Could Trump 2.0 End the American Century?

ITS ALREADY ENDED

IT WAS LAST CENTURY 

Trump’s second term will almost certainly be one of imperial decline, increasing internal chaos, and a further loss of global leadership.



Alfred W. Mccoy
Nov 20, 2024

TomDispatch

Some 15 years ago, on December 5, 2010, a historian writing for TomDispatch made a prediction that may yet prove prescient. Rejecting the consensus of that moment that U.S. global hegemony would persist to 2040 or 2050, he argued that “the demise of the United States as the global superpower could come... in 2025, just 15 years from now.”

To make that forecast, the historian conducted what he called “a more realistic assessment of domestic and global trends.” Starting with the global context, he argued that, “faced with a fading superpower,” China, India, Iran, and Russia would all start to “provocatively challenge U.S. dominion over the oceans, space, and cyberspace.” At home in the United States, domestic divisions would “widen into violent clashes and divisive debates… Riding a political tide of disillusionment and despair, a far-right patriot captures the presidency with thundering rhetoric, demanding respect for American authority and threatening military retaliation or economic reprisal.” But, that historian concluded, “the world pays next to no attention as the American Century ends in silence.”

Now that a “far-right patriot,” one Donald J. Trump, has indeed captured (or rather recaptured) the presidency “with thundering rhetoric,” let’s explore the likelihood that a second Trump term in office, starting in the fateful year 2025, might actually bring a hasty end, silent or otherwise, to an “American Century” of global dominion.
Making the Original Prediction

Let’s begin by examining the reasoning underlying my original prediction. (Yes, of course, that historian was me.) Back in 2010, when I picked a specific date for a rising tide of American decline, this country looked unassailably strong both at home and abroad. The presidency of Barack Obama was producing a “post-racial” society. After recovering from the 2008 financial crisis, the U.S. was on track for a decade of dynamic growth—the auto industry saved, oil and gas production booming, the tech sector thriving, the stock market soaring, and employment solid. Internationally, Washington was the world’s preeminent leader, with an unchallenged military, formidable diplomatic clout, unchecked economic globalization, and its democratic governance still the global norm.

Looking forward, leading historians of empire agreed that America would remain the world’s sole superpower for the foreseeable future. Writing in the Financial Times in 2002, for instance, Yale professor Paul Kennedy, author of a widely read book on imperial decline, argued that “America’s array of force is staggering,” with a mix of economic, diplomatic, and technological dominance that made it the globe’s “single superpower” without peer in the entire history of the world. Russia’s defense budget had “collapsed” and its economy was “less than that of the Netherlands.” Should China’s high growth rates continue for another 30 years, it “might be a serious challenger to U.S. predominance”—but that wouldn’t be true until 2032, if then. While America’s “unipolar moment” would surely not “continue for centuries,” its end, he predicted, “seems a long way off for now.”

Writing in a similar vein in The New York Times in February 2010, Piers Brendon, a historian of Britain’s imperial decline, dismissed the “doom mongers” who “conjure with Roman and British analogies in order to trace the decay of American hegemony.” While Rome was riven by “internecine strife” and Britain ran its empire on a shoestring budget, the U.S. was “constitutionally stable” with “an enormous industrial base.” Taking a few “relatively simple steps,” he concluded, Washington should be able to overcome current budgetary problems and perpetuate its global power indefinitely.

After the steady erosion of its global power for several decades, America is no longer the—or perhaps even an—“exceptional” nation floating above the deep global currents that shape the politics of most countries.

When I made my very different prediction nine months later, I was coordinating a network of 140 historians from universities on three continents who were studying the decline of earlier empires, particularly those of Britain, France, and Spain. Beneath the surface of this country’s seeming strength, we could already see the telltale signs of decline that had led to the collapse of those earlier empires.

By 2010, economic globalization was cutting good-paying factory jobs here, income inequality was widening, and corporate bailouts were booming—all essential ingredients for rising working-class resentment and deepening domestic divisions. Foolhardy military misadventures in Iraq and Afghanistan, pushed by Washington elites trying to deny any sense of decline, stoked simmering anger among ordinary Americans, slowly discrediting the very idea of international commitments. And the erosion of America’s relative economic strength from half the world’s output in 1950 to a quarter in 2010 meant the wherewithal for its unipolar power was fading fast.

Only a “near-peer” competitor was needed to turn that attenuating U.S. global hegemony into accelerating imperial decline. With rapid economic growth, a vast population, and the world’s longest imperial tradition, China seemed primed to become just such a country. But back then, Washington’s foreign policy elites thought not and even admitted China to the World Trade Organization (WTO), fully confident, according to two Beltway insiders, that “U.S. power and hegemony could readily mold China to the United States’ liking.”

Our group of historians, mindful of the frequent imperial wars fought when near-peer competitors finally confronted the reigning hegemon of their moment—think Germany versus Great Britain in World War I—fully expected China’s challenge would not be long in coming. Indeed, in 2012, just two years after my prediction, the U.S. National Intelligence Council warned that “China alone will probably have the largest economy, surpassing that of the United States a few years before 2030” and this country would no longer be “a hegemonic power.”

Just a year after that, China’s president, Xi Jinping, drawing on a massive $4 trillion in foreign-exchange reserves accumulated in the decade after joining the WTO, announced his bid for global power through what he called “the Belt and Road Initiative,” history’s largest development program. It was designed to make Beijing the center of the global economy.

In the following decade, the U.S.-China rivalry would become so intense that, last September, Secretary of the Air Force Frank Kendall warned: “I’ve been closely watching the evolution of [China’s] military for 15 years. China is not a future threat; China is a threat today.”
The Global Rise of the Strongman

Another major setback for Washington’s world order, long legitimated by its promotion of democracy (whatever its own dominating tendencies), came from the rise of populist strongmen worldwide. Consider them part of a nationalist reaction to the West’s aggressive economic globalization.

At the close of the Cold War in 1991, Washington became the planet’s sole superpower, using its hegemony to forcefully promote a wide-open global economy—forming the World Trade Organization in 1995, pressing open-market “reforms” on developing economies, and knocking down tariff barriers worldwide. It also built a global communications grid by laying 700,000 miles of fiber-optic submarine cables and then launching 1,300 satellites (now 4,700).

By exploiting that very globalized economy, however, China’s industrial output soared to $3.2 trillion by 2016, surpassing both the U.S. and Japan, while simultaneously eliminating 2.4 million American jobs between 1999 and 2011, ensuring the closure of factories in countless towns across the South and Midwest. By fraying social safety nets while eroding protection for labor unions and local businesses in both the U.S. and Europe, globalization reduced the quality of life for many, while creating inequality on a staggering scale and stoking a working-class reaction that would crest in a global wave of angry populism.

Riding that wave, right-wing populists have been winning a steady succession of elections—in Russia (2000), Israel (2009), Hungary (2010), China (2012), Turkey (2014), the Philippines (2016), the U.S. (2016), Brazil (2018), Italy (2022), the Netherlands (2023), Indonesia (2024), and the U.S. again (2024).

Set aside their incendiary us-versus-them rhetoric, however, and look at their actual achievements and those right-wing demagogues turn out to have a record that can only be described as dismal. In Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro ravaged the vast Amazon rainforest and left office amid an abortive coup. In Russia, Vladimir Putin invaded Ukraine, sacrificing his country’s economy to capture some more land (which it hardly lacked). In Turkey, Recep Erdogan caused a crippling debt crisis, while jailing 50,000 suspected opponents. In the Philippines, Rodrigo Duterte murdered 30,000 suspected drug users and courted China by giving up his country’s claims in the resource-rich South China Sea. In Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu has wreaked havoc on Gaza and neighboring lands, in part to stay in office and stay out of prison.
Prospects for Donald Trump’s Second Term

After the steady erosion of its global power for several decades, America is no longer the—or perhaps even an—“exceptional” nation floating above the deep global currents that shape the politics of most countries. And as it has become more of an ordinary country, it has also felt the full force of the worldwide move toward strongman rule. Not only does that global trend help explain Trump’s election and his recent reelection, but it provides some clues as to what he’s likely to do with that office the second time around.

In the globalized world America made, there is now an intimate interaction between domestic and international policy. That will soon be apparent in a second Trump administration whose policies are likely to simultaneously damage the country’s economy and further degrade Washington’s world leadership.

As the world shifts to renewable energy and all-electric vehicles, Trump’s policies will undoubtedly do lasting damage to the American economy.

Let’s start with the clearest of his commitments: environmental policy. During the recent election campaign, Trump called climate change “a scam” and his transition team has already drawn up executive orders to exit from the Paris climate accords. By quitting that agreement, the U.S. will abdicate any leadership role when it comes to the most consequential issue facing the international community while reducing pressure on China to curb its greenhouse gas emissions. Since these two countries now account for nearly half (45%) of global carbon emissions, such a move will ensure that the world blows past the target of keeping this planet’s temperature rise to 1.5°C until the end of the century. Instead, on a planet that’s already had 12 recent months of just such a temperature rise, that mark is expected to be permanently reached by perhaps 2029, the year Trump finishes his second term.

On the domestic side of climate policy, Trump promised last September that he would “terminate the Green New Deal, which I call the Green New Scam, and rescind all unspent funds under the misnamed Inflation Reduction Act.” On the day after his election, he committed himself to increasing the country’s oil and gas production, telling a celebratory crowd, “We have more liquid gold than any country in the world.” He will undoubtedly also block wind farm leases on Federal lands and cancel the $7,500 tax credit for purchasing an electrical vehicle.

As the world shifts to renewable energy and all-electric vehicles, Trump’s policies will undoubtedly do lasting damage to the American economy. In 2023, the International Renewable Energy Agency reported that, amid continuing price decreases, wind and solar power now generate electricity for less than half the cost of fossil fuels. Any attempt to slow the conversion of this country’s utilities to the most cost-effective form of energy runs a serious risk of ensuring that American-made products will be ever less competitive.

To put it bluntly, he seems to be proposing that electricity users here should pay twice as much for their power as those in other advanced nations. Similarly, as relentless engineering innovation makes electric vehicles cheaper and more reliable than petrol-powered ones, attempting to slow such an energy transition is likely to make the U.S. auto industry uncompetitive, at home and abroad.

Calling tariffs “the greatest thing ever invented,” Trump has proposed slapping a 20% duty on all foreign goods and 60% on those from China. In another instance of domestic-foreign synergy, such duties will undoubtedly end up crippling American farm exports, thanks to retaliatory overseas tariffs, while dramatically raising the cost of consumer goods for Americans, stoking inflation, and slowing consumer spending.

Reflecting his aversion to alliances and military commitments, Trump’s first foreign policy initiative will likely be an attempt to negotiate an end to the war in Ukraine. During a CNN town hall in May 2023, he claimed he could stop the fighting “in 24 hours.” Last July, he added: “I would tell [Ukraine’s president] Zelenskyy, no more. You got to make a deal.”

Just two days after the November election, according toThe Washington Post, Trump reputedly told Russian President Vladimir Putin in a telephone call, “not to escalate the war in Ukraine and reminded him of Washington’s sizable military presence in Europe.” Drawing on sources inside the Trump transition team, The Wall Street Journalreported that the new administration is considering “cementing Russia’s seizure of 20% of Ukraine” and forcing Kyiv to forego its bid to join NATO, perhaps for as long as 20 years.

With Russia drained of manpower and its economy pummeled by three years of bloody warfare, a competent negotiator (should Trump actually appoint one) might indeed be able to bring a tenuous peace to a ravaged Ukraine. Since it has been Europe’s frontline of defense against a revanchist Russia, the continent’s major powers would be expected to play a significant role. But Germany’s coalition government has just collapsed; French president Emmanuel Macron is crippled by recent electoral reverses; and the NATO alliance, after three years of a shared commitment to Ukraine, faces real uncertainty with the advent of a Trump presidency.
America’s Allies

Those impending negotiations over Ukraine highlight the paramount importance of alliances for U.S. global power. For 80 years, from World War II through the Cold War and beyond, Washington relied on bilateral and multilateral alliances as a critical force multiplier. With China and Russia both rearmed and increasingly closely aligned, reliable allies have become even more important to maintaining Washington’s global presence. With 32 member nations representing a billion people and a commitment to mutual defense that has lasted 75 years, the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) is arguably the most powerful military alliance in all of modern history.

Yet Trump has long been sharply critical of it. As a candidate in 2016, he called the alliance “obsolete.” As president, he mocked the treaty’s mutual-defense clause, claiming even “tiny” Montenegro could drag the U.S. into war. While campaigning last February, he announced that he would tell Russia “to do whatever the hell they want” to a NATO ally that didn’t pay what he considered its fair share.

Right after Trump’s election, caught between what one analyst called “an aggressively advancing Russia and an aggressively withdrawing America,” French President Macron insisted that the continent needed to be a “more united, stronger, more sovereign Europe in this new context.” Even if the new administration doesn’t formally withdraw from NATO, Trump’s repeated hostility, particularly toward its crucial mutual-defense clause, may yet serve to eviscerate the alliance.

In the Asia-Pacific region, the American presence rests on three sets of overlapping alliances: the AUKUS entente with Australia and Britain, the Quadrilateral Security Dialogue (with Australia, India, and Japan), and a chain of bilateral defense pacts stretching along the Pacific littoral from Japan through Taiwan to the Philippines. Via careful diplomacy, the Biden administration strengthened those alliances, bringing two wayward allies, Australia and the Philippines that had drifted Beijing-wards, back into the Western fold. Trump’s penchant for abusing allies and, as in his first term, withdrawing from multilateral pacts is likely to weaken such ties and so American power in the region.

Although his first administration famously waged a trade war with Beijing, Trump’s attitude toward the island of Taiwan is bluntly transactional. “I think, Taiwan should pay us for defense,” he said last June, adding: “You know, we’re no different than an insurance company. Taiwan doesn’t give us anything.” In October, he toldThe Wall Street Journal that he would not have to use military force to defend Taiwan because China’s President Xi “respects me and he knows I’m f—— crazy.” Bluster aside, Trump, unlike his predecessor Joe Biden, has never committed himself to defend Taiwan from a Chinese attack.

Should Beijing indeed attack Taiwan outright or, as appears more likely, impose a crippling economic blockade on the island, Trump seems unlikely to risk a war with China. The loss of Taiwan would break the U.S. position along the Pacific littoral, for 80 years the fulcrum of its global imperial posture, pushing its naval forces back to a “second island chain” running from Japan to Guam. Such a retreat would represent a major blow to America’s imperial role in the Pacific, potentially making it no longer a significant player in the security of its Asia-Pacific allies.
A Silent U.S. Recessional

Adding up the likely impact of Donald Trump’s policies in this country, Asia, Europe, and the international community generally, his second term will almost certainly be one of imperial decline, increasing internal chaos, and a further loss of global leadership. As “respect for American authority” fades, Trump may yet resort to “threatening military retaliation or economic reprisal.” But as I predicted back in 2010, it seems quite likely that “the world pays next to no attention as the American Century ends in silence.”

© 2023 TomDispatch.com


Alfred W. Mccoy is professor of history at the University of Wisconsin-Madison is the author of "In the Shadows of the American Century: The Rise and Decline of U.S. Global Power". Previous books include: "Torture and Impunity: The U.S. Doctrine of Coercive Interrogation" (University of Wisconsin, 2012), "A Question of Torture: CIA Interrogation, from the Cold War to the War on Terror (American Empire Project)", "Policing America's Empire: The United States, the Philippines, and the Rise of the Surveillance State", and "The Politics of Heroin: CIA Complicity in the Global Drug Trade".
Full Bio >

Senate Rejects Sanders' Bid to Halt Arms to Israel Over Gaza Atrocities


"Our taxpayer dollars should be used to fund education, housing, and healthcare for Americans, not to support the destruction of innocent lives abroad," said one advocacy leader "deeply saddened" by the votes.

An injured child lies on a hospital bed following their forced displacement from the Beit Lahia project in the Gaza Strip on November 20, 2024.
(Photo: Abood Abusalama/Middle East Images/AFP via Getty Images)

Jessica Corbett

COMMON DREAMS
Nov 20, 2024

The U.S. Senate on Wednesday refused to pass joint resolutions of disapproval proposed by Sen. Bernie Sanders that would prevent the sale of certain offensive American weaponry to Israel, which has killed nearly 44,000 Palestinians in Gaza since last fall.

S.J. Res. 111, S.J. Res. 113, and S.J. Res. 115 would have respectively blocked the sale of 120mm tank rounds, 120mm high-explosive mortar rounds, Joint Direct Attack Munitions (JDAMs), the guidance kits attached to "dumb bombs."

The first vote was 18-79, with Sen. Tammy Baldwin (D-Wis.) voting present and Sens. Mike Braun (R-Ind.) and JD Vance (R-Ohio)—the vice-president-elect—not voting. In addition to Sanders (I-Vt.), those in favor were: Sens. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), Martin Heinrich (D-N.M.), Mazie Hirono (D-Hawaii), Tim Kaine (D-Va.), Angus King (I-Maine), Ben Ray Lujan (D-N.M.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.), Jeff Merkley (D-Ore.), Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), Jon Ossoff (D-Ga.), Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), Jeanne Shaheen (D-N.H.), Tina Smith (D-Minn.), Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), Raphael Warnock (D-Ga.), Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), and Peter Welch (D-Vt.).

The second vote was 19-78—Sen. George Helmy (D-N.J.) joined those voting for the resolution. The third vote was 17-80.

"What this extremist government has done in Gaza is unspeakable, but what makes it even more painful is that much of this has been done with U.S. weapons and American taxpayer dollars."

Ahead of the votes, Sanders took to the Senate floor to highlight that his resolutions were backed by over 100 groups, including pro-Israel J Street; leading labor organizations such as the Service Employees International Union, United Auto Workers, and United Electrical Workers; humanitarian groups like Amnesty International; and various faith organizations.

"I would also point out that poll after poll shows that a strong majority of the American people oppose sending more weapons and military aid to fund Netanyahu's war machine," the senator said, referring to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu. "According to a poll commissioned by J Street... 62% of Jewish Americans support withholding weapons shipments to Israel until Netanyahu agrees to an immediate cease-fire."

In addition to stressing that his proposals would not affect any of the systems Israel uses to defend itself from incoming attacks, Sanders argued that "from a legal perspective, these resolutions are simple, straightforward, and not complicated. Bottom line: The United States government must obey the law—not a very radical idea. But unfortunately, that is not the case now."

"The Foreign Assistance Act and the Arms Export Control Act are very clear: The United States cannot provide weapons to countries that violate internationally recognized human rights or block U.S. humanitarian aid," he continued. "According to the United Nations, according to much of the international community, according to virtually every humanitarian organization on the ground in Gaza, Israel is clearly in violation of these laws."

To illustrate the devastating impact of Israel's assault on Gaza—which has led to a genocide case at the International Court of Justice—Sanders quoted from an October New York Timesopinion essay authored by American doctors who volunteered in Gaza. For example, Dr. Ndal Farah from Ohio said: "Malnutrition was widespread. It was common to see patients reminiscent of Nazi concentration camps with skeletal features."



Sanders said that "what this extremist government has done in Gaza is unspeakable, but what makes it even more painful is that much of this has been done with U.S. weapons and American taxpayer dollars. In the last year alone, the U.S. has provided $18 billion in military aid to Israel... and by the way, a few blocks from here, people are sleeping out on the street."

"We have also delivered more than 50,000 tons of military equipment to Israel," he added. "In other words... the United States of America is complicit in all of these atrocities. We are funding these atrocities. That complicity must end, and that is what these resolutions are about."

Merkley, Van Hollen, and Welch joined Sanders in speaking in favor of the resolutions on Wednesday. Members of both parties also spoke out against them: Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) and Sens. Ted Budd (R-N.C.), Ben Cardin (D-Md.), Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.), John Kennedy (R-La.), James Risch (R-Idaho), and Jacky Rosen (D-Nev.).

Cardin quoted talking points from the White House that were reported on earlier Wednesday by HuffPost. The outlet detailed how officials in outgoing President Joe Biden's administration suggested that "lawmakers who vote against the arms are empowering American and Israeli foes from Iran to the militant groups Hamas and Hezbollah, which the U.S. treats as terror organizations."

Just hours before the Senate debate, the Biden administration vetoed a United Nations Security Council resolution calling for an immediate cease-fire in Gaza—the fourth time it has blocked such a measure at the world body since the Hamas-led October 7, 2023 attack on Israel.

After the Senate votes, groups that supported Sanders' resolutions expressed disappointment.

Wa'el Alzayat, CEO of the Muslim advocacy group Emgage Action, said in a statement that "we have a moral obligation to stand up for the people of Gaza and demand an end to the constant bombardment they face. I'm deeply saddened that our U.S. senators shot down the joint resolutions calling for a halt in weapons to Israel. Our taxpayer dollars should be used to fund education, housing, and healthcare for Americans, not to support the destruction of innocent lives abroad."

"Continuing to provide Israel with unrestricted military aid to attack innocent civilians in Gaza and Lebanon is a moral failure—one the American government will look back on in horror as the situation gets unimaginably worse," Alzayat added. "While the resolution did not pass this time, we will continue working with lawmakers and allies to advocate for legislation that promotes justice and adherence to international law."

While these resolutions did not advance to the House of Representatives, Demand Progress senior policy adviser Cavan Kharrazian noted that "never before have so many senators voted to restrict arms transfers to Israel, and we are extremely grateful to those who did. This historic vote represents a sea change in how elected Democrats feel about the Israeli military's campaign of death and destruction in Gaza."

"We have all seen with our own eyes the thousands of innocent civilians who have been killed, displaced, and starved by weapons paid for with U.S. tax dollars," Kharrazian said. "Now, almost half of the Senate Democratic caucus is backing up our collective outrage with their votes. Supporters of this destructive war will try to claim victory but even they know that today's vote proves that the movement to end the war is growing, across America and in Congress, and we won't stop."

Center for International Policy executive vice president Matt Duss, who formerly served as Sanders' foreign policy adviser, similarly welcomed the progress, commending those who voted in favor of the resolutions for having "the courage to stand up for U.S. law, the rights of civilians in conflict, and basic decency."

"As civilian deaths, displacement, and disease among Palestinians in Gaza mount alongside open calls for ethnic cleansing by Israeli officials, the Biden administration is not merely failing to act—it is actively enabling the Netanyahu government's war crimes," he continued. "Rather than taking steps to bolster democracy, rights, and rule of law at home and abroad in advance of [President-elect] Donald Trump's second term, President Biden and his top officials are spending their precious last days in office lobbying against measures to protect U.S. interests and vetoing otherwise unanimously supported resolutions in the United Nations Security Council that reflect its own stated policies."

"The lawmakers who stood on the right side of history today will be remembered for their leadership and humanity," he added. "The same cannot be said about President Biden and those who help him abet starvation and slaughter in Gaza."

Bernie Sanders’s Vote on Gaza Genocide Forces Senators to Go on the Record

Today, US senators will be forced to record for posterity whether they condone US enabling of the genocide in Gaza.

By Schuyler Mitchell , 

Truthout

November 20, 2024   

Sen. Bernie Sanders, joined by fellow Senators Chris Van Hollen, Peter Welch and Jeff Merkley, speaks at a news conference on restricting arms sales to Israel at the U.S. Capitol on November 19, 2024, in Washington, D.C.Kevin Dietsch / Getty Images


Truthout is a vital news source and a living history of political struggle. If you think our work is valuable, support us with a donation of any size.

Since last October, Israel has been able to wage a genocidal war on Gaza while receiving little more than a light slap on the wrist. President Joe Biden and his administration have claimed to be working tirelessly toward a ceasefire, all while continuing to supply Israel with the billions of dollars in weapons it needs to prolong its assault.

So, when Biden said last month that the United States would limit arms transfers to Israel if it did not stop blocking the flow of humanitarian aid into Gaza, his threat understandably rang hollow. The administration’s 30-day deadline for Israel to “surge” food and other aid into Gaza has now passed. And, just as predicted, the Biden administration said it will continue sending Israel weapons — even though aid groups like the World Food Programme say conditions in Gaza have only worsened since Biden first floated the possibility of consequences.

This is not only a moral failing, but also a violation of the law. The Foreign Assistance Act and the Leahy Law dictate that the U.S. cannot send weapons to governments committing human rights violations. But time and time again, the U.S. has failed to abide by its own legal code. In 2019, for instance, Donald Trump vetoed a congressional vote to end military support for Saudi Arabia’s war in Yemen, which at that time had killed more than 70,000 people. Shortly after taking office, Biden announced he would halt sales of “offensive weapons” to Saudi Arabia, citing their use in human rights abuses. The arms suspension was a major break from the status quo — but one that was quickly rolled back earlier this year.

The U.S. has also continued to shirk accountability in the case of Israel. The United Nations and Human Rights Watch are among those who have resoundingly documented the rampant violations of human rights that Israel has committed in the last year alone. This includes the systematic destruction of Gaza’s healthcare system through “relentless and deliberate attacks on medical personnel and facilities,” the torture and rape of Palestinians detained in Israeli military camps, deliberate home demolitions, the bombing of safe zones and evacuation corridors, and the forced displacement of 90 percent of Gaza’s population.

The latest evidence that the country is systematically and deliberately blocking humanitarian aid in Gaza arrives months after the International Court of Justice already found it “plausible” that Israel is committing acts of genocide. Citing the humanitarian crisis, hundreds of human rights organizations around the world have called for the U.S. to stop the weapons transfers. But the State Department still claims it doesn’t see a problem.

Today, for the first and probably last time, U.S. Senators will have an opportunity to tell Biden to chart a new course — and honor his own word. Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) is bringing six measures, known as the Joint Resolutions of Disapproval, to the Senate floor for a vote. The bills, also backed by Sens. Peter Welch (D-Vermont), Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon) and Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii), would block the sales of six different kinds of weapons to Israel, worth a total of $20 billion.

It’s the first time Congress has voted on legislation blocking arms sales to Israel. Hassan El-Tayyab, an organizer with the Friends Committee on National Legislation, a Quaker peace group, described the vote as “historic.”

“I have met with doctors who have served in Gaza, treating hundreds of patients a day without electricity, anesthesia or clean water, including dozens of children arriving with gunshot wounds to the head,” Sanders wrote in a Washington Post op-ed this week, urging his fellow senators to pass the Joint Resolutions of Disapproval. “As Americans, we are complicit in these horrific and illegal atrocities. Our complicity must end.”

More than 100 civil society organizations have publicly backed the resolutions. Even J Street, which describes itself as a “pro-Israel, pro-peace” group, acknowledged that Israel’s mass killing and starvation of civilians in Gaza is “unacceptable” and expressed support for passing the resolutions in order to send a strong message to Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu.

Still, the Joint Resolutions of Disapproval are unlikely to pass. They would need to be approved by both the House and the Senate to be enacted, with at least a two-thirds majority to prevent the guaranteed presidential veto. But even if the resolutions won’t stop the bloodshed in Gaza, the vote still has a meaningful symbolic importance that will set a congressional precedent.

“Just the fact that this is happening is already sending that political signal,” El-Tayyab told Al Jazeera. “It’s not business as usual.”

All Senate members will now be forced to go on the official legislative record about whether or not they condone the United States’ continued facilitation of a genocide in Gaza. Polls have consistently shown that most Americans want the U.S. to halt weapons sales to Israel, yet our politicians have consistently ignored their constituents’ voices.

On the campaign trail this election cycle, Democrats have tried to fashion themselves as the political party that cares about the democratic process and the rule of law. Today’s vote is an opportunity for Democratic lawmakers to, in a sense, prove it.

In fact, the Biden administration released its own Conventional Arms Transfer policy in February 2023, which expanded the framework for evaluating the legality of arms transfers. The updated policy prohibits the sale of weapons that are “more likely than not” to be used to violate international law and bans arms transfers that “facilitate” or “aggravate risk” or human rights violations. This language is actually stronger than what was previously on the books — “actual knowledge” of violations is not required. The risk of human rights abuses is supposed to be sufficient.

Nine months later, the U.S. authorized more than $14 billion in new Israeli military funding. War crimes were documented within weeks.

Schuyler Mitchell is a writer, editor and fact-checker from North Carolina, currently based in Brooklyn. Her work has appeared in The Intercept, The Baffler, Labor Notes, Los Angeles Magazine, and elsewhere. Find her on X: @schuy_ler

Report: Biden Admin Lobbying Against Sanders Push to Block Israel Arms Deal

The administration claimed that blocking arms transfers would embolden Hamas — ignoring Israel’s genocidal slaughter.

By Sharon Zhang ,

Truthout

November 20, 2024

President Joe Biden speaks in the Roosevelt Room of the White House on October 11, 2024, in Washington, D.C.Andrew Harnik / Getty Images

The Biden administration has levied a strong effort to lobby against a set of resolutions introduced by Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vermont) to block several proposed arms sales to Israel ahead of a scheduled vote Wednesday, new reporting finds.

In a memo circulated to the Senate by the White House, obtained by HuffPost, the administration urges senators to vote against the resolutions. The memo claims that voting to block certain weapons to Israel would only empower Hamas and other entities opposed by the U.S. — invoking several such arguments meant to distract from the fact that Israel is making extensive use of U.S.-provided weapons in its genocidal assault of Gaza.

“Disapproving arms purchases for Israel at this moment would … put wind in the sails of Iran, Hezbollah, and Hamas at the worst possible moment,” the memo says, per HuffPost.

“Now is the time to focus pressure on Hamas to release the hostages and stop the war,” the document goes on. “Cutting off arms from Israel would put this goal even further out of reach and prolong the war, not shorten it.”

This line of reasoning is false. Israel is heavily dependent on U.S. weaponry to continue its genocide in Gaza, and Israeli officials have shown no indication that they would stop the assault if the remaining Israeli hostages are released. The memo also said that halting weapons transfers would jeopardize ceasefire talks between Israel and Hezbollah — despite the fact that Israeli leaders have categorically rejected the idea that they would stop their assault of Lebanon.

The White House’s memo is yet another show of the White House’s insistence that it back Israel’s genocide no matter what — to the extent that it is lobbying “aggressively,” as HuffPost reports, to block a set of resolutions that are likely to fail anyway, given the strong support for Israel within Congress. Indeed, despite the administration’s insistence that officials are “tirelessly” working for a ceasefire, the U.S. also vetoed a resolution in the UN Security Council calling for a ceasefire on Wednesday.

The Senate is slated to vote on three of Sanders’s joint resolutions of disapproval on Wednesday, regarding blocking sales of tank rounds, mortar rounds, and JDAMs to Israel. Together, the three sales represent just over $1 billion worth of the weapons in the Biden administration’s proposed $20 billion deal.

Despite widespread evidence that Israel is using these weapons to kill civilians in Gaza and violate international humanitarian law — and strong support from the public to half weapons transfers — just seven senators have so far come out in favor of the resolutions. Experts have repeatedly said that stopping weapons sales to Israel is one of the only ways to stop Israel’s genocidal slaughter in Gaza.

Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-New York) is also reportedly asking senators to vote against the legislation — a move that lines up with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell’s plea for colleagues to reject the bid.

Though the resolutions are unlikely to advance to the House, roughly a dozen House Democrats so far have expressed their support for the legislation, saying they would vote for them if given the opportunity. This includes prominent advocates for Palestinian rights like Representatives Rashida Tlaib (Michigan) and Cori Bush (Missouri).

“[President Joe Biden] has refused to enforce US law and stop sending weapons to the Israeli government as they commit genocide in Gaza and use starvation as a weapon of war. Today, every Senator will have to decide if they will vote to uphold our own laws and block arms sales to Israel,” said Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Michigan) on social media on Wednesday.

“We urge Senators to support these joint resolutions of disapproval to block specific offensive arms sales to Israel, upholding U.S. law that prohibits arms transfers to countries that engage in a consistent pattern of gross violations of internationally recognized human rights or restrict the delivery of U.S. humanitarian assistance,” said a group of nine Democrats in a joint statement led by Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Washington).

 

OPG wraps up Darlington 1 refurbishment early

Tuesday, 19 November 2024

Refurbishment activities have been completed five months ahead of schedule at the third of four nuclear units to undergo the process at the Ontario Power Generation plant, which will soon be reconnected to the grid.

The turbine hall at Darlington 1 (Image: OPG)

The 875 MWe unit was taken offline for refurbishment in February 2022, following units 2 and 3, which completed refurbishment in 2020 and 2023, as part of a 10-year CAD12.8 billion (about USD9.7 billion) mega-project to refurbish all four Candu units at the site. The final unit undergoing refurbishment, unit 4, is currently in the reactor rebuilding phase, and is on schedule to be completed by the end of 2026.

Separately, the Canadian Nuclear Safety Commission (CNSC) announced it has removed the fourth and final regulatory hold point for the Darlington 1 refurbishment, allowing Ontario Power Generation (OPG) to exceed 35% full operating power for the refurbished reactor and proceed with normal operations. Hold points are mandatory checkpoints where CNSC approval is required before the licensee can move on to the next stage of the process to return the unit to operation.

The refurbishment will allow the units to continue generating electricity for a further 30 years. In addition, unit 1 will become the first Darlington reactor to produce cobalt-60, a vital radioisotope whose uses include sterilising single-use medical devices, such as syringes, implants, and surgical instruments. About half of the global supply of the isotope is produced in Ontario's Candu reactors.

"With the refurbishment of another unit, OPG, our employees, and our project partners continue to demonstrate that we can execute major nuclear projects not only on time, but ahead of time, and with a clear commitment to quality," OPG President and CEO Ken Hartwick said. "This latest milestone reflects our decade of preparation and planning, as well as our dedication to quality and innovation, and the hard work of our entire project team, vendors, skilled trades, and energy professionals."

"Ontario needs more electricity - 75% more by 2050 - to power new homes, historic new investments and an electrifying economy," the province's Minister of Energy and Electrification Stephen Lecce said. "Delivering this massive clean energy project five months ahead of schedule is a testament to the incredible knowledge and skill of Ontario workers and positions us for success as we build out our plan to meet the soaring energy demand over the next 25 years."

According to a report by the Conference Board of Canada, the Darlington refurbishment project and the subsequent 30 years of station operation are expected to generate a total of CAD90 billion in economic benefits for Ontario and create 14,200 jobs per year.

Norway SMR options to be explored with X-energy

Tuesday, 19 November 2024

Norsk Kjernekraft has signed a memorandum of understanding with high-temperature gas-cooled pebble-bed nuclear reactor developer X-energy to explore the deployment of small modular reactors in Norway.

A conceptual rendering from earlier this year of how a data centre with an SMR power plant and a green electrolysis factory might look (Image: Norsk Kjernekraft)

The memorandum of understanding also encompasses DL Energy and DL E&C, from South Korea's DL Group, who signed a collaboration agreement with Norsk Kjernekraft in August. The Norwegian company said the aim was to combine the Korean firm's expertise and experience in building nuclear power facilities with the US-based X-energy's reactor technology.

The August agreement included a feasibility study of constructing a nuclear power plant at the Mongstad oil refinery in the Austrheim and Alver municipality, with the Norwegian firm aiming for such a plant to be built by the mid-30s if there is "political will". In August Norsk Kjernekraft also submitted a proposal to Norway's Ministry of Energy for an assessment of the potential construction of a power plant based on multiple SMRs in the municipality of Øygarden, west of Bergen. That proposal followed proposals submitted for SMR power plants in Aure and Heim municipalities, as well as Vardø municipality.

Last month internet shopping and web services giant Amazon announced it was taking a stake in X-energy with the goal of deploying up to 5 GW of its small modular reactors in the USA by 2039.

Jonny Hesthammer, CEO of Norsk Kjernekraft, said: "South Korea has extensive experience in the efficient construction and operation of nuclear power plants, while the US has the leading technology. The recent investment by Amazon, one of the world’s largest companies, in X-energy underlines the importance of this agreement. This is simply because it increases the chances of succeeding. While the SMRs to be developed by X-energy are considered fourth generation, the technology is well-proven. Their use of TRISO fuel in the form of tennis ball-sized pebbles means that meltdown is not possible, something that many worry about."

Alistair Black, Senior Director for X-energy, said: "We’re delighted to be working with DL Energy to assess the potential for an Xe-100 advanced small modular reactor project in Southwest Norway for the nuclear development company Norsk Kjernekraft. We have projects under way in the US and could help Norway decarbonise its industrial sector and transport network and meet growing electricity demand from the booming artificial intelligence and cloud computing sectors."

In June, the Norwegian government announced the appointment of a committee to conduct a broad review and assessment of various aspects of a possible future establishment of nuclear power in the country. It must deliver its report by 1 April 2026.

X-energy's Xe-100 is a Generation IV advanced reactor design which X-energy says is based on decades of high temperature gas-cooled reactor operation, research, and development, and is designed to operate as a standard 320 MWe four-pack power plant or scaled in units of 80 MWe. At 200 MWt of 565°C steam, the Xe-100 is suitable for a range of uses and power applications including mining and heavy industry. The Xe-100 uses tri-structural isotropic (TRISO) particle fuel, which has additional safety benefits because it can withstand very high temperatures without melting.

X-energy says its design makes it road-shippable with accelerated construction timelines and more predictable and manageable construction costs, and is well suited to meet the requirements of energy-intensive data centres.

Generator stator arrives at Hinkley Point C

Tuesday, 19 November 2024

The turbine generator stator for the Hinkley Point C nuclear power plant under construction in Somerset, England, has been delivered from the manufacturing plant in Belfort, France.

The stator arrives at the construction site (Image: EDF Energy)

The stator - measuring 12 metres in length and weighing 450 tonnes - was supplied by EDF subsidiary Arabelle Solutions. It was delivered to the construction site on 17 November following a journey via road, rail and sea.

(Image: EDF Energy)

The stator is a key component of the turbine generator, serving as the stationary portion of an electric generator that converts the rotating magnetic field into electric current.

(Image: EDF Energy)

EDF completed its acquisition of a portion of GE Vernova's nuclear conventional islands technology and services, including its Arabelle steam turbines, in May this year. The transaction included the manufacturing of conventional island equipment for new nuclear power plants as well as related maintenance and upgrade activities for existing nuclear plants outside of the Americas. EDF's acquisition of the business - at that time, known as GE Steam Power - was first announced in early 2022 and the final agreement was signed in the November of that year.

Construction of Hinkley Point C - composed of two EPR pressurised water reactors of 1630 MWe each - began in December 2018, with unit 1 of the plant originally scheduled to start up by the end of 2025, before that was revised to 2027 in May 2022. In January, EDF announced that the "base case" was now for unit 1 being operational in 2030, with the cost revised from GBP26 billion (USD32.8 billion) to between GBP31-34 billion, in 2015 prices.

When complete, the two EPR reactors will produce enough carbon-free electricity for six million homes, and are expected to operate for as long as 80 years.

SMRs to help decarbonise Dutch energy system, study concludes

Monday, 18 November 2024

Small modular reactors could play an important role and contribute to the Dutch energy transition, a joint report by NRG-Pallas and TNO concludes. The study shows that there is room for more than 13 SMRs in 2050.

(Image: NRG-Pallas / TNO)

The study, the partners said, utilises "NRG-Pallas' expertise in innovative reactor technologies and TNO's energy system model OPERA".

Two scenarios drawn up by TNO were used in this study: ADAPT and TRANSFORM. These scenarios are based on different visions of the future for the Dutch energy system. In both visions, the aim is to reduce greenhouse gas emissions by 55% by 2030 and to achieve greenhouse gas neutrality by 2050.

In order to investigate the sensitivity of the results with respect to boundary conditions and assumptions, a few 'what-if' analyses were performed. These what-if analyses examined whether investment in and use of SMRs change when input parameters are varied.

"The results show that SMRs have a role to play in the Dutch energy transition," the study says. "The optimal contribution of SMRs to 2050 was calculated for various assumptions about future society. The results show that two to more than 13 SMRs (of 150 MWe) can be deployed with room for further expansion of this number in 2050."

It adds: "These results are contingent on policy objectives, expected market availability and realisation periods. If constraints on the potential deployment capacity are partially lifted, as is done in some of the what-if analyses, it is observed that there may even be room for more than 27 SMRs (of 150 MWe). This what-if analysis result can be interpreted as a more economically optimal solution, but is obviously conditional on the aforementioned aspects used to define the potential limits for the scenarios being sufficiently adjusted to allow for this to occur.

"On the other hand, with delayed introduction of SMRs or no nuclear at all, a carbon neutral energy system in 2050 is possible as well. The exact optimum depends mainly on the future of industry, and more specifically on the future heat demand from activities such as refineries and (bio-)aromatics production, and the degree of electrification in society. Nevertheless, it can be concluded that SMRs are an important option for decarbonisation of the industry by supplying process heat."

An earlier scenario study by TNO showed that in an energy system without new nuclear power plants, the system costs are 1% to 2.5% higher than with nuclear energy. "Although nuclear power plants are initially more expensive than wind turbines and solar panels, the loss of nuclear energy as an energy supply should be compensated for by greater use of more expensive flexibility options, such as energy storage," NRG-Pallas noted.

In April 2023, in its draft Climate Fund for 2024, the Dutch government budgeted funds totalling EUR320 million (USD352 million) for the development of nuclear energy. The funds will be used for the preparation of the operational extension of the existing Borssele nuclear power plant, the construction of two new large reactors, the development of small modular reactors and for nuclear skills development in the Netherlands.

In August 2022, the UK's Rolls-Royce SMR signed an exclusive agreement with ULC-Energy to collaborate on the deployment of Rolls-Royce SMR power plants in the Netherlands. ULC-Energy - established in 2021 and based in Amsterdam - aims to accelerate decarbonisation in the Netherlands by developing nuclear energy projects that efficiently integrate with residential and industrial energy networks in the country.

Chernobyl considered as site for new small modular reactors

Monday, 18 November 2024

The area around the Chernobyl nuclear power plant is one of the places being looked at as potential locations for Ukraine's planned future wave of small modular reactors.

The former Chernobyl nuclear power plant is surrounded by an exclusion zone (Image: CHNPP

Representatives of the State Agency of Ukraine on Exclusion Zone Management and specialists from Ukraine's nuclear energy giant Energoatom, joined Chernobyl Nuclear Power Plant (CNPP) officials last month to visit several areas within the exclusion zone and around the plant, CNPP reported. "This was followed by a technical discussion on the suitability of these sites for future SMR construction," it added.

It was the second on-site meeting to "review potential locations for small modular reactors (SMRs) proposed by Chornobyl NPP and discuss land allocation matters".

The Chernobyl nuclear power plant lies about 130 kilometres north of Kiev and about 20 kilometres south of the border with Belarus. Following the 1986 accident, a 30-kilometre exclusion zone was created around it. (Read more: World Nuclear Association's guide to the Chernobyl accident)

Ukraine's big plans for SMRs
 

Ukraine has plans for as many as nine new Westinghouse AP1000 large reactors across the country, as well as developing a programme for SMRs. Progress on its new nuclear has continued amid the on-going war with Russia, which has seen its largest nuclear power plant - Zaporizhzhia NPP - under Russian military control since early March 2022.

Energoatom signed an agreement last year which could pave the way for up to 20 of Holtec's SMRs. It has also been exploring options with a number of other potential SMR providers.

On Saturday at the COP29 UN climate conference in Baku, Azerbaijan, US Under Secretary of State for Arms Control and International Security, Bonnie Jenkins, and Ukraine Minister of Energy Herman Halushchenko announced three project partnerships:

- To build a pilot plant in Ukraine to demonstrate production of clean hydrogen and ammonia "using simulated safe and secure small modular reactor technology". The project is being carried out by a multinational public-private consortium from Japan, South Korea, Ukraine, and the USA.
- Project Phoenix funding to help facilitate the transition of Ukraine’s coal-fired power plants to SMR nuclear power plants, carrying out siting and feasibility studies.
- To develop a roadmap and provide technical support to rebuild, modernise, and decarbonise Ukraine’s steel industry with SMRs.  The roadmap will pave the way for using clean electricity, process heat, and hydrogen from SMRs for clean steel manufacturing and production

The American Society of Mechanical Engineers (AMSE) said it would be working to support the clean steel programme, with CEO Tom Costabile saying: "Small modular reactors are an important part of the clean energy future, as well as an economic redevelopment opportunity for Ukraine."

Russia places 'tit-for-tat' ban on US uranium exports

Monday, 18 November 2024

Russia has announced restrictions on exports of enriched uranium to the USA. The temporary ban is in response to US restrictions on imports of Russian uranium products which came into force earlier this year.

President Vladimir Putin said in September that Russia would consider placing restrictions on uranium exports (Image: Kremlin)

The Russian government announced the ban on its official website on 15 November as an amendment to Government Decree No 313 of 9 March 2022. It covers exports "to the United States or under foreign trade contracts concluded with persons registered in the jurisdiction of the United States". Exemptions will be made for deliveries under one-off licences issued by the Russian Federal Service for Technical and Export Control.

"The decision was made on the instructions of the President in response to the restriction imposed by the United States for 2024-2027, and from 2028 - a ban on the import of Russian uranium products," the Russian government said. "Vladimir Putin instructed to analyse the possibility of restricting supplies to foreign markets of strategic raw materials in September at a meeting with the Government."

According to the Tass news agency, Russian state nuclear corporation Rosatom said the ban was legal and the expected "tit-for-tat response to actions of the US authorities". Deliveries of Russian uranium to countries other than the USA "will continue without changes, on conditions agreed with customers and subject to requirements of national laws", Rosatom said.

Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov told Tass that "in cases where it serves our interests, Russia’s Federal Service for Technical and Export Control may decide to exclude certain items from this list of bans", but said the government had assessed the implications and consequences of the "absolutely reciprocal" countermeasures. "But the key point is that this should fully align with our interests and not undermine them. That is the basis for what has been done," he said.

US President Joe Biden signed the Prohibiting Russian Uranium Imports Act in May after the bill was passed unanimously by the US Senate. The prohibition came into effect in August, and will last until the end of 2040. Waivers may be granted to allow the import of limited amounts of Russian-origin LEU, under certain circumstances, until 1 January 2028.

US enrichment company Centrus received such a waiver from the US Department of Energy in July, allowing it to import low-enriched uranium from Russia for delivery to US customers in 2024 and 2025. Tenex - a Russian government-owned company - is Centrus' largest supplier of low-enriched uranium for delivery to its US and international customers pursuant to a 2011 contract.

Tenex has now notified Centrus that its general licence to export the material to the USA has been rescinded under the decree, "effective through December 31, 2025", and that it is now required to obtain a specific export licence from the Russian authorities for each of its remaining 2024 shipments to Centrus and for shipments in 2025.

"Tenex has informed Centrus of its plan to seek the necessary export licences, in a timely manner, to allow it to meet its delivery obligations for the pending Centrus orders," Centrus said in a filing to the US Securities and Exchange Commission. The US company said it will be in communication with its customers whose pending orders may be affected and is assessing actions to mitigate adverse impacts.

"If TENEX is unable to secure export licences for our pending or future orders, it would affect our ability to meet our delivery obligations to our customers and would have a material adverse effect on our business, results of operations, and competitive position," the company said.

According to US Energy Information Administration data, owners and operators of US nuclear power plants purchased a total of 51.6 million pounds U3O8 (19,848 tU) of deliveries from domestic and foreign suppliers in 2023. Most of this came from Canada (27% of total deliveries), Australia (22%) and Kazakhstan (22%): Russian-origin material accounted for 12% of total deliveries. Domestically produced material accounted for 5%. But while US facilities provided 28% of the uranium enrichment services - measured in separative work units, or SWU - purchased by US owners and operators in 2023, 27% came from Russia, more than any other foreign supplier.

World Nuclear News