View previous stories
	The U.S. president has revived the fear of a nuclear holocaust for a new generation by Toronto Star, Ploughshares Fund, agencies   The U.S. president has revived the fear of a nuclear holocaust for a new generation, by Rick Salutin. (Toronto Star)   The first age of nuclear nightmares came in the 1950s and 1960s. They chiefly afflicted the young. Their parents had experienced nuclear realities by way of bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. That was part of a war, and ended it. It was normalized and rational, though in a basically ungraspable way.   Their kids grew up in a peaceful world haunted by nuclear terrors. Their teachers taught them to “duck and cover” beneath their desks if they saw the nuclear flash. They had nightmares (and waking ones) of it. The only moment of apparent imminence came during the 1962 Cuba Missile Crisis. It all receded gradually, via détente, a non-proliferation treaty and the Cold War’s demise.   Now it’s back. The minds of the young (in particular) are haunted by nuclear annihilation. If, at this moment, as you’re reading, you saw a nuclear flash illuminate the sky, you’d be shattered but not surprised. It’s there again as imminent, due largely, but not solely, to Trump. Why not solely? Because generations of earlier leaders failed to act to eliminate those weapons and instead built dazzling models of international relations based on them. Trump has arrived, in a way, to demonstrate the true meaning of their bullshit.   Why especially among youth? They have a future but no (adult) past, and fear they won’t live to see it. The rest of us have already had lives we steered ourselves. “Do you think God can exist in a world with nuclear weapons?” asked a millennial — not hysterically, matter-of-factly. They are a quirky demographic.   Along with daily, waking horrors, come new ways to think about politics. I had a friend, the late Art Pape, who left university in his second year, in 1962, to become Canada’s first full time worker for nuclear disarmament. It seemed daring then. Later that image morphed into elderly white people in Birkenstocks demonstrating outside nuclear facilities and looking like Jeremy Corbyn.   Now, remarkably, Corbyn is young again! In a U.K. parliamentary debate on renewing the Trident missile system, he was pilloried by his political and media peers for saying, “I do not believe the threat of mass murder is a legitimate way to go about dealing with international relations.”   Another millennial I know was inspired, almost transported, by those words. Corbyn has been saying them in some form for half a century. The respectable voices in politics and public discourse simply snicker at his phrasing. But when the young hear it, in sober, adult forums, it gives them hope: they aren’t alone.   In fact, what Corbyn says is entirely sensible, it’s pure reason, and when the nuclear flash happens, and the skin is dripping off the faces of vast urban populations, everyone will suddenly get it. The sages of Mutual Assured Destruction will smack their own foreheads and say, “How did we miss that?” http://bit.ly/2gEBqXN   Dec. 2017   Local Newspaper''s full page feature on nuclear radiation survival stirs panic in China, by Oiwan Lam for Global Voices.   On December 6, 2017, Jilin Daily published a full-page feature on nuclear weapons and how to protect oneself in case of a nuclear radiation. This led many, in particular, residents from northern China to ask if the newspaper report is an anticipation of a United States military action against North Korea''s missile test.   Jilin province is located in north China near North Korea. Jilin Daily is affiliated with the local government of the province.   On November 29, North Korea launched a test on an intercontinental ballistic missile capable of reaching all part of U.S. mainland. Earlier, U.S. President Donald Trump warned to bring a “rain” of “fire and fury” on North Korea if the country’s leader Kim Jong Un continued to threaten U.S. security. China, in particular the northern part of China, would be affected by the “rain”.   Meanwhile, another leaked document from Jilin’s China mobile company indicated that the Jilin government has established five refugee sites in Changbai province, which shares 260 kilometers of border with North Korea.   Public discussion regarding potential warfare in North Korea was deleted quickly from social media platforms. Even party-affiliated Global Times had to withdraw its editorial upon publishing online (retrieved via Voices of America): Translation Original Quote:   ''Currently, tension is mounting in the Korean Peninsula. North Korea has launched six nuclear tests and it is believed that the country is already equipped with a nuclear bomb. Moreover, its missile launching technology has reached a breakthrough this year and has successfully launched a missile that can reach all parts of the U.S. continent. The U.S has vowed that it would destroy North Korea economy and exercise military pressure. The risk of military conflict between the U.S and North Korea has escalated. Jilin shares border with North Korea, the whole page feature on nuclear radiation precaution is believed to be a reaction to the risk of warfare in the Korean peninsula''.   Despite censorship, anxious posts about military conflicts keep popping up on popular Chinese social media platform Weibo. One Weibo user believes that the news feature published by Jilin Daily was approved by the central government:   Translation Original Quote:   ''This is not a joke. You all know that news censorship in China is very strict. Such kind of content has to be approved by senior officials before circulation. The leaders want to tell you something but can’t say that explicitly. Fellows in Dongbei (northern China), please observe the U.S consulate in Shenyang, if they retreat, run away''.   Even though state-affiliated news outlets had tried to downplay the possibility of a war, many are still worried about radiation if military action was taken by the U.S. against North Korea''s nuclear facilities:   Translation Original Quote:   ''Even if the nuclear missile exploded in the sky, Dongbei area will still be endangered, right?''   More critical comments blamed the government for the nuclear crisis:   Translation Original Quote:   ''To prevent a North Korea nuclear missile attack, South Korea and Japan are equipped with Terminal High Altitude Area Defense (THAAD), MIM-104 Patriot and Aircraft Carriers; Taiwan has Phased Array Warning System, Russia has Voronezh-M radar system as precaution. China is the only country which cannot clearly detect and counter North Korea missiles. Now with the threat of H-bomb, people in Jilin can only rely on newspapers which educate people with radiation common sense. Where have all the patriotic youths who protested against the THAAD by crushing Korean vehicles gone? Shouldn’t you be standing in the front line?''   Translation Original Quote:   ''Since government with Chinese character [China government] has been supporting North Korea in secret, the country eventually got its nuclear weapon. Now it is threatening the security of all people in the world. Hence, the government with Chinese character should be responsible for all adverse effects of the North Korea nuclear crisis''. http://bit.ly/2BSZwTD http://summit2017.globalvoices.org/   * International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) - Nobel Lecture: http://bit.ly/2jmuyzF   http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/does-america-even-have-missile-defense/9077470 http://www.ploughshares.org/ http://harpers.org/archive/2017/12/destroyer-of-worlds/ http://mondediplo.com/openpage/intermediate-range-nuclear Visit the related web page
	How companies are using law suits to silence environmental activists by Otto Saki Ford Foundation South Africa   June 2017   According to the most recent Front Line Defenders Annual Report on Human Rights Defenders at Risk, around the world 281 activists were targeted and killed in 2016. At least 136 of them were environmental rights activists.   While extrajudicial killings like these attract immediate condemnation, corporate interests are using other, less obviously violent means to undermine the important work of these activists: Strategic Lawsuits Against Public Participation (SLAPPs) are used to intimidate, harass, and silence activists who are working to expose corporate injustices and human rights violations.   As intended, such lawsuits have a clear chilling effect on activism, silencing critical voices and stifling accountability.   Of particular concern is the recent SLAPP suit against the Centre for Environmental Rights (CER), an environmental rights group in South Africa. CER helps communities hold businesses accountable for perpetrating natural resource exploitation.   An Australian company filed a defamation suit against CER lawyers and a community activist for statements they allegedly made during a presentation at University of Cape Town, statements the company claims were defamatory.   The local community had strenuously opposed the company’s proposal to exploit the mineral sands mine on South Africa’s West Coast.   The South African Constitution provides for the application of rights and responsibilities, meaning private actors are equally liable for failure to observe the bill of rights. This principle is enshrined in international norms and considered essential for protecting and respecting people’s rights, and remedying affronts to those rights.   But the playing field is not equal. While there are strong laws aimed at protecting people’s rights, those laws too often fail to be applied. At the same time, big businesses have amassed great power and influence; they are armed literally and figuratively with high-value law firms, auditors, security experts, and investigators to defend their interests.   Facing that kind of arsenal, it is difficult for individuals and organizations to fight back.   The use of SLAPP suits in South Africa is becoming a trend. Whether the company wins or loses, CER shoulders major expenses in defending themselves against a lawsuit that they see as being without merit, constituting avoidance for accountability.   Too often, when large companies like these are pressed to account for environmental damage and violations, they resort to SLAPP suits and point to their corporate social responsibility ventures to distract from the harm they are accused of perpetrating.   Different jurisdictions have responded differently to these cases. The United States has outlawed these suits. As one judge presiding over a SLAPP suit observed, “The conceptual thread that binds [SLAPPs] is that they are suits without substantial merit that are brought by private interests to stop citizens from exercising their political rights or to punish them for having done so...The longer the litigation can be stretched out, the more litigation that can be churned, the greater the expense that is inflicted and the closer the SLAPP filer moves to success. The purpose of such gamesmanship ranges from simple retribution for past activism to discouraging future activism.”   As a country founded on constitutional values, South Africa gives environmental activists the option to leverage the constitution as a defense against these suits. But to effectively push back against these burdensome legal challenges, organizations need other ways to make corporate interests face the political, social, and economic costs of masking their violations under the guise of reputational damage.   First, South Africa needs to revise court procedures to make it easier for judges to scrutinize frivolous lawsuits without dragging the defendants into court. Second, civil society must recognize that SLAPP lawsuits are not isolated, but are part of a broad and purposeful strategy to distract and disable environmental activists and empower corporate interests.   Where possible, activists should draw attention to these companies’ actions in their countries of origin, so that shareholders can see the (perhaps unintended) impact of their investments.   Social justice activists are operating under challenging circumstances everywhere in the world, putting them at risk of SLAPP suits. With these activists and their organizations already under significant pressure—subjected to slander, suspicion, criminalization, and financial strain; and forced to justify their work and very existence—protracted SLAPP suits are designed to erode their resources and commitment.   As philanthropy considers how to best support and build resilience for social justice activists and institutions, it is critical to consider their ability to withstand this kind of legal pressure. In times of crisis, organizations often turn to emergency response funds, but these funds are overwhelmed.   As funders, we need to have open conversations with our grantees about how they can be prepared before a crisis erupts.   Are we providing enough support to our partners to be able to create a litigation fund or to shore up institutional reserves? Do they have legal insurance? Is there an adequate pool of pro bono law firms that can provide assistance to social justice and environmental groups? And how can philanthropy use its influence in corporate circles to encourage better practice?   Advocates and activists may always be vulnerable when facing big businesses with deep pockets and seemingly bottomless profits, but they don’t have to be unprepared for the challenge. Visit the related web page
	View more stories