world's first atomic bombing | Photo Diary

Over 80,000 people were instantly killed and thousands lost their lives to the effects of radiation when the United States bombed Japan's Hiroshima on August 6, 1945. On the 77th anniversary of the tragic incident, here is a look at ten haunting images from the world's first-ever atomic bombing.


Priya Pareek Nishwan Rasool 

New Delhi
August 6, 2022


The effects of the nuclear bombings lasted for decades and spanned across generations.

HIGHLIGHTS

United States dropped atomic bomb on Hiroshima in 1945

80,000 people were killed instantly and thousands died later

Every year on August 6, Hiroshima Day is observed


Seven decades back, the world witnessed its first ever atomic bombing when the United States detonated a nuclear bomb over the Japanese city of Hiroshima, a major hub of industrial and military activities in the country. The bombing that happened around 8:15 am on August 6, 1945, killed 1.4 lakh people by the end of that year, including those who perished from radiation exposure after the blast.

The impact of the blast was such that 80,000 people died instantly while tens of thousands more lost their lives to the effects of radiation within the months and years that followed, wiping 39 per cent of the city's total population.

Three days later, a slightly larger plutonium bomb exploded over Nagasaki, killing 74,000 people by the end of the year. Radioactive rain poured down as ground temperatures reached 4,000°C.

The effects of the nuclear bombings lasted for decades and spanned across generations. Five to six years after the bombings, the incidence of leukaemia increased noticeably, and after about a decade, survivors began suffering from different types of cancers at higher than normal rates.

Pregnant women exposed to the bombings experienced higher rates of miscarriage and children born after the bombings were more likely to have intellectual disabilities and impaired growth. And even after seven decades, the risk of cancers related to radiation exposure still remains for all the survivors.

Though in the last 77 years Japan recovered from the attack and has flourished, the horror of nuclear weapons lives on.

During World War II, the United States secretly developed Atomic Bomb technology under the Manhattan Project.

“Now I am become Death, the destroyer of worlds," Robert Oppenheimer, one of the lead scientists behind the bomb’s creation, recalled a piece of Hindu scripture as he witnessed the first test detonation of a nuclear weapon on July 16.

Less than one month later, an American B-29 bomber dropped the world's first deployed atomic bomb nicknamed 'Little Boy' on Japan’s Hiroshima on August 6. As Japan refused to surrender, another nuclear bomb named 'Fat Man' was dropped on Nagasaki on August 9.

ALSO READ | Hiroshima Day 2022: How the atomic bombs ended World War II

About 140,000 people were killed in Hiroshima and 80,000 people in Nagasaki died by the end of 1945. Many children were later born with birth defects, while radiation-induced cancers killed more people. The blast also caused massive structural damage, destroying 69 per cent of the buildings in Hiroshima.

When the nuclear weapons were detonated over the two Japanese cities, even the first responders - hospitals, firemen, aid organisations - couldn't help. In Hiroshima, 90 per cent of physicians and nurses were killed or injured, and 42 of 45 hospitals were rendered non-functional.

WHY WAS HIROSHIMA BOMBED?

During the war, Japan had refused to surrender before the Allied Forces and was still holding out. It carried out several attacks against the US and British forces to seize control of European and American colonies and their resources in Southeast Asia. On December 7, 1941, Japan attacked Hawaii's Pearl Harbor and a day later, it attacked British-occupied Hong Kong, causing numerous casualties and extensive damage to the US and the UK fleets.

After witnessing the devastation, Japan's Emperor Hirohito announced his country's unconditional surrender via radio on August 15, ending World War II.

HIROSHIMA DAY


Every year on August 6, the world observes Hiroshima Day to highlight the effects of nuclear war, pay respect to the victims, discourage nuclear proliferation and promote world peace. On the 77th anniversary of the tragic Hiroshima bombing, here is a look at ten haunting images from the world's first-ever atomic bombing.


The pyrocumulus, or firestorm cloud, that engulfed the city of Hiroshima after the US atomic bomb attack on 6th August 1945. The fire reached its peak intensity around three hours after the detonation.

The wrecked framework of the Museum of Science and Industry as it appeared shortly after the blast. City officials recently decided to preserve this building as a memorial though they had at first planned to rebuild it.

This file photo taken in September 1945, in Hiroshima, Japan, shows discharged Japanese soldiers in crowded trains, as they take advantage of free transportation to their homes after the end of World War II.

Photo taken in 1948, which shows an aspect of the devastated city of Hiroshima in Japan, three years after the first atomic bomb was dropped on a population. On August 6, 1945, at 08:15, in an hour of intense movement in the city, the B29 bomber of the United States Air Force dropped a bomb on the city. Currently, the world capital of pacifism, the city of Hiroshima in southern Japan, remembers next week the day the planet entered the nuclear era.

Years Later. "I'm Just Waiting For Death." Those are the words of Mrs. Yoskio Nishikawa, 43, a bedridden "A-Bomb widow" who lives on $22 a month in charity. Yukiko, 15, one of her four children, cools her forehead with a wet towel as the 70-pound widow rests in their nine-foot square room, part of a frame charity home housing families of 20 widows. A small wooden Shinto shrine, in memory of her blacksmith husband who was killed while riding to work, occupies a place of honor. Mrs. Nishikawa suffers from radiation effects because she combed the city searching for her husband after the bomb fell. She has a bad heart and liver trouble.

Picture dated August 1945 showing the American crew of the B-29 "Enola Gay" plane which dropped on Hiroshima during WWII the first atomic bomb in history, killing more than 100,000 people. Paul W. TIbbets, the pilot is in the center. Enola Gay was his mother's name.

The total area devastated in Hiroshima is shown in a darkened area (within the circle) of photograph. Numbered items are military and industrial installations with percentages of total destruction. This chart is made from Air Intelligence reports and charted on an earlier reconnaissance photograph.


ADVERTISEMENT


Aerial view of Hiroshima, Japan, after the atomic bombing during World War II.

Crewmembers of the 'Enola Gay,' the American B-29 bomber which dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima, including (left to right) co-pilot Captain Robert A. Lewis, commander and pilot Paul W. Tibbets Jr., tailgunner Staff Sergeant George Caron, and flight engineer Staff Sergeant Wyatt Duzenbury, proudly parade through New York on a jeep in the first Army Day Parade since the end of the War, April 12, 1946.

Hiroshima, Japan: Injured atomic bomb victims were treated in a bank building.

ALSO READ | Hiroshima Day 2022: History, significance, and all you need to know


Why Did the U.S. Nuke Civilians?

Hiroshima and Nagasaki: 77 Years Later

A bombed-out temple in Nagasaki

It is an atomic bomb. It is the greatest thing in history.
— President Harry S. Truman (August 6, 1945)

One of the seemingly endless Good [sic] War myths goes a little something like this:

The U.S. had no choice but to drop atomic bombs on civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Had they not done so, the fanatical Japanese would have never surrendered. Countless millions of brave American soldiers would have perished in the ensuing invasion of the Japanese islands.

As we mark the 77th anniversary of the deliberate use of nuclear weapons on civilians, I’ll yet again answer the question: Why was the bomb used?

The enemy was never fascism

Before confronting the unleashing of the bomb, there is a lesser-known myth that must be dealt with: the life-and-death race with German scientists.

“Working at Los Alamos, New Mexico,” writes historian Kenneth C. Davis, “atomic scientists, many of them refugees from Hitler’s Europe, thought they were racing against Germans developing a ‘Nazi bomb.’”

Surely, if it were possible for the epitome of evil to produce such a weapon, it would be the responsibility of the good guys to beat der Führer to the plutonium punch. While such a desperate race makes for excellent melodrama, the German bomb effort appears to have fallen far short of success.

Thanks to the declassification of key documents, we now have access to “unassailable proof that the race with the Nazis was a fiction,” says author Stewart Udall, who adds: “According to the official history of the British Secret Intelligence Service (SIS), those agents maintained ‘contacts with scientists in neutral countries.’”

These contacts, by mid-1943, provided enough evidence to convince the SIS that the German bomb program simply did not exist.

Despite such findings, U.S. General Leslie Groves, military commander of the Manhattan Project, got permission in the fall of 1943 to begin a secret espionage mission known as Alsos (Greek for “grove,” get it?). The mission saw Groves’ men following the Allies’ armies throughout Europe with the goal of capturing German scientists involved in the manufacture of atomic weapons.

While the data uncovered by Alsos only served to reinforce the prior reports that the Third Reich was not pursuing a nuclear program, Groves was able to maintain enough of a cover-up to keep his pet project alive. In the no-holds-barred religion of anti-communism, the “Good War” enemy was never fascism.

Truman’s daughter, Margaret, remarked about his early presidential efforts after the death of FDR in April 1945, “My father’s overriding concern in these first weeks was our policy towards Russia.”

“Saved millions of lives”

The most commonly evoked justification for the dropping of atomic bombs on Japan was to “save lives.” Let’s first acknowledge that hundreds of thousands of Japanese lives were lost in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. (The lives worth saving, of course, were American but we do know of a few U.S. soldiers who fell between the cracks. About a dozen or more American POWs were killed in Hiroshima, a truth that remained hidden for some 30 years.)

The hypothetical U.S. body count ranges from “thousands” to “millions.” In an August 9, 1945 statement to “the men and women of the Manhattan Project,” President Truman declared the hope that “this new weapon will result in saving thousands of American lives.”

“The president’s initial formulation of ‘thousands,’ however, was clearly not his final statement on the matter, to say the least,” remarks historian Gar Alperovitz. In his book, The Decision to Use the Atomic Bomb and the Architecture of an American Myth, Alperovitz documents but a few of Truman’s public estimates throughout the years:

•December 15, 1945: “It occurred to me that a quarter of a million of the flower of our young manhood was worth a couple of Japanese cities.”

•Late 1946: “A year less of war will mean life for three hundred thousand — maybe half a million — of America’s finest youth.”

•October 1948: “In the long run we could save a quarter of a million young Americans from being killed, and would save an equal number of Japanese young men from being killed.”

•April 6, 1949: “I thought 200,000 of our young men would be saved.”

•November 1949: Truman quotes Army Chief of Staff George S. Marshall as estimating the cost of an Allied invasion of Japan to be “half a million casualties.”

•January 12, 1953: Still quoting Marshall, Truman raises the estimate to “a minimum one-quarter of a million” and maybe “as much as a million, on the American side alone, with an equal number of the enemy.”

•Finally, on April 28, 1959, Truman concluded: “the dropping of the bombs saved millions of lives.”

Fortunately, we are not operating without the benefit of official estimates.

In June 1945, Truman ordered the U.S. military to calculate the cost of American lives for a planned assault on Japan. Consequently, the Joint War Plans Committee prepared a report for the Chiefs of Staff, dated June 15, 1945, thus providing the closest thing anyone has to “accurate”: 40,000 U.S. soldiers killed, 150,000 wounded, and 3,500 missing.

While the actual casualty count remains unknowable, it was widely known at the time that Japan had been trying to surrender for months prior to the atomic bombing. A May 5, 1945, cable — intercepted and decoded by the U.S. — “dispelled any possible doubt that the Japanese were eager to sue for peace.”

The U.S. Strategic Bombing Survey reported shortly after the war, that Japan “in all probability” would have surrendered before the much-discussed November 1, 1945, Allied invasion of the homeland.

Truman himself eloquently noted in his diary that Stalin would “be in the Jap War on August 15th. Fini [sic] Japs when that comes about.”

Translation:

  • The U.S. knew the Japanese wanted to surrender rather than risk Soviet occupation.
  • In the unlikely event of an American invasion of Japan in late 1945, the projected body count appears to be more political than scientific.

Even so, 60 percent of Hiroshima, a city with a population of roughly 343,000, was annihilated by the “greatest thing in history” on August 6, 1945. The resulting carnage was heinous.

“Alligator people”

A Tokyo radio broadcast two days after the bomb struck Hiroshima described how “the impact of the bomb was so terrific that practically all living things, human and animal, were seared to death by the tremendous heat and pressure engendered by the blast.”

Tokyo radio went on to call Hiroshima a city with corpses “too numerous to be counted … literally seared to death.” It was impossible to “distinguish between men and women.” The Associated Press carried the first eyewitness account: a Japanese soldier who described the victims as “bloated and scorched — their legs and bodies stripped of clothes and burned with a huge blister.”

Then there were the “ant-walking alligators.” This is what eyewitnesses called those who had the misfortune to survive the initial blast. One eye-witness report detailed:

The skin had been seared from their skulls; leaving only a black, leathery substance without eyes or features. All that remained was a red hole where their mouths had once been. They staggered about the outskirts of Hiroshima, avoided by other survivors — but the real horror was the sound they made.

In his book, Last Train to Hiroshima, Charles Pellegrino wrote:

The alligator people did not scream. Their mouths could not form the sounds. The noise they made was worse than screaming. They uttered a continuous murmur — like locusts on a midsummer night. One man, staggering on charred stumps of legs, was carrying a dead baby upside down.

“Humanity had been forced to witness enormous destruction all through World War II,” declared Michael C.C. Adams, in The Best War Ever: America and World War II. “By 1945, the killing had reached such enormous proportions that the bombing of one more city did not have the aspect of moral horror that it might have now. In such a time of death, the unimaginable had become acceptable.”

Three days later, more of the now-acceptable unimaginable would be unleashed upon another city teeming with civilians.

“The Butcher of Asia”

From the very concept of strategic bombing, all the developments — night, pattern, saturation, area, indiscriminate — have led straight to Hiroshima, and Hiroshima was, and was intended to be, almost pure Schrecklichkeit [terror bombing].

— Life magazine, summing up Allied bombing tactics (August 1945)

At 11 o’clock on the morning of August 9, 1945, Prime Minister Kintaro Suzuki told the Japanese Cabinet that Japan’s “only alternative” was to accept the Allied peace terms and “terminate the war.”

Minutes later, the Home of the Brave™ dropped a second atomic bomb on the Japanese city of Nagasaki.

Afterward, novelist Zora Neale Hurston, called Truman a “monster,” adding, “I can think of him as nothing else but the Butcher of Asia,” and even U.S. Admiral William D. Leahy characterized the atom bombs as “an inhuman weapon to use on a people that were already defeated and ready to surrender.”

If the Hiroshima bombing was pure Schrecklichkeit, who then could explain the purpose of bombing Nagasaki three days later?

“I thought our country should avoid shocking world opinion by the use of a weapon whose employment was, I thought, no longer mandatory as a measure to save American lives,” said General Dwight D. Eisenhower.

“Was it because this was a plutonium bomb whereas the Hiroshima bomb was a uranium bomb?” asked historian Howard Zinn. “Were the dead and irradiated Nagasaki victims of a scientific experiment?”

Perhaps it was the cold logic of the Cold War that motivated the nuking of civilians.

As far back as May 1945, a Venezuelan diplomat was reporting how Assistant Secretary of State Nelson Rockefeller “communicated to us the anxiety of the United States government about the Russian attitude.”

U.S. Secretary of State James F. Byrnes seemed to agree when he turned the anxiety up a notch by explaining how “our possessing and demonstrating the bomb would make Russia more manageable in the East … The demonstration of the bomb might impress Russia with America’s military might.”

General Leslie Groves was less cryptic: “There was never, from about two weeks from the time I took charge of this Project, any illusion on my part but that Russia was our enemy, and the Project was conducted on that basis.”

During the same time period, President Truman noted that Secretary of War Henry Stimson was “at least as much concerned with the role of the atomic bomb in the shaping of history as in its capacity to shorten the war.”

What sort of shaping Stimson had in mind might be discerned from his September 11, 1945 comment to the president: “I consider the problem of our satisfactory relations with Russia as not merely connected but as virtually dominated by the problem of the atomic bomb.”

Stimson called the bomb a “diplomatic weapon,” and duly explained that “American statesmen were eager for their country to browbeat the Russians with the bomb held rather ostentatiously on our hip.”

“The psychological effect [of Hiroshima and Nagasaki] on Stalin was twofold,” proposes historian Charles L. Mee, Jr. “The Americans had not only used a doomsday machine; they had used it when, as Stalin knew, it was not militarily necessary [emphasis added]. It was this last chilling fact that doubtless made the greatest impression on the Russians.”

It also made an impression on J. Robert Oppenheimer, the scientific director at the Los Alamos National Laboratory. After learning of the annihilation wrought upon Japan, he began to harbor second thoughts and he resigned in October 1945.

In March of the following year, Oppenheimer told Truman: “Mr. President, I have blood on my hands.”

Truman’s reply: “It’ll come out in the wash.”

Later, the president told an aide, “Don’t bring that fellow around again.”

The leaders and heroes [sic] who devised and carried out America’s nuclear “experiment” on Japanese civilians are generally considered to be part of this country’s “greatest generation” (of men). By any reasonable definition, what I just detailed is nuclear terrorism.

Keep this in mind when pondering who and what we’re up against today.FacebooTwitter

Mickey Z. is the creator of a podcast called Post-Woke. You can subscribe here. He is also the founder of Helping Homeless Women - NYC, offering direct relief to women on New York City streets. Spread the word. Read other articles by Mickey.

Pelosi’s Taiwan visit

News on China No. 110

This week’s News on China in 2 minutes.

• Pelosi’s Taiwan visit
• Sanctions on US and Taiwan
• Pelosi on Chinese social media
• Chinese people and the English language

FacebookTwitter

Dongsheng (Eastern Voices) is an international collective of researchers interested in Chinese politics and society. The interest in China is growing everywhere. Yet most of the available news and analysis outside China is produced by corporate media from the Global North. Dongsheng provides access to Chinese perspectives. Read other articles by Dongsheng News, or visit Dongsheng News's website.
ENBRIDGE
Line 3 aquifer breach is leaking more groundwater

Kirsti Marohn
Brainerd, Minn.
August 6, 2022 8:55 AM

In the summer of 2021, construction padding for the Line 3 pipeline approached the Mississippi River where the pipeline now crosses underneath the river southwest of Bemidji, Minn.
Evan Frost | MPR News file

An aquifer breach in north-central Minnesota caused by construction on the Line 3 oil pipeline is leaking more groundwater, the state Department of Natural Resources said this week.

The site near LaSalle Creek in Hubbard County is one of three places where crews installing the Enbridge-owned pipeline last year caused uncontrolled flows of groundwater.

DNR staff visited the site this spring and found that Enbridge’s repairs were largely successful, though they identified the need for more monitoring and assessment, according to spokesperson Gail Nosek.

But on July 11, Enbridge informed the DNR that additional groundwater had emerged from the site. About 20 gallons per minute of groundwater is flowing out of the ground — about one-fifth of the flow from the original breach, the DNR stated.

Opponents of the Line 3 pipeline are calling for an independent panel of scientists to study the environmental impacts of the pipeline construction.

Jami Gaither is a retired engineer working with Waadookawaad Amikwag, or Those Who Help Beaver, a citizen science group that has used drones and thermal imaging to monitor the breaches.

"Every single thing that we've seen happen along this corridor was predicted by citizens, by scientists by Indigenous leadership — people who understand this land, who live in this land, who depend on this land for their life,” she said.

Gaither said pressurized aquifers feed natural springs that in turn, supply wetlands and fens with groundwater.

"When we breach that, we no longer have the pressure, because it's being bled off in other places, to allow those natural springs that people rely on to continue to be present,” she said. “They basically disappear from the landscape."




The DNR said it's ordered Enbridge to develop a plan to address the flow.

The agency also said it's working on an enforcement resolution to address all of the aquifer breach sites and hold Enbridge accountable for their restoration.

In an email, Enbridge spokesperson Juli Kellner said the company is developing a supplemental corrective action plan in coordination with state agencies.

Kellner said the company takes protecting the environment seriously, and continues to work with regulatory agencies at the three sites on ongoing restoration and monitoring.
NGOism Serves the Status Quo
CIVIL SOCIETY INC. IS THE STATE ***

AN INTERVIEW WITH  BENJAMIN Y. FONG   MELISSA NASCHEK

Tasked with carrying out what ought to be state functions, but dependent on private interests, NGOs will never challenge the basic structures of capitalism.


The ability for nonprofits to pursue a political agenda is dependent on generating revenue from the private sector.
 
(SDI Productions / Getty Images)

JACOBIN
06.14.2021

INTERVIEW BY J. C. PANCALE BROOKS

Benjamin Y. Fong and Melissa Naschek joined The Jacobin Show, our weekly YouTube broadcast, to discuss their recent article for the spring issue of Catalyst. In “NGOism: The Politics of the Third Sector,” they describe the structural binds requiring nonprofits to adopt the language of public well-being without adopting the politics of social transformation.

Fong and Naschek argue that the NGOs have come to fill the political void where strong labor unions or other mass-membership organizations used to be. Given the structural incentives to which nonprofits are subject, their mode of addressing social problems systematically avoids taking on the profit motive and, as a result, bears certain consistent features that the authors refer to as NGOism.

By bringing together community elites as “stakeholders” to technocratically manage social problems away, nonprofits reinforce social and economic hierarchies through their methods of civic engagement, and avoid the type of class conflict we need to win real political change.

Benjamin Y. Fong is a professor at Arizona State University and Melissa Naschek is a political organizer and writer in Philadelphia. They were interviewed by Jacobin’s Cale Brooks and Jen Pan.

J. C. PAN

At the simplest level what is a nonprofit and how important is the sector right now?

MELISSA NASCHEK

A typical for-profit corporation is expected to take an investment, make a product, earn a profit, and persist by reinvesting their own profits. In contrast, nonprofits typically provide social goods that do not generate a profit, and so they are reliant on continuously receiving injections of external funding. Most commonly, this is because they’re fulfilling a social need that is inherently unprofitable, and thus corporations are not interested in providing it.

Nonprofits persist on a funding structure that depends on a combination of philanthropic donations from the middle class and the wealthy; from government funding; and, increasingly under neoliberalism, from market-like mechanisms that mimic what for-profit corporations do in selling a good.

BENJAMIN Y. FONG

In our article, we offer data that illustrates the huge growth in nonprofit and foundation assets, as well as the proliferation of third-sector entities more generally. It’s a huge part of the economy. It accounts for 5 to 6 percent of GDP and employs about 10 percent of the American workforce.

CALE BROOKS

What are the historic factors that led to the rise of the nonprofit sector?

BENJAMIN Y. FONG

The story we tell in the article fits into the story of the decline of working-class associational capacity, beginning around the ’60s. Today, the workforce is pretty poorly unionized. Union density is at 11 percent, and that’s buoyed by public sector unionization. Not so long ago, a third of the American workforce was unionized, and those unions used to be major forces in fighting inequality and fighting for social justice.

Not to be forgotten are the large mass-membership organizations, like the American Legion, the Freemasons, and the Elks. These organizations were far from progressive, but they were actual membership organizations; they were responsive to the will of their members, and they influenced our politics. Around the beginning of the 1960s, these organizations declined in size, but more importantly, they declined in power. Nonprofits stepped into that space, and with dire consequences for our politics.

The advocacy nonprofits that have taken the place of the old associations are markedly more oligarchical and top-down. They tend to be dominated by professional-class staffers, who only interact with their memberships through a mailing list. Members don’t drive these organizations through democratic debate; they’re much more staff- and funder-driven.

CALE BROOKS

But we shouldn’t say the rise of NGOs and these professionals helped cause the decline of the Left or labor movement, right? The labor movement collapsed for other reasons, and the nonprofits swooped in as capitalism was transforming. Is that fair?

BENJAMIN Y. FONG

Yes, NGOs and the “professional-managerial class [PMC]” are a huge obstacle to left-wing politics today; they have a grip over the state and the media. But it’s also possible to overemphasize their role, as if our current problems are just a matter of the dominance of professional-class interest.

It’s important to emphasize the structure of nonprofits instead of the particular people running them. If you’re a staffer at a nonprofit, only interacting with your supposed “membership” through mass mailers, responsible mostly to your boss and your organization’s funders, you’re going to be insulated in a professional-class bubble from everyday concerns.

Staffers in mass-membership organizations, by contrast, might be from the middle or upper classes, but if they are responsive to the will of the memberships they serve, even if they bring their own set of biases and interests to the organization, they will be forced to represent interests that are not their own. That is a dynamic we ought in general to encourage.

J. C. PAN

Why is it that the nonprofit approach to solving social problems can never sufficiently challenge capital?

MELISSA NASCHEK

As we dug more into the funding of NGOs, we were surprised to realize that the government is the biggest single funder of nonprofit activity. Historically, the number of NGOs exploded in size as the postwar growth period was ending, and as the social welfare state in America started to devolve and become more privatized.

This heavy reliance on state funding comes with a number of different constraints. First of all, it makes NGOs susceptible to the same forces tearing down the social welfare state under neoliberalism. NGOs must compete for increasingly scarce social welfare funds, forcing them to compete with one another in order to secure government funding that is crucial for their survival.The nonprofit sector carries out the functions that the government ought to provide, but with less funding, and in such a way that nonprofits are forced to be entrepreneurial.

In turn, government funding typically constrains nonprofit activity to the provision of social welfare services. If organizations decide to engage in political activity, they have to turn to private sources. That funding can come from a number of sources, including aggregated individual donations, large general-purpose foundations, or corporations.

Ultimately, this means that NGOs’ ability to pursue a political agenda is dependent on generating revenue from the private sector. Further, the largest and most reliable sources of private funding come from the wealthiest people in society — those who don’t want anything to happen that will threaten their ability to accumulate profit. This leaves nonprofits trapped in an inescapable contradiction: politically they are beholden to the very class that is hoarding the resources necessary to expand social spending.

BENJAMIN Y. FONG

In brief, the nonprofit sector carries out the functions that the government ought to provide, but with less funding, and in such a way that nonprofits are forced to be entrepreneurial — which is to say, dependent upon private interests. They execute what ought to be a government function, but in such a way that private interests can dictate the terms.

MELISSA NASCHEK

In this sense, the ’60s were a pivotal decade because they opened the flood gates to funding private institutions rather than public ones. This tendency has only become more pronounced under neoliberalism because it is compatible with both liberal and conservative ideas about the welfare state — particularly conservatives’ concerns that the federal government’s universal standards are not sensitive to the local conditions that generate actually existing poverty, creating people who are dependent on the welfare state.

BENJAMIN Y. FONG

And at this point, it’s beyond just an agenda. On both sides of the aisle, there are material interests at work. A lot of private and public-private hybrid organizations want to get their beaks wet on any government spending. The government is like a dying, suffering animal covered in parasites sucking away any life.

Today, the state is spending more money, and sure, it’s nice to see a turn away from austerity. But without fixing that structural problem, without taking on the private interests that leech on the state, we won’t see the emergence of New Deal–style programs.

J. C. PAN

How do these structural constraints produce the phenomenon that you call NGOism, and how does that spread to the rest of the Left?

BENJAMIN Y. FONG

In the article, we lay out three features of NGOism: it’s technocratic, it’s service oriented, and it is focused on the “community.” We get those features from the structural constraints that we just talked about. Given these constraints, nonprofits are incentivized to come up with modes of solving social problems that systematically avoid taking on the profit motive. In terms of their immediate self-interest, this makes sense for a lot of nonprofits. If you’re running a nonprofit hospital, it doesn’t make sense to piss off your funders by engaging in political advocacy that might make them mad.

But we’re concerned that the genie has escaped the bottle. This mode of solving social problems without taking on the profit motive is seen as common sense by a lot of people who aren’t even involved in the NGO world. To some extent, that’s not so surprising. The current generation of young activists grew up in a world that was carefully curated by foundations and nonprofits. These foundations funded the work of college professors, they trained campus advocacy organizations, and they wrote our textbooks in school. With this widespread conditioning, it’s natural that activists would come to political spaces with a desire for technocratic do-goodery, to avoid debate, and to focus on the “community.”

None of that is especially surprising given the generational shift. People who at one point would have joined the Communist Party are volunteering for nonprofits today. This creates a cultural common sense that is very pernicious within the Left.

J. C. PAN

You point out in your piece that if you go to any nonprofit website, within ten seconds of scanning, you’ll find some invocation of community. What’s with the nonprofit fixation on community and, perhaps more importantly, what does it obfuscate?

MELISSA NASCHEK

The “community” is an ideological term that nobody can consistently define. In fact, going back to the War on Poverty, social actors have used clearly divergent explanations for what a “community” project even is. This ambiguity enables actors to carefully select their political terrains while pretending that, because they just happened upon X community with Y need, their solutions are organic.

BENJAMIN Y. FONG

If you asked today’s activists why we use the word “community” so much, many of them would point to the community control programs of the late ’60s as something that the Left ought to emulate. There are two problems with this. First, these community control programs were co-opted by foundations in ways that were inimical to the aims of the people they were purporting to help. Here, I recommend Karen Ferguson’s Top Down for that history. But second, the actual history of “community” organizations since then is very straightforwardly an elite history.

MELISSA NASCHEK

Community coalitions are groups of leaders who come together and hash things out: “My people want this, your people want this; let’s come to a compromise and decide what the community as a whole wants.”People who at one point would have joined the Communist Party are volunteering for nonprofits today.

Some of the largest nonprofits around are community development corporations. These organizations are embedded all over the country. They essentially function to get for-profit developers and community leaders in the same room to hash out social issues. The problem is that the people who get represented in those organizations, which have the sheen and the authenticity of the word “community,” are the elites — not the people in the actual geographical areas that they supposedly represent.

BENJAMIN Y. FONG

The short of it is that community serves as a substitute for class. Eric Hobsbawm called community one of those vapid phrases of lost and drifting generations. We hold on to community so much because it’s not there; we’re highly atomized, and so for understandable reasons we want a community. The problem is that capitalism is good at recuperating languages that we like — languages of humanism.

J. C. PAN

Is there an effective way for the Left to work with nonprofits?

MELISSA NASCHEK

Whatever your opinion of nonprofits is, it is impossible to avoid engaging with nonprofits in some form. It’s important to keep in mind that the structural constraints of nonprofits are ultimately derived from their funding structure. There are nonprofits that are not funded by elite institutions, and those are the ones that the Left should prioritize working with and through.

DSA is an interesting example of this. It’s a 501c4, it’s a nonprofit, but it’s funded by membership dues. This means that even though it’s still a nonprofit, it’s ultimately controlled by its members. It is controlled by the people who volunteer for the organization. The more we can seek out nonprofit organizations like that, the more successful the Left will be at avoiding the dynamics that conflict with nonprofits’ ability to confront the profit motive. There’s still the problem of the actual class composition of an organization like DSA, but that’s a different issue.

BENJAMIN Y. FONG

The coalition around National Nurses United [NNU] that’s fighting for Medicare for All is a good example of a productive relationship with nonprofits. NNU convenes the table around which a lot of different organizations exist, including the Labor Campaign for Single Payer. There are a lot of nonprofits there, like the Center for Popular Democracy. So there might be productive avenues of nonprofit and union collaboration, provided that unions are in charge.

That being said, there is a tendency to channel a lot of the activism into traditional nonprofit methods: prioritizing insider lobbying and media campaigns, engaging in less confrontational tactics. Any time you’re dealing with nonprofits, they’ll want to domesticate and channel dissent into avenues that they deem to be “productive.”

CALE BROOKS

Is the social justice language, the community talk, and the localism a problem for bringing new people into the room with us, particularly working-class people?

MELISSA NASCHEK

Yes and no. Some NGO language is alienating and confusing. Nonprofits often come up with terms and then expect everyone to know them. Sometimes it’s for more boring, technical reasons; the way that NGOs want to talk about politics and society is highly specialized and technical. Mark Dowie calls this “foundationese.” But a lot of it assumes the language of common sense. That’s even more dangerous.

An example of this is NGOs’ common emphasis on “listening to the people” or on “citizen engagement.” Who would be against citizen engagement? But these terms are taken and put through routinized processes that are not only alienating, but also designed to disempower people.Any time you’re dealing with nonprofits, they’ll want to domesticate and channel dissent into avenues that they deem to be ‘productive.’

Citizen engagement in the nonprofit world often means having some kind of public forum where the speakers are carefully curated to represent specific, “correct” opinions. The events are open to the public, and citizens are considered engaged because they sit there and listen to people tell them what to think. Nothing about it is genuinely engaging.

BENJAMIN Y. FONG

The common features of PMC language that we all love to ridicule can be alienating. But if anything, there has been systematic investment in developing public forum strategies that are noncontentious, friendly, and inviting, and that can be quite pleasant for people.

The Ford Foundation was the first to explicitly theorize political conflict as a premodern impulse that needs to be done away with. The Kettering Foundation and the Pew Foundation have invested a lot in the so-called civic renewal movement, which is specifically about developing strategies and tactics for putting on a public forum that leads to consensus instead of debate. They take the results of those meetings and package them nicely for city council representatives. The whole point is to get rid of any kind of debate or conflict.

In these kinds of spaces, people are very friendly. Nonprofit workers are super friendly at first; they’re inviting, and they’re very conscious about being “nice.” They don’t want anything to get too heated, or for debate to get out of control. The problem is not that this makes political spaces uninviting, but that it makes them ultimately unproductive and silencing of participants.

J. C. PAN

What are some practical solutions? Should every leftist who’s working for a nonprofit just quit and join a union?

BENJAMIN Y. FONG

We don’t want to make it seem like this is the main problem for the Left. Our main enemies are still the capitalist class and corporations.

But it wasn’t long ago that people were more clear on the dangers of the third sector. In 1916, Rockefeller petitioned Congress to charter the foundation, and they wouldn’t do it. Rockefeller actually had to go to New York to charter the foundation at first. That should give you some sense of just how odious the Rockefeller name was. Imagine Bill Gates going to Congress to charter his foundation, and Congress saying, “I’m sorry; you’re a vile person, and we want nothing to do with you.” There has been a sea change in how we treat these things.The Left should be about class conflict. The domestication of dissent that NGOs encourage will always lead in a different direction, which is the reaffirmation of the status quo.

You might say, “That was 1916. That was a long time ago.” But as late as the 1950s, there were Congressional hearings about the overreach of foundations that were supported on both sides of the aisle. Reading the transcriptions of these hearings, which unfortunately didn’t go anywhere, you’ll see that they’re just as brutal. They saw foundations as a real threat to American democracy.

Then, beginning in the 1950s and ’60s, as foundation funders and activists became more cozy with one another, that kind of critique was lost. We aren’t as critical of the foundations as we ought to be. Part of it is being clear about what this sector is and the ways in which it is undermining left politics.

MELISSA NASCHEK

The growth of the NGO sector is a symptom of neoliberalization and the changes in our social welfare state. Those changes are not just things that affect the structure of the state and the delivery of social goods. Under capitalism, there is such a vast accumulation of wealth that people have billions of dollars to invest in social initiatives that allow them to control what society looks like and how it disperses and distributes as its goods, a degree away from their capitalist firm. This story is another piece of why we need a mass movement, why we need a strong state, and why we need publicly owned and worker-controlled institutions.

BENJAMIN Y. FONG

And why we need class conflict. There will always be forces of compromise out there; the Left should be about class conflict. The domestication of dissent that NGOs encourage will always lead in a different direction, which is the reaffirmation of the status quo.

CONTRIBUTORS

Benjamin Y. Fong is an Arizona-based writer and activist.

Melissa Naschek is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America.

J. C. Pan is a cohost of the Jacobin Show and has written for the New Republic, Dissent, the Nation, and other publications.

Cale Brooks is Jacobin's video editor.


***


















Canada is trying to stop Mexico from becoming energy sovereign

“What AMLO ultimately wants to ensure is that control over Mexico’s energy resources lies in the hands of the Mexican nation”

Owen Schalk / August 6, 2022 / CANADIAN DIMENSION

Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador. 
Photo by Eneas De Troya/Flickr.


President of Mexico Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO) is currently embroiled in an international dispute that has pitted his government against two of its largest trading partners, the United States and Canada. At the centre of this dispute is energy—always a fraught geopolitical domain, but even moreso in today’s worldwide energy crisis.

AMLO’s administration—a progressive, nationalist, and broadly anti-imperialist one—has made strengthening Mexico’s state-owned energy companies a priority as he attempts to move his country closer to full energy sovereignty. The US and Canada, both of whom favour a steady neoliberal arrangement in Mexico in which the state does little or nothing to impede foreign capital, are attempting to prevent AMLO from making the prospect of Mexican energy sovereignty a reality, as such a development would obstruct the free operation of US and Canadian energy companies in the country.

The Mexican state’s commitment to pursuing energy sovereignty is not only a central pillar in AMLO’s wider project to reassert Mexican sovereignty domestically and abroad; it is also a simple pragmatic move in the midst of the global energy crisis that intensified earlier this year with the war in Ukraine and Western sanctions against Russia. As a result, energy sovereignty is even more popular in Mexico today than it was on the year of AMLO’s election. As Nick Corbishley explains in Naked Capitalism, this growth in popularity is “partly due to the recent masterclass the European Union has given the world on the dangers of depending excessively on foreign states [i.e. Russia] to meet your own energy needs.”

While AMLO’s spokesperson Jesús Ramírez has insisted that Mexico continues to be “interested in investments from US and Canadian companies,” the dispute has widened the rift between the US-Canadian bloc of capital and the more left-leaning policies of AMLO’s “fourth transformation” government. On July 20, US Trade Representative Katherine Tai accused AMLO’s government of violating the terms of the US-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) Trade Agreement through his attempts to strengthen state energy company Pemex at the expense of US companies. “We have repeatedly expressed serious concerns about a series of changes in Mexico’s energy policies and their consistency with Mexico’s commitments under the USMCA,” she said.

Tai’s statement chides the AMLO administration for prioritizing the growth of Mexico’s state-owned companies over private investors and for restraining US investment through, among other things, “delays, denials, and revocations of US companies’ abilities to operate in Mexico’s energy sector.” Tai claims that AMLO’s attempts to rely less on foreign energy investment and move toward a sovereign energy sector “largely cut off US and other investment in the country’s clean energy infrastructure,” policy changes which “threaten to push private sector innovation out of the Mexican energy market.”

On July 8, Global Affairs Canada revealed that the Minister of International Trade, Export Promotion, Small Business and Economic Development Mary Ng met with Mexico’s Secretary of Energy in Mexico City and “emphasized Canada’s concerns regarding changes to Mexico’s energy sector regulations.” On July 21, Ng followed Tai with a statement criticizing “Mexico’s change in energy policy [which is] inconsistent with Mexico’s CUSMA obligations.” She added that Canada had begun “consultations under CUSMA to address these concerns,” and that the Government of Canada supports the US in their “challenge” to Mexican energy policy.



Currently, Canadian companies have $13 billion invested in the Mexican energy sector. Export Development Canada labels Mexico a “priority market” and notes oil and gas as among the “key industries” for Canadian investment in the country.

Both the US and Canada are ornamenting their aversion to Mexican energy sovereignty with concern for the clean energy transition that Mexico, by strengthening its state-owned energy companies like Pemex, is allegedly hindering—an argument that is totally undermined by the fact that this year the Trudeau government pumped billions of dollars into oil pipelines within Canada. It should be remembered, however, that US-Canadian interference against left-wing governments in Latin America over the past several years has often been dressed in the guise of environmental protection by the pliant Western press (see the cases of Evo Morales, “murderer of nature,” and Nicolás Maduro, “ecocidal” destroyer of the environment). One should keep this in mind if the trade dispute continues to deteriorate.

The Canadian trade commissioner in Mexico is less couth in its appraisal of AMLO’s energy policies. “With the flag of recovering Mexico’s energy sovereignty,” the trade commissioner website reads, “AMLO has implemented a series of modifications in terms of policies, structure, and operation of the sector. The new paradigm is not necessarily based on economic or market principles, but on ideological assumptions, as well as a nationalistic approach that restrict[s] private participation in the Mexican energy market.” The commissioner’s view of AMLO’s energy policies is extremely condescending, dismissing any wishes for energy sovereignty by the people of Mexico as mere phantasms conjured by a Mexican president whose vision is blurred by “ideological assumptions”—unlike, we are to assume, the rational and clear-eyed neoliberal policies pushed southward by Canada and the US.

Nick Corbishley asserts that “[w]hat AMLO ultimately wants to ensure is that control over Mexico’s energy resources lies in the hands of the Mexican nation,” an aspiration that “flies in the face of what Washington wants, which is ultimately an energy-rich neighbor to the south that is open to unrestricted foreign investment.” Canada wants the same. It remains to be seen whether AMLO, inarguably a transformative figure in Mexican politics, will be able to transform his country even more by fortifying its energy industry against the claws of its frantic norther trading partners.

Owen Schalk is a writer based in Winnipeg. He is primarily interested in applying theories of imperialism, neocolonialism, and underdevelopment to global capitalism and Canada’s role therein. Visit his website at www.owenschalk.com.
Chicago’s Howard Brown Health Workers Are Organizing a Union

AN INTERVIEW WITH  TIJUAN FLEMMING ROSE SAWYER

Workers at the Chicago nonprofit LGBTQ health provider Howard Brown say management has not prioritized what’s best for either patients or workers — and that they’re organizing a union to change that.



Howard Brown workers are currently voting to form a union. (Howard Brown Health Workers United)

JACOBIN
08.06.2022

INTERVIEW BY BRYNN SCHAAL

Since December 2021, workers at Howard Brown Health, a nonprofit LGBTQ health care provider in Chicago, have been organizing with the Illinois Nurses Association (INA). Around 475 employees are currently voting on whether to form a union, and ballots will be counted on August 9. Nurses at the facility already voted to join the INA in 2019.

Brynn Schaal spoke with TiJuan Flemming, a former behavioral health provider who left Howard Brown in June, and Rose Sawyer, a trans and gender-nonconforming youth hormone navigator who is also part of the union organizing committee.

BRYNN SCHAAL

What are your primary motivations for organizing?

TIJUAN FLEMMING

Right now, Howard Brown has a budget deficit, and they are experiencing very high turnover. For the people still there, job roles are expanding but pay is not. The goal is to be paid fairly and hopefully get more people hired. On the behavioral team that I previously worked on, we realized more people were not going to be hired, so if we were ever going to get resources and better pay, better benefits, a union was the best way to go.

ROSE SAWYER

Pay has been a big part. It’s supposed to be standardized in some way through internal and external audits, and there seems to be some discrepancy in what people are getting paid. At the lowest end, we’ve got folks being paid near minimum wage.

A lot of folks are motivated by retaliation. That’s something that a lot of people here have faced from management for speaking out, or for advocating for patients and their programs. A lot of folks want more of a seat at the table at this organization. There’s not a clear way to communicate with the people at the top, and the folks at the top tend to be pretty isolated from what’s happening at the ground level in our clinics, in our thrift shops [owned by Howard Brown], and administrative buildings — the bosses don’t really know what we’re doing and why we’re doing it, and they’re making decisions based on their interests and not the interests of their workers and patients.

We’ve seen the quality of care that people are receiving slip, especially in the past year or two through the pandemic, and we’ve seen this organization’s decisions harm the quality of care people are getting.We can’t provide what our patients deserve unless we’re also taken care of.

A lot of people who work here are working in their own community and are members of the community that we’re serving. A lot of us come to Howard Brown for our own health care. We know this organization is failing to live up to its mission. We as workers want to be protected and compensated and taken care of. We can’t provide what our patients deserve unless we’re also taken care of.

BRYNN SCHAAL

Do you have experience being in a union or organizing prior to this?

TIJUAN FLEMMING

I had been in a union when I was in college, but I really had not paid that much attention to it. I worked at Howard Brown for a short period. That’s how rough it is there now. And there’s the pressure campaign for people to either quit or be fired. And the team shared with me today that it looks like [management] would rather have people quit than be fired.

ROSE SAWYER

This is the first time I’ve ever done anything related to a union, so I personally don’t have anything to compare it to. This campaign started at the end of 2021, when the Omicron surge was happening in Chicago; that was also about the time Howard Brown announced they were going to be following a five-day quarantine for COVID. So many of our coworkers were catching COVID and were out sick. They have never given us hazard pay through the pandemic. Nurses may be in a different situation because they have a union contract.

Howard Brown’s justification was that they eliminate hazards through personal protective equipment, and they had no proof that people had gotten COVID from work. Our executive leadership held these Q and A sessions that were in our work chat. People were really fired up and brought these issues directly to our executive leadership, raking them over the coals for how they’ve handled COVID, hazard pay, PPE, employee safety. Which I think was a really animating force: we all saw that and thought, here’s a ton of people who will probably be interested in a union. It just kind of took off like wildfire.

BRYNN SCHAAL

What has the response been from management?

ROSE SAWYER

Thus far they’ve been, on the whole, pretty nice. They’ve been using the carrot more than the stick. Most of their anti-union activity has been more on the nice side — like free lunches, and all of a sudden we’re getting a little pay bump. There have been a couple notable cases of folks facing retaliation for being vocal union supporters.

There’s a very frustrating balance of being forced to be loud and insistent on what you need and what your patients need, and also being terrified that if you’re too loud, they’re going to fire you because you’ve been a problem.

BRYNN SCHAAL

What changes do you believe unionizing will create within your profession?

ROSE SAWYER

I want to see workers be protected from retaliation. I want to see an actual system of accountability that falls outside this organization, the bosses, and their HR department. I want to see the workers at Howard Brown have some power within the organization, and I want us to be able to influence the decisions that are made at this organization when it comes to what our priorities are or how we’re providing patient care.

It’s the people on the ground across the organization who actually know how this place runs. The bosses don’t always have the best sense. I want us to be able to wield that power and get a lot more out of this organization for the people we serve.

I look to the Chicago Teachers Union and the way they’ve been able to use their power not just to fight for themselves but to say, we need more social workers, we need more nurses in our schools — we need these things to actually support our students. Staffing ratios [the ratio of patients to health care workers], especially with COVID, are really atrocious, and have gotten really bad at Howard Brown right now. It’s really hard to work here in a sustainable way, and our community suffers for it.

I remember when quarantine was first hitting, Howard Brown had no plan internally. Even a week before lockdowns hit Chicago, we’d have folks walking into the clinic saying, “I was exposed to COVID,” and we didn’t have a plan. It was very disorganized. When COVID hit, we went pretty hard into COVID testing — that became one of the primary focuses of our clinics. We did a lot of testing across the city. There were at least some pretty coherent guidelines of who was going to be working in person, who was going to be working remote.

I think over the past year, there has been a push to get people back in the clinics, regardless of whether they need to be there. There have been a lot of decisions made around COVID policies and protocols that I don’t agree with. Howard Brown adopted the five-day COVID quarantine rule pretty much the second that it was released by the CDC, which I don’t think is a good idea, especially when you’re working in a health clinic. But they’ve been pretty adamant that that is the standard we’re going to follow. When it comes to COVID sick time, you only get five days, and if you need more, you need to use your own personal sick time, which puts a lot of people in a bind.

The nurses have been unbelievably supportive. They were some of the first folks we talked to about the union because, in the early days, I personally knew a couple of the nurses and knew they were safe people to talk to because they already had a union and were very vocal about it. [The nurses have] been talking with our coworkers, and it’s been really helpful having people who already have a union and can speak to why a union is good and who can say, “The reason that I’m so outspoken at work is because I have the union protection, and if I didn’t, I would’ve been fired years ago.”

BRYNN SCHAAL

What advice do you have for people working in the nonprofit sector who are thinking about organizing their workplaces?

TIJUAN FLEMMING

Just organize. Get it done as quickly as possible.

ROSE SAWYER

The folks who are drawn to nonprofit work tend to be quite radical. I think this is a moment we need to capitalize on. A lot of people want this, especially people in nonprofits.A nonprofit has an image to uphold. That can be an incredibly powerful tool for workers.

Organizing in COVID, when people tend to be really spread out, has added a lot of unique challenges to this work. There’s a lot of limitations, but I feel like our campaign has found a lot of utility in being able to just email everyone at the organization and be like, here’s our union updates, or go in our all-staff work chat and talk about the union directly with people and send them a link to the electronic union card. We’ve taken this difficult thing, organizing during COVID, and thought about how we can use some of these systems that have been built because of COVID to our advantage.

BRYNN SCHAAL

Nonprofits have low union membership. While this is true with most sectors of the American economy, this sticks out because a lot of nonprofits preach social justice and progressive politics. What do you believe accounts for this disparity?

TIJUAN FLEMMING

For Howard Brown in particular, it’s because [the nonprofit] is a progressive political darling. It has been difficult for people working there to stand up for themselves.

ROSE SAWYER

I’m deeply critical of nonprofits and the nonprofit-industrial complex. I think that we do good work. But these organizations are not actually structured in a way that allows for serious, transformative change. And on the worker side of things, a place like Howard Brown feeds off the energy of young, enthusiastic, idealistic queer people, feeds off of their radical energy and radical politics, yet is oftentimes just as exploitative as any other workplace.

While obviously a nonprofit structure is different from a for-profit structure, they’re still trying to minimize how much power or money they give to their workers. And I think a lot of the folks at the top are not interested in significant change, transformative change — it would negatively impact their goal of running a nonprofit that thrives off of broken systems. They don’t necessarily want to fix things, and they want to get the most out of their workers while giving them the least, just like any other business organization.

Some of the power with organizing within nonprofits is that, more than a place like Starbucks or Amazon, a nonprofit has an image to uphold, especially a nonprofit enmeshed within a community. They want people to think they’re good in some abstract way. That can be an incredibly powerful tool. Something that has been really useful for us is to be really public and say to the community that this place is not living up to its ideals for you or for me, and we have to hold them to it.

CONTRIBUTORS


TiJuan Flemming is a former behavioral health provider at Howard Brown.

Rose Sawyer is a trans and gender-nonconforming youth hormone navigator who is part of the union organizing committee at Howard Brown.

Brynn Schaal is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America.


FURTHER READING


NGOism Serves the Status Quo 
 

India is witnessing death of democracy: 
Rahul Gandhi


August 06, 2022

The Indian Congress party leader Rahul Gandhi says India is witnessing the death of democracy, as anybody who stands against the onset of dictatorship is viciously attacked.

Talking to media in New Delhi, he said what India has built brick by brick, starting almost a century ago, is being destroyed in front of Indians' eyes.

Rahul Gandhi termed the current rulers of India as worst than German Nazi leader Adolf Hitler.

The Congress leader said the sole agenda of the current dispensation is to ensure that people’s issues like price rise, unemployment and violence in society must not be raised.

He said there is no democracy in India but a dictatorship of four people.


India unveils new commitments that could make or break global climate response

Almost nine months after Narendra Modi committed India to a net-zero goal and a drastic increase in the share of renewables, the country’s cabinet has finally approved an enhanced climate action plan, adding more ambitious targets but leaving some expected goals out.

The national climate plan approved by the country’s union cabinet on Wednesday formalises a part of the pledges announced earlier in Glasgow and paves the way for adopting them as the country’s official climate goals after submission to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC).

This adoption of pledges, which was expected to be formalised around Cop26 in Glasgow, comes late but adds significant ambition to India’s climate action goals ahead of the next session of Cop27 in Sharm Al Sheikh starting in November.

Once submitted to UNFCCC, the pledges will form India’s enhanced Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), the voluntary goals of emission reduction each country sets for itself.

The NDCs are at the heart of the global fight against climate change based on the 2016 Paris agreement that aims to keep global warming from rising more than 2C. A significant emission reduction by the world’s third largest emitter can be a make or break point for these efforts.

With these newly formalised pledges, India is committed to reducing the emissions intensity of its GDP by 45 per cent by 2030, compared to its earlier goal of 33-35 per cent.

It also aims to ensure 50 per cent of electricity will come from non-fossil fuel sources but not half of all energy use, something that was left unclear in Mr Modi’s speech at Glasgow and sparked some confusion.

While this is an important goal for the largely coal-dependent country, experts say it is a more realistic and achievable target than aiming for half of its energy needs to be met from non-fossil fuel sources, something that would have made India’s climate action plan a lot more ambitious.

India is one the top three countries still investing in thermal coal power plants (Statista)
India is one the top three countries still investing in thermal coal power plants (Statista)

India’s current non-fossil fuel capacity, which includes nuclear, large hydro dams, wind and solar power, is around 40 per cent, in line with its previous goals. But coal is still the biggest source of energy.

In his Glasgow announcement, Mr Modi said India would target generating 500 gigawatts (GW) of power or output from non-fossil fuel sources - up from its current output of 157GW - but that promise did not make it into the plan.

“Only a part of what was announced in Glasgow now gets enshrined in India’s NDC. The target of having 50pc installed capacity of non-fossil fuel-based targets by 2030, compared with 40pc non-fossil fuel-based targets we have today shows that while the direction of travel is good, the pace could have been faster,” says Aarti Khosla, director of Delhi based Climate Trends.

Madhura Joshi, senior associate at India Energy Transition Lead, E3G, says while these targets are lower than Mr Modi announced, these are “actionable” for India.

However, she adds: “A reiteration of the renewables focus would have provided a fresh impetus for the renewables sector.”

Mr Modi’s announcements last year also marked a big shift in India’s climate policies. The country earlier rejected the concept of net-zero and asked richer countries to take more responsibility for climate action while allowing developing countries to fulfil their developmental needs.

Also at Glasgow, Mr Modi announced a 2070 target for carbon neutrality, two decades later than most countries. The new climate plan indicates that these pledges are a “step towards achieving India’s long-term goal of reaching net-zero” but it remains to be seen if this long-term goal will be a part of the official submission.

Dr Vaibhav Chaturvedi, a fellow at the Delhi-based Council on Energy, Environment and Water (CEEW), also voices the expectation that the 2070 goal should be included in the official document.

“That India’s ambition has been enhanced in the post-pandemic scenario needs to be emphasised and appreciated,” he says. “The press release explicitly states that the enhanced NDC is a step towards the net-zero goal, GoI should now follow this with explicit inclusion of the 2070 net-zero pledge in its yet-to-be-submitted long-term strategy to the UN.”

India still holds its demands for more action from richer countries and the need for climate finance. Mr Modi said rich nations should provide 1 trillion dollars to poorer nations suffering the brunt of the climate crisis created by a handful of developed countries.

Climate finance remains a contentious issue in negotiations. Rich countries have so far failed to deliver on the promise to collectively deliver $100 billion of climate finance a year by 2020.

Experts also say that while India’s eventual goal of being carbon neutral will require systemic changes, including shifting subsidies to clean energy and increasing investments, the adoption of more ambitious targets puts it in a more vital place to negotiate with richer countries.

“With an upcoming Cop and a G20 summit in India next year, these actions can strengthen India’s negotiating power, especially around climate finance from the global north,” says Balasubramanian Viswanathan, policy advisor at the International Institute for Sustainable Development.

The new plan also includes a commitment to a healthy and sustainable lifestyle, termed ‘LIFE’– ‘Lifestyle for Environment’ as a key to combating climate change”. Experts say while the stress on sustainable lifestyle in the NDCs is noteworthy, certain aspects like sectoral emission curbs, health and cleanliness are lacking in the plan.

“It is clear that India does not envisage sectoral emission reduction obligations as part of its NDC at least till 2030. The NDC does not bind it to any sector-specific mitigation obligation or action. On the other hand, it rightly emphasises the value of a sustainable way of living as an effective and just solution to the problem of climate change,” says RR Rashmi, distinguished fellow at The Energy and Resources Institute (TERI).

These new pledges also come as India suffers extreme weather events one after another. This year’s record-breaking heatwave, something that scientists say has been made worse due to climate change, caught the country unprepared to deal with the challenges. That included multiple deaths recorded due to the heatwave and the agricultural sector left in deep distress, leading to an export ban on wheat and other key crops amid a global food shortage.

The unprecedented temperatures are now being witnessed in large parts of Asia and Europe with floods ravaging Bangladesh and northeast India. These extreme weather events will be at the centre of the upcoming climate negotiations, making the issue of climate finance for adaptation even more urgent.

WHEW THAT WAS CLOSE
Asteroid swoops past Earth just days after being discovered by Nasa



Andrew Griffin
Thu, 4 August 2022 at 10:16 am·2-min read

An artists conception of a near Earth asteroid (Getty Images/iStockphoto)

An asteroid has swooped past Earth – just days after it was first spotted.

The object, known as 2022 OE2, never posed any danger to Earth. It remained at a safe distance of 3.2 million miles away, more than 10 times the distance from the Earth to the Moon.

The rock is up to 380 meters wide, scientists said, and made its closest approach to Earth at 12.23am eastern time on Thursday morning.


It is one of around 15,000 Apollo-class asteroids. That means they are in orbit around the Sun in such a way that they cross over with our own orbit.

The object was only found on 26 July, less than two weeks before it made its closest path with Earth. While Nasa aims to spot and categorise all of what it calls near-Earth objects or NEOs, the vast expanse of space and the relatively small size of such asteroids can often make it difficult.

Today, Nasa tracks thousands of such NEOs. But many remain unknown: the space agency says that less than half of the 25,00 near-Earth objects that are 140 meters or larger have yet been found.

Nasa says that it is not aware of any asteroid that is due to make a dangerous collision with Earth in the next 100 years. The most hazardous object that it tracks is the asteroid Bennu – famous for being landed on by Nasa’s Osiris-Rex mission, which will bring back pieces of asteroid next year – and there is still only a 1-in-1,800 chance that it will hit Earth before 2290.

Experts are nonetheless concerned that humanity could be taken by surprise by a potentially hazardous asteroid, and Nasa and other space agencies have launched planetary protection programmes in an attempt to limit those risks.

They have included major space missions to test any possible response. At the end of September, for instance, Nasa’s Dart mission will crash into an asteroid – in a test that will be used to understand whether it might be possible to move the path of any hazardous object so that it would avoid our planet.