Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei is controversial figure at odds with religious leaders for nationalist rather than theological narrative A close ally of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who favours cultural openness and opposes greater clerical involvement in politics, is being groomed as a possible successor to the Iranian president when he steps down in two years time. Esfandiar Rahim Mashaei, Ahmadinejad’s chief-of-staff, is positioning himself as a candidate who will champion a nationalist rather than a theological narrative of Iran. Mashaei, whose daughter married Ahmadinejad’s son, has become the most controversial political figure in Iran, provoking harsh criticism from the conservative establishment, including the supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei. Hardliners close to Khamenei have accused Mashaei of compromising the Islamic Revolution and the principles of Islam by focusing on Persian history. Mashaei infuriated conservatives in 2008 when he said that Iranians are “friends of all people in the world – even Israelis”. He was also criticised for applauding at a ceremony in Turkey in which women performed a traditional dance. Women are not allowed to dance in Iran. Mashaei used to head Iran’s cultural heritage organisation. He was appointed first vice-president in 2009 when Ahmadinejad resumed office following disputed elections that generated mass protests. But he was forced to step down when Khamenei intervened and said in a letter to the president that “the regime’s expediency” required Mashaei to leave his post. Ahmadinejad appointed Mashaei as chief-of-staff instead, a move seen by many as a blow to Khamenei and the first sign of split emerging between the president and the supreme leader. A confidential US diplomatic cable revealed by Wikileaks said the incident underlined Mashaei’s significance in Ahmadinejad’s team . “Ahmadinejad’s stubborn defence of Mashaei bespeaks his importance as a key adviser for the increasingly isolated president; he also has emerged as a spokesman for the Ahmadinejad administration. Ahmadinejad has even told press that he would gladly serve as vice-president in a Mashaei administration, prompting many to speculate that Ahmadinejad seeks to have Mashaei replace him in 2013,” the cable reads. Some analysts believe that a regime which has crushed the green opposition movement and is short of internal opposition, is merely creating one in order to create a show of legitimacy come the next election. Hooshang Amirahmadi, the president of the American Iranian Council who knows Mashaei, told the Guardian: “The reformist movement in Iran did not succeed for various reasons. I think Mashaei has become another alternative and the regime is using this opportunity to heat up the next election in Iran. Mashaei is saying that Iranians are at first Iranians and Islam comes afterward. “He is reviving a source of national pride of Iranians, something that has been neglected not only since the Islamic Revolution in 1979 but in the past two centuries.” Amirahmadi said: “After the revolution, an extensive obsession with Islam made the authorities neglect Iran’s history and Mashaei is now seeking to promote this sort of nationalistic narrative. I think Ahmadinejad himself is also in favour of Iran’s history and has sought to revive Iran’s ancient glory and power.” Iranians are proud of their history and still largely celebrate many ancient traditions that goes back as far as the country’s Zoroastrian era, such as the Persian new year, Nowruz. Mashaei is also believed to have played a crucial role in securing the loan from the British Museum of the Cyrus Cylinder . The artefact, considered the first human rights charter, was seen by a million visitors in Tehran during its six-month exhibition, although hardliners and clerics largely boycotted the event. The relic was returned to the UK last week. “Obviously Mashaei’s nationalistic views are a threat to clerics. They are afraid that their power might wane if people begin to respect their pre-Islamic history,” Amirahmadi said. Mashaei, whose name has been touted among political activists as a possible 2013 candidate, has not ruled out the possibility of running for president, recently telling reporters he would make a definitive decision six months from the election. Kayhan, a newspaper aligned with Khamenei, predicted that Iran’s powerful Guardian Council would block Mashaei’s candidacy if he decides to run. The Guardian Council vets all candidates before any elections in Iran. Mashaei, who is launching a newspaper next month, is also believed to have tried to secure the release of three Americans detained in Iran, a move that resulted in the release of one of the prisoners, Sarah Shourd . Her friends, Shane Bauer and Josh Fattal, remain in Tehran after their release was believed to have been blocked by hardliners. The US embassy cables Iran Mahmoud Ahmadinejad Middle East United States US foreign policy US national security WikiLeaks Saeed Kamali Dehghan guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Always at the heart of a story, even when made to photograph celebrities, this bold film-maker was a truly generous spirit Tim Hetherington arrived at the Big Issue in the late 1990s, fresh out of college and landing in an editorial office that often felt like a dysfunctional college campus itself. We were a small crew – young and green and making the job up as we went along. If Tim thought he was joining the ranks of some idealistic guerrilla army (and I think, initially, that is exactly what he thought), he was too good natured – too abidingly generous of spirit – to let his disappointment show. He was our staff reporter, rolling into the office with his big voice booming and his camera bags clattering. He had been living in squats and sported clotted dreadlocks and comfort clothes (sweatshirts, tracky bottoms) that he wore until they literally rotted off his body. Some of my colleagues were dismayed by this. “He sat opposite me on the tube,” one reported in a scandalised whisper. “Legs apart, trousers all torn at the crotch. And he wasn’t wearing any pants!” Tim’s pictures were extraordinary: rigorous, alive and shot on the fly. We sent him to snap homeless shelters and demonstrations, dockers’ strikes and boxing gyms. Sometimes we would send him to photograph celebrities, too – an indignity he weathered with pained good humour. He couldn’t quite see the point of it. Why photograph celebrities when there were so many proper stories playing out right now, under our very noses? Tim Hetherington finally moved on from the Big Issue. He cut his dreads and bought a suit. He went to war zones, outraged then Liberian president Charles Taylor and found himself recognised as one of the finest photojournalists on the planet. But when I last saw him, in October, he was reassuringly just the same. His intense professionalism always went hand-in-hand with a childlike wonder at a world that never ceased to spark his interest. It is perhaps the fate of all great photographers that they will eventually cross the camera line and start being photographed themselves. Prior to that last, gut-wrenching image that reared up on BBC News last night, the final photo I saw of Tim was taken at the annual Oscar nominees’ lunch in February. Tim had been shortlisted for his devastating war documentary Restrepo , and this involved him rubbing shoulders with 150-odd Hollywood stars and industry players. Having once had to suffer photographing film celebrities, he had somehow conspired to become one himself. The nominees had been arranged in rows and gathered around an oversized Oscar statue. Helena Bonham Carter sat far out on the wings. Colin Firth and Mark Ruffalo perched up in the gods. And there, bang in the centre, right by the statue stood our old staff photographer – a winner before the envelope was opened. It was a position that seemed to reflect how Hetherington lived his life: in the thick of things, at the heart of the matter, honouring the Robert Capa dictum that “if your pictures aren’t good enough, you’re not close enough”. He was never one to sit out on the sidelines. Tim Hetherington War reporting Documentary Photography Libya Middle East Xan Brooks guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Sunshine predicted for bumper Easter bank holiday weekend, with temperatures predicted to soar past Corfu and Barcelona The UK’s bonus holiday – linking Easter, the royal wedding and May Day for nearly a fortnight’s break – has started, with scores of extra flights leaving for supposed hotspots overseas. But many of the long-booked trips will be landing in cooler climates, with pullovers a wise precaution in Corfu and Barcelona, while T-shirt weather continues across the British Isles. The cooler temperatures along the north Mediterranean coast will see London comfortably hotter at 24C (75F) than Barcelona at 16C and Corfu at 17C . In the UK, roads to the coast are getting busier, with the Meteorological Office confident that the warm, calm spell will continue well into next week. The Highways Agency announced the suspension of roadworks at many major sites to help holiday traffic flow, although essential repairs will continue on parts of the M1 and M25. The fire-damaged stretch of the M1 between junctions one and four in London has fully reopened. Others on the move include bats, which have taken to using canals as a seasonal corridor in the warmth, according to a report from British Waterways, and thousands of browntail moth caterpillars, which have spun sticky canopies of cocoons on Canvey island, in Essex, to pupate earlier than usual. The sunshine will also illuminate religious events, led by the Queen’s Maundy money service at Westminster Abbey. Her distribution of 85 coins to 85 men and 85 women, in memory of Christ washing his disciples’ feet at the Last Supper, coincided with her 85th birthday. Had the calendar fallen a day earlier, two “deserving pensioners”, chosen for their record of community and church work, would have missed out. Meanwhile in Manchester, Oldham, Bolton and Bury, bishops and other clergy offered free shoe-shines in local shopping malls, in the Maundy tradition. Easter’s many secular attractions will be joined on Saturday by one of the archbishop of York Dr John Sentamu’s characteristic initiatives, a public baptism by total immersion in a tank outside the city’s ancient Minster cathedral. Among 19 recruits from all denominations is Pentecostalist Lovely-Anna Louise Belfon-Kaaba, 23, a student at York University. She said: “I feel so lucky and proud to be publicly declaring my love, trust and faith for Jesus at this special time of the year.” Network Rail is optimistic about smoother journeys than last Easter, with less engineering work over the holiday and an estimated 18% more trains running. There will be disruption, however, on the West Coast line in north-west England, the Great Western line and at Liverpool Street station in London, where essential repairs and modernisation need the quieter holiday period to get work done. Rail services in Scotland have been disrupted by a trackside fire, which closed the line between Edinburgh and Glasgow as well as the line between Falkirk Grahamston and Cumbernauld. Holidaymakers travelling overseas this Easter are expected to top 2 million, in spite of the recession and the balmy climate in the UK, with Amsterdam, Dublin, Paris and Rome the favourite European destinations and New York topping long-haul bookings. Visa Europe said the royal wedding appeared to have led to a 104% rise in flight bookings out of the country next week, although a 244% increase in arrivals from overseas will more than compensate. VisitEngland said bookings suggested that just over a quarter of UK adults plan a trip involving at least one overnight stay in their own country over the triple-holiday period. National Express is predicting a bank holiday bonanza for its coaches, with services between London and 67 other centres laid on for the royal wedding. Bored visitors to the UK seaside might like to help remedy statistics released by the Marine Conservation Society, which show that litter on beaches increased by 3% last year. Weather London Transport Royal wedding Easter Martin Wainwright guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Click here to view this media Our favorite Nazi-coddling nativist politician , Arizona Senate President Russell Pearce, just can’t seem to escape the corruption scandal that’s dogging him daily now — namely, his major role in the distribution of illegal free tickets as part of the Fiesta Bowl’s running malfeasance scandal. Wendy Halloran of Phoenix’s Channel 12 News , while reporting on this weekend’s ugly Tea Party rally in Phoenix (more about that soon), tried to corner Pearce and ask him about his promised delivery of invoices proving he had paid for his tickets, as he has tried to claim. What she got was Pearce walking away from her and getting surly: HALLORAN: Where are your invoices for the Fiesta Bowl? PEARCE: You know what, you’re not going to come in and ambush me with these kind of games. HALLORAN: But with all due respect, where are the invoices, and why won’t — PEARCE: I’m going to go do my job. HALLORAN: Senator Pearce, with all due respect, it’s my job to hold you accountable. Where are your invoices? PEARCE: You know, your job is not to harass. HALLORAN: I’m not trying to harass you, sir. My job is to hold you accountable. Can you just tell me when we’re going to see the invoices, sir? PEARCE: I don’t have to show you anything. The best part of this report came in the form of a coda from Kelly Townsend, one of the local Tea Party organizers in Phoenix, who had earlier explained to Halloran the whole purpose of that day’s rally, what it was about: TOWNSEND: We are going to basically shine a light on our politicians so that there’s no secret — as much as we can possibly do that, and help keep them accountable fiscally, you know, ethically, all those issues, and that’s what this is about today. You betcha! Mission accomplished! No wonder the recall campaign against Pearce is gaining steam. Channel 12 followed up with a report today explaining that, as of today as well, Pearce has produced no documentation that he in fact paid for his pricey sports tickets from Fiesta Bowl lobbyists:
Continue reading …A judge has granted an injunction on the grounds that revelations of a couple’s affair could harm the children involved I wasn’t planning to write about privacy again this week, but just when you think the coast is clear another contentious case comes speeding along the injunction superhighway. This week the court of appeal brings us the “Shhh. Not in Front of the Children Order”. Children, it turns out, can be the new passport to privacy. Don’t get me wrong. I have no objection to the decision in ETK v News Group Newspapers to stop the News of the World naming the man and woman, both married to other people, who had an affair when working together in the entertainment industry (as the judgment tantalisingly puts it). I do worry, however, about how the appeal judges got there. The News of the World argued that there was a public interest in discussing whether the affair was the true reason “X” (not her real name) was dispensed with by her employer. The court of appeal disagreed. Although the newspaper maintained that the relationship was not confidential because the pair’s co-workers knew about it, the appeal court said that was not enough to put it in the public domain. The case could have been won or lost on an examination of those facts alone, weighing, as the law requires, the right to privacy against freedom of expression, but the court of appeal decided to throw children into the balance on the side of the man seeking the injunction. The children were “bound to be harmed by immediate publicity”, said Lord Justice Ward, because it would undermine the family as a whole and “because the playground is a cruel place where the bullies feed on personal discomfort and embarrassment”. These things may be true, but was the court of appeal right to decide that the harmful effect of disclosure on children should “tip the balance” in favour of injuncting a newspaper? Adopting this approach, the court said that the rights of children to be taken into consideration when an injunction is sought are not confined to their article 8 (privacy) rights, but include the duty of the court, under international law and various international human rights documents, to treat the bests interests of the children as paramount when making any decision concerning them. In other words, the court of appeal treated the application for an injunction as an application concerning children. There are problems with viewing privacy through the prism of child-centred decision-making. Despite Lord Justice Ward’s protestations to the contrary, this case means that children are likely to become the trump card in injunctive proceedings: if an application for an injunction is going to be treated as an application concerning children, it is difficult to see how the effect on them will not frequently (if not always) “tip the balance”. More importantly, perhaps, it creates a two-tier right to a private life, which places privacy rights of people who have children above those who don’t. That looks like discrimination to me. Children Media law Privacy Siobhain Butterworth guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …This Easter break is expected to be one of the busiest on the roads and railways for several years, as millions take full advantage of the four-day holiday
Continue reading …Dr Patrick Degenaar explains how retinal prosthetics may one day allow humans to see in ultraviolet and infrared, a concept explored in a film unveiled at the Human+ exhibition in Dublin The purpose of retinal prosthetics is to restore sight to patients who have a degenerative condition called retinitis pigmentosa, which affects one in 3,500 people. In the condition, the retina’s light-sensing cells – rods and cones – become inactive and eventually die. Symptoms start with night blindness and worsening tunnel vision, but eventually there is a total loss of sight. In 1992, research showed that the eye’s communication cells – known as retinal ganglion cells – remain intact in patients with retinitis pigmentosa. The discovery opened up the prospect of restoring some form of visual function to these people by controlling the cells’ communication patterns. In the past two decades since the research was published, hundreds of millions of pounds have been invested in retinal prosthesis research. Unfortunately, in contrast to the development of cochlear implants – which restore hearing to the deaf – progress has been slow. The highest resolution prosthesis to date was created by the Retina Implant company based in Tübingen, Germany. Their 1,500-electrode implant has allowed one of their patients, Mika , to distinguish large white characters on a black background. One of the key challenges has been the fundamental architecture of our visual system. The eye is not simply a camera, but the first stage in a system for understanding the world around us. There are around 50 different types of processing neuron in the retina, and more than 20 types of retinal ganglion cell. So the visual cortex of the brain expects to receive the visual world encoded in a “neural song” of many different voices. Precise coding to reproduce this song is hard to achieve with implanted electrodes and the result is that the patient sees phosphenes – flashing dots of light – rather than what we would normally define as sight. Optogenetics , an exciting new gene therapy technique, has the potential to bypass many of these problems and last year was hailed as the ‘Method of the Year’ by the journal Nature. Invented by Ernst Bamberg and his colleagues at the Max Planck Institute in Frankfurt eight years ago, the technique uses gene therapy to sensitise nerve cells to particular colours of light. Intense pulses of this wavelength of light make the photosensitised nerve cells fire. Neurologists call each firing of a nerve an “action potential” – the currency of information in the nervous system. So in optogenetic retinal prosthetics, rather than performing highly complex surgery to implant electrodes into a patient’s retina, a solution of a special virus would simply be injected to introduce new genes into the nerve cells. The patient would then wear a headset that records and interprets the visual scene and sends coded pulses of light to the retina. As a single pulse of light can generate a single action potential, the information encoded from the visual scene can be much more in tune with the neural song expected by the visual cortex. The OptoNeuro European project I lead at Newcastle University is researching this new approach, and we hope to start human trials towards the middle of this decade. The first optogenetic retinal prostheses will not deliver perfect vision, so we have teamed up with the London-based design practice Superflux to explore how the user’s interaction with this new technology can be made both more practical and meaningful in the coming years. The key objective is to maximise the useful sight restored to the patient while also exploring the unique possibilities of this new, modified – even enhanced – form of vision. In their concept video Song of the Machine (above), Anab Jain, Jon Ardern and Justin Pickard explore the personal and emotional complexities that might arise once this science leaves the lab and begins to touch our daily lives. The title is derived from the idea that in optogenetic retinal prosthetics the body is itself modified to interface with the machine in order to transfer the neural song. Even if resolution is low, the prosthesis could allow users to experience the visual world in wavelengths beyond those perceptible to normal-sighted humans. For example the eye absorbs ultraviolet light before it reaches the retina, and nature finds it difficult to make infrared light receptors. Such constraints do not affect modern camera technology. This “multi-spectral imaging” could be used for purely pragmatic purposes, such as telling at a glance whether an object is too hot to touch. Alternatively, it could create a certain visual poetry by allowing us to experience a flower in all its ultraviolet glory – as seen by honey bees. By exploring these possibilities in our research, it may be possible to improve the experience of the patients who will eventually wear these prosthese, allowing them to enjoy some of the benefits of the new field of augmented reality. Dr Patrick Degenaar is an optogenetics researcher at Newcastle University where he leads the OptoNeuro project Neuroscience Genetics Biology Blindness and visual impairment Disability Health Exhibitions Augmented reality guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Sitting on the terrace in a Louzingou cafe, the talk turns soon enough to the civil war and oil in this new story from Alain Mabanckou, translated by Helen Stevenson I’ve been back home for a few days, after several years away. We’re sitting at a table on the terrace outside Chez Janette, a bar in the Trois-Cents quarter. It’s the busiest place in Louzingou, the Republic of Mboka’s political capital. There are a few people talking in the corner, but they can’t hear us. As night falls, their faces gradually fade into the darkness. We’ve been here nearly two hours, and my uncle seems pleased to meet up with me, after all these years. The waitress has just come and served us a couple of Primus beers. My uncle is eyeing the girl’s backside greedily: – My dear boy, have you seen that waitress – nice, uh? I don’t answer. He watches the waitress as she makes her way back to the bar, then turns to me: – This country’s changed. When I look at the big scar running down his face, he says: – Yes, I know, it’s because of the war, dear boy … it’s because of the war, or rather oil … He glances over at the people sitting at the back of the terrace, but they’re not listening, and my uncle goes on: – I wonder what our country would have been like if there’d been no oil. A peaceful country? A country with no history? I don’t know. We’ll never know. God gave us oil, though we’re just a small country, with only three million inhabitants. Why did he put all the oil in the south, instead of giving a bit to the north, so everyone at least had a little bit of the cake, and we could stop fighting? Ah well, I mustn’t complain, some countries are in real trouble, not a drop of oil anywhere, under land or sea! He raises his glass, knocks it back in one, and continues: – Oil is power. Wherever there’s war, there’s oil. Do countries go to war over water? Imagine a country with no water, will its people survive? Oil brought havoc here, from north to south. That’s the only reason for the civil war. The waitress puts two more Primus down on the table. My uncle glances at her nicely rounded butt: – Nice fit lady, eh? Now, where was I? What was I saying? – The civil war over oil and … – Ah yes, while you were away in France, we had a civil war. President Moniato, who was in power, wouldn’t accept defeat in the election. He didn’t want to hand over power to Solola, who’d been chosen democratically. And why not? I wondered if he realised I knew all about the war, from the newspapers. Still, I liked to hear him talk. He became more animated: – The war was all about gaining control of oil, selling it secretly and buying smart houses in Europe! Oil doesn’t belong to the people here, it belongs to the president and his family. The trouble is, Moniato was working with the French. Now, Solola didn’t want to work with the French any more, he wanted to work with the Americans. So, the French supported president Moniato, to help him stay in power, but the Americans didn’t protect the new president, who’d been democratically elected. The Americans are no fools, they know they can always go and wage war some other place – in Iraq, for instance – and get far more oil than they would here. Why should they fight for a little country with less oil than Iraq? A taxi’s just pulled up in front of the bar. Two women get out, in very short skirts. My uncle and I watch them closely. High heeled shoes. Made up to the nines. They cross the terrace, go to the bar and talk to the owner. We hear the boss say: – Bring back more money this time! Yesterday was awful! My uncle says: – You see that? The war has scuppered everything, everyone has to scrabble for a living. What was I saying? – About the war, the French, the Americans and … – Yeah, we had a civil war while you were away, you know that, it was in all the papers, all over the world. north against south. The northerners were in power, and they didn’t want to give up the oil. It was a bad war, dear boy. Arms poured in from everywhere. The northerners asked the Angolans for help, and the French, too, and they came and invaded the south. The people in the south all ran off and hid in the bush. They were dying of hunger, mosquitoes, and tropical disease. Some got eaten by crocodiles and lions. There was war on the ground and war in the air, believe me! He’s been speaking loudly, then realising the other customers had begun to listen in to what he was saying, he lowers it again, before continuing: – There were military planes flying low over the forest. They began to call the people who’d fled into the bush ‘refugees’. The International Community said they must be helped, they needed food, even though you can eat what you want in the bush, like the pygmies do. Pygmies are just a joke, really, they’re too small, their stomachs don’t get hungry every day like us big guys. Pygmies can go without food and water for weeks, but people our size need to eat every day. My uncle’s eyes are filling up, he looks like any moment he might cry. He looks at his bottle of beer for a moment, then pours himself another glass and says: – You don’t know what went on, it was worse than anything you can have read. It was terrible! I saw it with my own eyes, I was there, I was out in the bush along with the refugees. Sometimes pregnant women gave birth in the bush, because babies must be born even when you have oil, and there’s war in your country. The worst thing was, we went on making love, even while the war was killing huge numbers of people. I know what you’ll say: why didn’t you wait till the war was over to make love? Dear boy, if we’d waited for the end of the war, we’d have forgotten how to make love, and come the end of the war we’d have been making love with animals. It was nothing new: all through history there’ve been people making love in the time of cholera. Having said that, I don’t think cholera had anything to do with oil…. The two prostitutes walk past our table. My uncle doesn’t even look at them. His voice grows heavy and sad: – Things got worse and worse in the bush. One day we heard three helicopters flying over. They were flying low, almost touching the trees. The rumour went round that they were from the International Community. And we could actually see the three helicopters in the sky, with the letters painted in red on the side: PITILOYI. They were from the French company that was producing our oil. Of course! They had come to help us. We all came out of our hiding places, like mice who realise the cat that was chasing them has actually got no teeth, no claws. We began to shout for joy. We danced. We clapped. We embraced. We cried out: Vive la France! Vive la France! Vive la France! And some, in their joy, shouted: Long live America! At last we will make love once again, give birth to our children in our own homes, and not in the bush! War is over, Long Live Peace! He’s waving his arms like a helicopter, and the boss looks over at us from behind the bar, his eyes round with surprise. Once again my uncle lowers his voice: – Dear boy, I swear, they were there, the helicopters, just metres above our heads. We thought: they’re going to throw us sacks of rice, milk, sugar, bread and meat. We all rushed to be the first to fling ourselves on the parcels of food. We jostled and argued, and trampled on the children. The older ones said we must let women and children go first. And d’you know what happened? Even though I know, I shake my head, to let him continue. – We saw the helicopter doors open, it was the Angolans. They aimed their weapons at us, and opened fire. From everywhere, birds rose into the air. The gunfire went on and on. People fell, ran, plunged into the river. The soldiers used machine guns, threw tear gas. We didn’t know what was going on. And the oldest of the refugees yelled: Take cover! It’s a trap! From the looks they’re giving us now, the customers at the back are not best pleased. But my uncle is caught up in the telling of his story and ploughs on: – Oh, yes, I was one of the lucky ones. I ran like the devil through the swamp. I didn’t look back once. I went into a cave. I stayed there for two days. The country was now in the hands of the northern president, thanks to his Angolan allies. The war was over. When I got back home, my beard was so long it reached the ground. When I walked I looked like a zombie. I had lost almost all sense of direction because there are no streets or avenues in the bush. All you see are trees, mountains, rivers, and you sleep wherever you’re sure there are no wild animals … The customers at the back of the bar are more shocked than ever, they get up to leave. My uncle leaves off for a moment, as though suddenly afraid. He waits till they’ve gone, then takes a couple of big gulps before saying: – So there I was, back from the bush. The country seemed calm again, dear boy. We got on with our lives. We went back to the bars, to the sea, everywhere. Gradually we began to forget what had happened to us. Five years later, we had new elections. The northern president, with the support of the French and the Angolans, was roundly defeated. We jumped for joy. He was practically hounded from the country and went to live in exile in France. Now it was a southerner, Solola, who ruled us. Since he was mad at the French for supporting the northern president, he gave the oil rights to the Americans. Which didn’t please the French. Every day, the French went to see the ex-northern-president in his home-in-exile in Paris. The promised him they’d do everything to restore him to power. But we couldn’t see how a northerner could become president of our country again. There were Americans everywhere now. They tried to teach us English, but it never worked, because the French had given us their lousy accent during colonisation. We told the Americans they could do what they wanted with our oil, but we refused to learn English. They didn’t care either way, they signed their contracts with the southern president, and he signed too, not realising that he was selling off our oil for the future. Five people in uniform come into the bar and sit down at the back. My uncle looks at them for a few seconds. He lowers his voice, because he knows this time if he talks loud we’ll end up in prison. You don’t talk about the war here in front of the army. – Now we must set up new elections. The ex-president from the north has come back to run for office, with the support of the French. But our southern president claims that the right conditions aren’t in place. The northern ex-president says they must be held, no matter what. And so they start squabbling … Don’t you want your beer? I raise my glass, drain it. My uncle does the same and goes on: – The ex-president brings arms into the country via Angola, and asks the Angolans for help. He says we must get rid of the southern president if he doesn’t set up proper elections. Who knows how that will end up. They say they’ll be another civil war, but the only thing I know is this, that the people won’t get any of what comes from our oil … I turn towards the back of the bar. My uncle looks at his watch. – Time flies! Half ten already! We pay, and pick up a taxi outside the bar. We’re going down the Avenue of Independence, which runs through the middle of Louzingou, I glance occasionally at the scar on my uncle’s face. He turns to face me: – Let’s go back to that bar tomorrow. Did you see those two prostitutes? You have one, I’ll have the other. I’ll pay, don’t worry. I bet it’s a long time since you had a bit of Louzingan skirt! I say nothing, I’m almost half asleep. Yes, I’ll go back to the bar tomorrow, with my uncle … Supported by the National Lottery through Arts Council England Original writing Fiction Oil Oil spills guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …Twenty five years on from Chernobyl, the heated debate on nuclear power remains resistant to cold facts: simply too few are known. But making your own judgements on five key questions will lead to your answer Containing the elemental forces that rage inside a nuclear reactor is one of the great achievements of science, but losing control, as happened 25 years ago on Tuesday at Chernobyl , is one of its greatest failures. So what to think of nuclear power ? People often ask me if I support or oppose the building of new nuclear power stations, presuming I think that because of my job, I’ll know the answer. If only it was that easy. Until the disaster at the Fukushima nuclear plant , I would say I was 51% in favour, on the basis that we need all the low-carbon electricity we can get to avoid the worst impacts of climate change and that I tend to trust scientists having been one. But 51% in favour is a pretty unsatisfactory position – it’s 1% off I don’t know. Surely I can be more certain than that, I thought. As the debate has raged, not least between my colleagues George Monbiot and John Vidal , it struck me very clearly that this is not an issue that can be resolved with cold facts alone, for the simple reason that many of the facts are not known. And how do you fairly assess the relative importance of political, economic, security, health and engineering factors? The answer, it seems to me, must lie in a series of personal judgements on the critical factors that we all must make for themselves. So I have tried to devise a series of questions which, if you answer based on your own priorities and judgements, should allow you to decide your position on nuclear power. 1. Do you think the global community can prevent the proliferation of nuclear weapons and, if not, do you think it can prevent a nuclear weapon being used? The existing non-proliferation regime has slowed, but not stopped the spread of nuclear weapons, the ultimate weapon of mass destruction. All recent weapons programmes have been developed under the cover of civilian nuclear power. This link has engendered a culture of secrecy in the nuclear industry that worries some. But perhaps you think there is enough momentum in the current non-proliferation efforts to be more successful. Iran might be considered a test case playing out right now. But even if weapons spread, only their use would cause catastrophe. Do you think that could happen? Would the threat of devastating retaliation prevent the launch of a warhead anywhere in the world? 2. Is the hazard of climate change greater than that posed by a nuclear disaster? This is perhaps the toughest question as the brutal truth is that no-one knows the long-term medical consequences of low-dose radiation exposure . Part of that is because identifying small effects over long periods, in the midst of myriad confounding factors, is incredibly hard. Part of it is the shameful lack of resources for those who wished to study the long term effects of Chernobyl. The threat posed by climate change, frequently to the most vulnerable in the world, is large, clear and very likely to come to pass without action. The risk of a nuclear catastrophe is low: it took an earthquake and tsunami of Biblical size to derail Fukushima. But it exists over a very long period of time – decades for operations, centuries or more for waste. Its impact on wellbeing is largely unknown: should the precautionary principle apply or is the danger of global warming too great? 3. Is global political will too weak to create a low-carbon energy future that does not involve nuclear power and in time to avert climate chaos? If existing nuclear power stations were closed down today, their 13% (and falling) of global electricity generation would almost certainly be replaced by dirty coal, which dumps both carbon and radioactive elements into the atmosphere. But if they were phased out, could renewable energy, such as hydroelectricity, wind and solar take up the slack? Renewables already have a heavy burden to bear, replacing large loads of coal and gas. But they are no slower to develop than most alternatives and almost certainly faster than nuclear. Nuclear power is backed by huge companies and states, meaning they heavily outgun smaller, newer renewables companies in lobbying firepower. Crucially, would investment in new nuclear power stations squeeze out investment in renewables? Another factor to consider is that nuclear power is a mature technology. Renewables are less mature, but offer more growth potential as their cost rapidly falls. Carbon capture and storage (CCS) – completely unproven at commercial scale – offers another alternative. Consider also the fact that electricity demand will rise, but can be slowed by better and highly cost-effective energy efficiency measures. So, in a way, this question asks whether political energy is a renewable resource – i.e. will effort expended on building new nuclear power stations mean less effort is available for alternatives? 4. Is nuclear power vital to ensuring the security of energy supply? Our civilisation depends, in much of the world, on energy. Nuclear power offers large amounts of electricity, and is not available only intermittently like some renewables. That steady supply is very useful but of course if the reactors have to be shut down, they leave a very a big gap to fill. Renewables are intermittent and continent-scale grids (which are starting to be built ) and better storage will be needed to balance supplies. But renewables can be distributed more widely and are more resilient to accidents or engineering problems. CCS-enabled coal or gas plants could provide baseload. Lastly, nuclear power is not truly renewable, and for nations without their own uranium deposits, ensuring access to the fuel is an issue. The sun will always shine and the wind will always blow somewhere. 5. Can the full costs of nuclear truly be calculated? Nuclear can, in some perfectly reasonable analyses, appear fairly affordable if not ” too cheap to meter “. But that usually assumes that the technical problems of the past have been solved in the latest plant designs, which are largely untested at commercial scale. Do you believe engineers have abolished the vast cost overruns of existing generations of reactors? Will the new reactors prevent the accidents, large and small, that pile on costs? Will the temptation to operate plants well beyond their initial design lifetimes be resisted in the future? An even bigger question is the vast cost of decommissioning and waste disposal. Fully half the budget of UK’s department of energy and climate change will be spent next year on clearing up and storing past waste. And nowhere in the world has a long term disposal solution been implemented. Under current UK plans, it will be at least a century before the radioactive waste from the new reactors planned will be permanently disposed of. So, do you think these costs will mount to the extent that nuclear becomes expensive compared to other options? The cost of renewables is clearer and there’s no waste to deal with. So those are the questions I have arrived at. If you have answered yes to all or most of them, you are in favour of nuclear power: you answered no to most, you oppose it. As for me, I find myself giving a clear no to questions 1, 4 and 5, a narrow no to question 3 and a yes to question 2. Which makes me pretty firmly against nuclear power and feeling better about knowing my own mind. Let me know how you get on and I’d very much like ideas about how the questions can be improved. Nuclear power Nuclear waste Japan disaster Renewable energy Energy Energy Energy Chernobyl nuclear disaster Damian Carrington guardian.co.uk
Continue reading …