By Beatrice Fihn is Executive Director of ICAN, the winner of the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize.
There’s an adage I keep hearing when discussing foreign policy and security issues, that ‘good fences make good neighbours’. In other words, clear and strong boundaries are essential for nations to maintain peaceful relationships, and if you keep your own affairs in order you can prevent your neighbour’s troubles spilling over. This argument loses all meaning in the event of a nuclear war. Nuclear weapons do not respect national boundaries, no matter where they fall.
Nuclear weapons used anywhere would have disastrous consequences that would quickly ripple across the world and undoubtedly hit the people of the African continent, even if that conflict was localised thousands of miles away.
Just a limited nuclear exchange between India and Pakistan over Kashmir, for example, would cause a nuclear winter lasting 2-3 years, devastate food production and lead to the starvation of billions of people. Sound far-fetched? There are 15,000 nuclear weapons around the world, that scenario would result from the use of just 100 of them.
It’s not hard to see how Africa could suffer tremendously from a crisis in which they had no involvement. Africa’s food supply is intertwined with Asia’s. Nigeria, the biggest African nation, is now the third largest importer of rice in the world with <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-14/nigeria-rice-imports-seen-rising-12-on-demand-lower-output" data-target-href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-06-14/nigeria-rice-imports-seen-rising-12-on-demand-lower-output">India being a key supplier</a>.
For decades a handful of nuclear-armed states locked the rest of the world out of their negotiations about our shared future. That changed last year at the United Nations where a vast majority of states adopted the groundbreaking Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear weapons
Put simply, the Treaty recognizes the grave humanitarian harm caused by these weapons and makes the possession of and threatening the use of nuclear weapons illegal. Once 50 nations ratify it, the ban on nuclear weapons will become international law. 69 have signed and 19 have ratified already.
But of those 19 states that have ratified, only one is from Africa. The Gambia became the first to deposit their official instruments of ratification this week. Many African states supported and voted for the Treaty at the UN, and 21 have signed, but they have not moved swiftly to ratify
Africa has been a leader on the nuclear weapons issue for decades. South Africa remains the only country to disarm after developing nuclear weapons. Most African states are part of the African Nuclear-Weapon-Free Zone Treaty. If the 40 states who signed and ratified that Treaty hastened their pace to ratify the nuclear ban treaty it would quickly enter into legal force.
Doing so will give African leaders greater control over their countries’ futures and ultimately provide more security to their citizens. Africa may be free of nuclear weapons, but the continent is not free of their effects.
Rather than ending that threat, some African states are enabling nuclear weapons development in ways they may not even realize. Global banks are helping fund a new generation of nuclear weapons being built to keep the nuclear threat alive for decades to come. Banks like BNP Paribas operate across Africa, where the bank offers services in <a href="http://mea.bnpparibas.com/en/bnp-paribas-locations/" data-target-href="http://mea.bnpparibas.com/en/bnp-paribas-locations/">11 countries</a>. That bank alone provides USD$ <a href="https://www.dontbankonthebomb.com/2018_who-invests/" data-target-href="https://www.dontbankonthebomb.com/2018_who-invests/">8.6 billion </a>in financing to companies producing nuclear weapons.
The Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons puts power back in the hands of these nations. It would obligate them to cease support for nuclear weapons development, including financing, among other steps that will make their people and environment safer.
No country is immune to the dangers posed by nuclear weapons. No far-flung corner of the world with offer adequate refuge from a nuclear war, no nation can claim immunity or neutrality from a conflict that involves nuclear-armed states.
So it is incumbent on each nation to seize control of their own destiny before it is taken from them due to geopolitical events that they had no part in. Each nation can do just that by joining the growing community of nations that are part of the Treaty that bans these horrifying weapons that have no military utility. Each nation can refuse to be passive hostage to the whims of a few men with their finger on the button; only a late night tweet or insult away from plunging us all into a nightmare of their making.
By ratifying the Treaty, African nations can reclaim their own destiny and make history on the side of reason and humanity.

Why we need African leadership to end the threat of nuclear weapons

By <a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hartmut-winkler-200255">Hartmut Winkler</a>, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-johannesburg-1275">University of Johannesburg</a>
Over the last few years <a href="https://mg.co.za/article/2017-11-10-00-africa-buys-into-nuclear-dream">reports</a> have surfaced of a range of African countries planning nuclear power plants.
At the moment, the only nuclear plant in operation in Africa is South Africa’s <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-decommissioning-south-africas-koeberg-nuclear-plant-wont-be-easy-89888">Koeberg</a>, producing 1.86GW of power. This, according to some African leaders, is about to change. Ugandan President Yoweri Museveni recently made the astonishing statement that his country is planning <a href="http://observer.ug/business/57393-uganda-nuclear-project-ambition-gets-another-boost.html">30GW of nuclear power by 2026</a>. That equates to 16 times the current total of nuclear energy on the entire African continent.
Uganda’s is only one of a number of countries <a href="http://www.theeastafrican.co.ke/business/Kenya-plans-to-set-up-nuclear-plant-by-2027/2560-4215876-14gd00jz/index.html">interested in nuclear power</a>. Russia’s nuclear agency <a href="https://rosatom.ru/en/press-centre/news/rosatom-highlights-its-solutions-for-africa/">Rosatom</a> has boasted that it’s concluded nuclear power memoranda of understanding with <a href="http://www.rosatom.ru/en/investors/projects/">Egypt</a>, <a href="https://www.the-star.co.ke/news/2017/12/06/kenya-to-set-up-nuclear-power-plant-in-2024_c1680470">Kenya</a>, <a href="http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-41818933">Nigeria</a>, <a href="https://www.businesslive.co.za/bd/world/2017-12-22-russia-signs-agreement-with-sudan-for-nuclear-power-plant/">Sudan</a> and <a href="http://allafrica.com/stories/201612080045.html">Zambia</a>. <a href="https://www.esi-africa.com/uganda-signs-deal-atomic-energy/">Uganda</a> is also on the list.
Most African countries suffer from <a href="https://techcentral.co.za/inside-africas-electricity-crisis/64637/">severe</a> electricity shortages. The majority need to double their generating capacity to meet current needs.
READ: <a href="http://cnbc.africa/insights/energy-environment/2018/02/16/nuclear-energy/">Why SA shouldn’t be too quick to drop nuclear from its energy mix – experts</a>
According to <a href="https://www.iea.org/statistics/">International Energy Agency figures</a>, Kenya, Sudan and Zambia are primarily dependent on hydroelectric power. A 2.4GW nuclear plant would double their electricity production. Nigeria’s dominant energy source is gas, and here it would take a 4.8GW nuclear plant to double its capacity.
Of the countries with Rosatom agreements, only Egypt has any concrete plans in place. A site for a 4.8GW nuclear plant has been identified at <a href="https://www.esi-africa.com/egypt-dabaa-unit-1-complete-2026/">El Dabaa</a>, on the Mediterranean Sea, and building is understood to be imminent. In the other countries, the location and scale of the projects have yet to be determined.
<a href="http://www.dw.com/en/belgium-aims-to-phase-out-nuclear-power-by-2025/a-15500989">Elsewhere in the world</a> countries like Germany, Belgium and the US are downscaling their nuclear plans or exiting it altogether. The reasons include perceptions of increased risk following the <a href="https://www.carbonbrief.org/analysis-the-legacy-of-the-fukushima-nuclear-disaster">Fukushima disaster</a> in Japan as well as economic factors.
The cost of electricity generation from solar photovoltaic and wind technologies has come down dramatically. It already costs less than power produced by nuclear plants and renewable energy is <a href="https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2018-02-02-south-africas-electricity-choice-part-2-renewable-energy-is-a-win-win/#.WvM40sEUlPY">set to become even cheaper</a>.
Given that South Africa has shelved its nuclear plans on <a href="https://www.fin24.com/Budget/Budget-and-Economy/gigaba-says-no-to-nuclear-20171029-3">affordability grounds</a>, surely less resourced African countries would find investments like this even more difficult?
<h2>The loan agreements</h2>
Nuclear power agreements are notoriously shrouded in <a href="http://safcei.org/secrecy-around-nuclear-and-uranium/">secrecy</a>. But it’s possible to get a sense of Rosatom’s plans for African nuclear contracts by examining recent examples where details of mutual commitments have become public.
A deal struck with Bangladesh provides a useful benchmark against which to understand other deals that have been done with Russia. In the case of the 2.4GW Rooppur nuclear plant, Rosatom is providing most of a <a href="https://www.thedailystar.net/country/rooppur-nuke-plant-1265b-deal-inked-russia-192556">US$ 12.65 billion loan</a>. This only covers the estimated construction costs. Interest accrual, possible cost overruns, operations and decommissioning are likely to amount to <a href="http://www.sortirdunucleaire.org/RUPPUR-NUCLEAR-POWER-PLANT-BANGLADESH-S-POTENTIAL">more than double</a> of this initial outlay. That makes a total cost of roughly US$ 30 billion likely.
Egypt’s earlier mentioned El Dabaa project has a similar funding arrangement. Here Rosatom has given a loan of <a href="https://www.egypttoday.com/Article/2/38587/EXCLUSIVE-Details-of-4-Dabaa-Nuclear-Power-Plants-contracts">US$ 25 billion</a>, which again is projected to only cover construction.
For both Rooppur and <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-egypt-russia-nuclear/russia-to-lend-egypt-25-billion-to-build-nuclear-power-plant-idUSKCN0YA1G5">El Dabaa</a>, the annual interest for their loan is around 3%. In addition, the loan is structured in a way that ensures repayments only start 10-13 years after the loan is made, to continue in annual instalments for 22-28 years thereafter.
The country receiving the nuclear plant initially pays very little, but when the repayments kick in, the country’s fiscus and electricity consumers are suddenly faced with a massive burden that most African economies will never be able to meet. By then the 3% annual interest could have increased the amount owed by as much as 40%.
The nuclear industry also has a history of <a href="https://theecologist.org/2014/sep/19/three-every-four-nuclear-power-builds-worldwide-are-running-late">cost overruns and construction delays</a>. A country may therefore face a situation where it needs to service a higher-than-expected debt while being unable to recoup funds from electricity sales.
What is equally concerning is that the debt then places Russia in a position where it is able to exert <a href="https://www.dailymaverick.co.za/article/2018-02-19-south-africas-electricity-choice-part-4-the-dangers-of-dealing-with-russia/#.WvWCnO-FPcs">disproportionate influence</a> over a country’s affairs.
<a href="https://www.lusakatimes.com/2018/03/01/zambia-develop-nuclear-power-plant-generate-electricity-luo/">Zambia</a> is eyeing a nuclear plant on the scale of Bangladesh’s Rooppur. The plant is expected to cost US$ 30 billion. Given Zambia’s total <a href="https://www.lusakatimes.com/2017/09/29/finance-minister-felix-mutati-unveils-k71-6-billion-budget-2018/">annual budget</a> is US$ 7.2 billion this is clearly unaffordable. If one were to scale the Rooppur cost from 2.4GW to the 30GW nuclear power plants proposed by Museveni, the figure would be 15 times Uganda’s annual <a href="https://data.worldbank.org/country/uganda">GDP of US$ 24 billion</a>.
<h2>Cheaper options</h2>
Are there cheaper alternatives to nuclear power to alleviate energy shortages in Africa?
A great deal of hope was placed on the 40GW <a href="https://www.internationalrivers.org/resources/grand-inga-hydroelectric-project-an-overview-3356">Grand Inga</a> hydroelectric scheme on the Congo river. But the project isn’t going to come to fruition soon due to <a href="https://af.reuters.com/article/investingNews/idAFKBN19P0U5-OZABS">funding challenges</a>.
The most promising solution seems to be through multiple <a href="http://www.climatechangenews.com/2017/05/23/small-scale-renewables-cheapest-rural-africa-says-dutch-report/">small-scale power production initiatives</a>, typically in bio-energy, solar heaters and photovoltaic modules. These provide cheaper electricity than nuclear and are in addition good <a href="https://mg.co.za/article/2017-05-29-00-renewable-energy-sector-turns-into-employer-of-note">job creators</a>. With its extensive agricultural sector, all of Africa has great <a href="http://cleanleap.com/recovering-energy-waste-can-power-africa">bio-waste energy</a> potential.
Kenya has shown that there are excellent <a href="http://www.thinkgeoenergy.com/geothermal-energy-becoming-predominant-source-of-electricity-in-kenya/">geothermal energy</a> extraction possibilities along the Rift Valley.
Many countries, including Egypt and Kenya, enjoy ample sunshine, making them <a href="https://www.reuters.com/article/us-africa-solar-potential/solar-powered-africa-never-more-possible-and-less-expensive-energy-chief-idUSKBN15Z0VV">ideal for solar power</a> generation. With the right incentives, these could drive an African energy generation boom.
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/hartmut-winkler-200255">Hartmut Winkler</a>, Professor of Physics, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/university-of-johannesburg-1275">University of Johannesburg</a>
This article was originally published on <a href="http://theconversation.com">The Conversation</a>. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-nuclear-power-for-african-countries-doesnt-make-sense-96031">original article</a>.

Why nuclear power for African countries doesn’t make sense

In the Budget on February 21 the South African government is likely to announce the clear way forward for the on again, off again, nuclear deal that the experts say the country needs and the critics say will bankrupt the country.
Former President Jacob Zuma caused uproar, in his time, by announcing the nuclear deal.  The plan is to build at least 9600 MW of nuclear power with a number of stations around the country. Russia is one of the nations that South Africa is looking to for the technology. South Africa is already home to Africa’s only nuclear power plant, the 41-year-old Koeberg near the beach just outside Cape Town, which has an installed capacity of 1800 MW and produced its first electricity in 1984. Cape Town is one of the few cities in the world to be powered entirely by nuclear energy.
In Davos at the World Economic Forum, in January, Finance Minister Malusi Gigaba told CNBC Africa that the deal was off the table.
		
				
		
“We have excess electricity and therefore are not under pressure, for the moment, if you look at the excess power we have it is bigger than the biggest power station we have in South Africa we have right now, which is Medupi, which basically means we are supplying ourselves on a sustainable base into the future. When we feel we now need electricity baseload electricity generation that can be supplied by the capacity of a nuclear power station then we will have a discussion at that moment. But at the present moment there are no plans on the table for the foreseeable future,” Malusi said.
Yet the experts argue this is folly. Kelvin Kemm, a nuclear physicist and the chairman of the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation, argues that the country needs to build its power grid for the future.
“Right now South Africa appears to have sufficient electricity, but that is rather false impression.  Projections of some 10 to 15 years ago showed that South Africa should have been using much more electricity now than is actually the case.  The country is artificially using too little now, in the sense that economic growth has been held back, and the electricity shortages of a few years ago prevented planned industrial expansion,” says Kemm.
The cost is also in dispute. Opposition parties say it’ll cost the taxpayer a trillion rand. Kemm says research shows the price tag to be a mere R650 billion.
The new nuclear power plants will be built by South Africa and South Africans, in collaboration with a foreign nuclear reactor supplier.  A model, in which South Africa is a world leader, is the construction and export of a number of well-known foreign motor cars.  They are built by South Africans, to a foreign design, in collaboration with the foreign design owner.
No foreign workers will pour concrete and erect steel structures for the building of a nuclear power complex.  The same goes for most of the other functions in the building of a nuclear power plant,” says Kemm.

Why SA shouldn’t be too quick to drop nuclear from its energy mix – experts

South Africa’s power utility Eskom cannot afford a nuclear power station expansion, acting Eskom chief financial officer Calib Cassim said on Tuesday during the release of its financial results.
<div id="attachment_292852" style="width: 1450px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-292852" class="wp-image-292852 size-full" src="http://cnbc.africa/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Hendrina-Power-Station_Eskom.jpg" alt="" width="1440" height="1008" />Eskom Hendrina Power Station.</div>
South Africa’s government has said it will push ahead with its nuclear expansion plan but will now do so at a slower pace due to weak economic growth. With the only nuclear power station on the continent, South Africa is seeking to expand its nuclear, wind, solar and coal power capacity.
“I can’t go and commit to additional expenditure on a nuclear programme,” said Acting Eskom chief executive officer Calib Cassim during its results presentation.
The sole power supplier in Africa’s most industrialised economy’s reported a 34 percent drop in interim profits for the six months ending Sept 30. 2017, down to 6 billion rand ($504 million) due to declining sales and higher finance costs.
New Eskom chairman Jabu Mabuza said the utility would review its cost structure and was considering ways of reducing its indebtedness.
The power utility which has been embroiled in a governance crisis and allegations of undue influence in awarding tenders, said it would address governance concerns and stabilise the firm through its new board.
“We must have credibility, and we must have consistency,” said Mabuza.
The government named a new Eskom board earlier this month, ending a power vacuum that dates back to mid-2017 when then chairman Ben Ngubane resigned and government reversed Eskom’s decision to reinstate Brian Molefe as chief executive.
<div class="Attribution_attribution_o4ojT">
Reporting by Alexander Winning; Writing by Tanisha Heiberg; Editing by James Macharia
</div>

South Africa’s Eskom cannot commit to nuclear expansion: acting CFO

Keith Gottschalk | University of the Western Cape
&nbsp;
South Africa’s nuclear build programme seems to be back on the agenda after earlier indications that it was dead. Recent comments by President Jacob Zuma and his new minister of energy David Mahlobo, signal a final push to bag the nuclear deal while Zuma is still in power. In December Zuma’s term as president of the African National Congress will come to an end when the ruling party elects a new leadership. His term as president of the country ends in 2019. The Conversation Africa’s Business and Economy Editor, Sibonelo Radebe, asked Keith Gottschalk to assess the situation.
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="aligncenter wp-image-290229 size-full" src="http://cnbc.africa/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/Nuclear-Pixabay.jpg" alt="" width="960" height="715" />
Is it still possible for the Zuma administration to bag the nuclear energy programme?
The worsening financial plight of the state and its parastatals makes the estimated R1 trillion rand cost of the proposed nuclear build programme increasingly unaffordable. The new Finance Minister Malusi Gigaba said as much. Slow economic activity is squeezing the tax revenue base while social expenditure demands keep rising. This has caused the deficit indicators to rise a cause for serious concern. Its ludicrous for government to insist on adding the humongous nuclear build programme into such dire state of public finances.
It’s also important to consider that government’s atomic ambitions go far beyond the 9 600 MW of extra nuclear power stations. It also wants to rebuild a uranium enrichment plant that dates back to former apartheid-era President PW Botha in the 1980’s. South Africa gave up its nuclear capability in 1989. It was the only country in Africa that had the ability to make a nuclear bomb.
Zuma’s administration wants to regain some of the lost nuclear capacity. It wants to construct a fuel element fabrication factory. It has talked of a nuclear fuel reprocessing plant. All these also bear steep price tags.
What can stop it?
It’s been reported that Mahlobo, the former state security minister turned energy minister, wants to rush through the new process of guiding the nuclear energy plan into fruition. So it’s not going to be easy to stop it.
But South Africa’s nuclear ambitions face stiff opposition from different directions. These include environmentalist critics of nuclear power generation who use a blend of media, street theatre, objections at public consultation processes, and lawfare to try and stop the government’s ambitions.
The SA Faith Community Environmental Initiative group won an important victory earlier this year when the Cape High Court ruled that the government had not followed due process in its nuclear energy plans, and that they had to be halted. This effectively sent government back to square one.
Opposition parties have also been active, using parliamentary channels. They’re also considering taking the legal route to halt the nuclear juggernaut.
And there is palpable opposition within the ANC itself. A number of ANC branches sent motions critical of the costs of nuclear electricity to the ANC’s National Policy Conference. That conference’s report censored out all these motions.
The administration seems to be pulling out all the stops to bag this programme: What’s at stake?
By now, scandal-weary South Africans will react by saying: follow the money. In December 2016 the government dropped the bombshell that the procurement of its nuclear build programme would be taken away from the department of energy and done instead through Eskom.
The reason became clear when months of media headlines revealed that Eskom’s procurement mechanisms had been infiltrated and subverted by the Gupta family conglomerate to become a corporate feeding trough. With close ties to Zuma the Guptas stand accused of operating an elaborate mission to capture state business with a keen eye on the nuclear energy build programme
Every nuclear build contract, from “consulting” to turbines, would be inflated by one-fifth to build in the kickbacks to the corrupt middlemen tenderpreneurs.
Does South Africa need nuclear energy at this stage?
South Africa does not need nuclear energy at any stage.
About a decade ago, the government argued that South Africa’s economic growth was 5% per year every year, and that the resultant increase in electricity demand necessitated building 9 600 MW of new nuclear power stations. Critics pointed out that these figures were inaccurate.
Economic growth has shrunk significantly since then together with future projections of electricity demand. But the government still insist that the 9 600 MW of nuclear power proposition is backed by economic fundamentals. Clearly, this is a political decision uncoupled from economic realities.
On top of this, the most cost-effective generation of electricity would be a blend of imported hydro, imported gas, solar and wind. But these avenues seems to have been blocked by nefarious agendas.
In 2010, the department of energy proudly announced a 5 000 MW solar park to be built outside Upington. It hosted an international investors’ conference to kickstart progress. Since then, nothing has happened.
In 2014 the department proudly put up on the internet a slide show of how the Zuma and the DRC’s President Kabila had signed a treaty guaranteeing South Africa over 10 000 MW of imported hydropower once the Inga dams were constructed.
By December 2016 the department had effectively airbrushed these out of its presentations. Clearly, political power had been applied to compel the department to drop Eskom’s renewable division, and to suck up to its nuclear division. Which political power this was, became exposed this week when Zuma smeared opponents of his nuclear plans as western puppets.
What are global trends saying about nuclear energy?
<img loading="lazy" decoding="async" src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/87022/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" />The building of new nuclear power stations in developed countries is drastically declining. The UK is alone in signing a contract to build a new one. Nuclear vendors have stepped up their sales campaigns in developing countries to compensate.
This article was originally published on The Conversation.

Op-Ed: Zuma’s allies are once again gung-ho about nuclear. Will they get their way?

<div style="display: block; position: relative; max-width: 640px;">
<div style="padding-top: 56.25%;"><iframe style="width: 100%; height: 100%; position: absolute; top: 0px; bottom: 0px; right: 0px; left: 0px;" src="//players.brightcove.net/1571595826001/default_default/index.html?videoId=5513749558001" allowfullscreen="" border=0 frameborder=0></iframe></div>
</div>
The Power-Gen conference is currently underway in Johannesburg. Thousands of delegates from across the world are there discussing energy opportunities to power the continent. The future of Nuclear in South Africa will be in discussion.

SA’s nuclear future

<div class="group-container ">
<div class="embed-container image"><a href="http://www.cnbc.com/north-korea/">North Korea</a>&#8216;s refusal to drop its nuclear weapons program may have a lot to do with the fate that met another would-be nuclear power&#8217;s dictator just a few years ago.</div>
<div class="group">
Pyongyang&#8217;s ongoing development of nuclear weaponry — including the successful launch last week of a missile that could potentially reach the United States — has set off alarm bells across the international community. But the insistence of North Korean dictator Kim Jong Un to keep building an arsenal could come from a lesson he learned from another one-time opponent of the West: Libya&#8217;s Moammar Gadhafi.
Gadhafi conceded to Western demands that he give up his quest for nukes in 2003, only to be toppled by <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/id/42836064">NATO and his Libyan opponents during a brief civil war in 2011.</a>
<div id="inline_movable_ad">Nobody likes Kim having nukes. He&#8217;s an erratic leader whose weapons programs defy UN sanctions, and North Korea has repeatedly broken promises to stop developing them. Worst of all, Kim likes to threaten to attack other countries, including <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/japan/">Japan</a>, <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/south-korea/">South Korea</a>, the <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/united-states/">United States</a>and <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/australia/">Australia</a>.</div>
</div>
</div>
<div class="group-container ">
<div class="group">
But <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/kim-jong-un/">Kim</a> likely sees the weapons as an insurance policy that keeps him in power. There are uncanny similarities between his regime and Gadhafi&#8217;s: The Libyan dictator had seized control of the state after leading a military coup in 1969. Like Kim, Gaddafi ran a socialist dictatorship built on a cult of personality. Under Gadhafi, <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/libya/">Libya</a> earned a reputation as a rogue nation. It consistently breached international norms, committing human rights abuses, funding terrorist groups, and proliferating weapons of mass destruction.
Yet, in a surprise move in 2003, Gadhafi agreed to give up his weapons program and welcome international inspectors. In exchange, the <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/united-states/">U.S.</a>and its allies promised better relations with Libya and lifted long-standing economic sanctions.
Eight years later, NATO led a military intervention to support rebels trying to overthrow Gadhafi&#8217;s regime. NATO said it was responding to a United Nations call to end crimes against humanity in the country.
</div>
</div>
<div class="group-container last">
<blockquote class="embed-container pull-quote">&#8220;North Korea (is) firmly in the belief that they need to have credible nuclear deterrent, and they believe that as a sovereign country they have the right to do so.&#8221;-Dr. Guo Yu, analyst, Verisk Maplecroft</blockquote>
<div class="group">
Gadhafi was beaten and killed after he was chased down by rebel soldiers on October 20, 2011. His convoy had been <a class="inline_asset" title="http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44971257/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/libyas-moammar-gadhafi-killed-hometown-battle/#.WWMJLoSGOUk" href="http://www.nbcnews.com/id/44971257/ns/world_news-mideast_n_africa/t/libyas-moammar-gadhafi-killed-hometown-battle/#.WWMJLoSGOUk">bombed and scattered by U.S. and French airstrikes</a> only moments earlier. Gadhafi holds the unfortunate (for him) distinction of being the only Middle Eastern national leader who was killed during the Arab Spring.
U.S. President <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/barack-obama/">Barack Obama</a> has called his failure to plan for the consequences of Gadhafi&#8217;s downfall the worst mistake of his presidency. But he has said he still believes military intervention was the &#8220;right thing to do&#8221;.
It&#8217;s highly likely that Kim keeps Gadhafi&#8217;s unfortunate end in mind, and it deters him and his North Korean leaders from surrendering their own nuclear weapons, according to experts.
&#8220;We see in Libya and <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/iraq/">Iraq</a> countries who gave up their WMD programs, and foreign power campaigns that led to a regime change,&#8221; said Dr. Guo Yu, principal Asia analyst at global risk consultancy Verisk Maplecroft. &#8220;To safeguard against that, North Korea (is) firmly in the belief that they need to have credible nuclear deterrent, and they believe that as a sovereign country they have the right to do so.&#8221;
Kim is also &#8220;watching what&#8217;s been happening in the <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/middle-east/">Middle East</a>, and the external military interventions — mostly led by the U.S. — which are interested in regime change and just reinforce the mindset for pursuing independent credible nuclear deterrence,&#8221; Yu said.
During a visit to Libya&#8217;s former colonial ruler <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/italy/">Italy</a> in 2009, Gaddafi remarked: &#8220;We had hoped Libya would be an example to other countries … But we have not been rewarded by the world.&#8221;
</div>
</div>

Moammar Gadhafi may explain Kim Jong Un’s nuclear ambitions

CAPE TOWN (Reuters) &#8211; South Africa is committed to an &#8220;open, transparent&#8221; process to build new nuclear power plants and the government planned to go through with its plans for nuclear expansion, President Jacob Zuma told parliament on Thursday.
South Africa is planning to build 9,600 megawatts (MW) of nuclear capacity, a project that could be one of the world&#8217;s biggest nuclear contracts in decades.
But Energy Minister Mmamoloko Kubayi said on Wednesday in Moscow that the plans will be reviewed as the country is in a recession.
(Reporting by Wendell Roelf; Writing by Ed Stoddard; Editing by James Macharia)
&nbsp;

South Africa committed to nuclear power expansion, process to be open: Zuma

MOSCOW (Reuters) &#8211; Russian energy group Rosatom is a contender for South Africa&#8217;s nuclear expansion project and the country will award the contract by the end of the year, the chairman of the South African Nuclear Energy Corporation (Necsa) said on Monday.
South Africa is planning to build 9,600 megawatts (MW) of nuclear capacity to wean itself off coal, a project that could be one of the world&#8217;s biggest nuclear contracts in decades.
Besides Rosatom, major nuclear firms from South Korea, France, the United States and China are interested in bidding for it.
&#8220;We are aiming for this to be done before the end of the year, and we very imminently want to start,&#8221; Kelvin Kemm, Necsa chairman, told Reuters on the sidelines of a nuclear conference in Moscow, when asked when South Africa would make a decision on which company would build the new nuclear reactors.
&#8220;Rosatom is definitely in there, but a decision has not been finally made. That will be a decision made by the senior politicians in collaboration with the technological and the company people,&#8221; Kemm said.
Earlier on Monday, a Rosatom official said the Russian company was in contact with South African authorities over their plans to increase the country&#8217;s nuclear capacity.
Those plans were disrupted after South Africa&#8217;s High Court earlier this year deemed a nuclear cooperation pact with Russia unlawful.
In May, state-controlled Rosatom said it was still committed to taking part in a competitive bidding process to build nuclear plants in South Africa. Rosatom was created in 2007 from the Russian Atomic Energy Ministry with a view to turning nuclear power into a major export industry for Russia.
Necsa&#8217;s Kemm said on Monday that the court ruling had delayed the country&#8217;s plans by a couple of months.
In response to a question as to whether Rosatom was a leading contender for the planned nuclear expansion, Kemm said: &#8220;Absolutely, Rosatom is a very important player&#8221;.
(Reporting by Alexander Winning. Editing by Jane Merriman)

S.Africa aims to choose company for nuclear project by year-end

<ul>
<li>The budget would cut $1.7 trillion in spending over 10 years.</li>
<li>Medicaid, student loans and food stamps would see big reductions.</li>
<li>EPA, State Department and Education Department funds would be slashed.</li>
<li>Economists doubt the White House&#8217;s growth projections.</li>
</ul>
The White House is seeking to slash federal spending by $3.6 trillion over the next decade through steep cuts across most agencies and tough new restrictions on aid to the poor — a dramatic rethinking of the role of government in the American economy.
About half of the money — $1.7 trillion over 10 years — comes from changes to programs such as Medicaid, food stamps and federal student loans that swelled during the Great Recession and long recovery. It also includes previously announced double-digit spending cuts next fiscal year for the Environmental Protection Agency, the State Department and the Education Department, among others, and eliminates popular institutions such as the National Endowment for the Arts.
The president&#8217;s proposed fiscal 2018 budget became public Monday night.
<a href="http://www.cnbc.com/defense/" target="_self">Defense</a> is one of the few areas slated for increased funding. The White House is requesting an additional $25 billion next fiscal year, following a similar bump in the current budget. Veterans Affairs would also get a boost next year, along with the National Nuclear Security Administration.
<blockquote>
<h2>&#8220;We are no longer going to measure compassion by the number of programs or the number of people on those programs. We will measure compassion and success by the number of people who get off those programs.&#8221;-Mick Mulvaney, director, OMB </h2>
</blockquote>
Office of Management and Budget Director Mick Mulvaney on Monday called the proposal a &#8220;taxpayer-first budget.&#8221;
&#8220;We are no longer going to measure compassion by the number of programs or the number of people on those programs,&#8221; he told reporters. &#8220;We will measure compassion and success by the number of people who get off those programs.&#8221;
Reforming entitlement programs has long been a goal for Republican leadership — and some were disappointed that <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/donald-trump/" target="_self">President Donald Trump</a> vowed on the campaign trail not to touch the two biggest ones, Social Security and Medicare. But Trump left the door open to overhauling the patchwork system of other safety net programs that Republicans argue have become unwieldy and wasteful. Social Security disability insurance, for example, is in the crosshairs, though retirement payments are not. The proposal estimates that eliminating fraud and waste alone will save the government $143 billion over a decade.
&#8220;I think that it is a key step toward putting the budget toward a sustainable path to balance,&#8221; said Romina Boccia, a fellow at the Heritage Foundation, a conservative think tank. &#8220;While I think this is a good start, and the budget includes important reforms, we do need to continue to push for broader reforms to Medicare and Social Security because they are the key drivers of our growing spending and debt.&#8221;
Tackling entitlement programs puts the White House on politically treacherous terrain: Trump will need backing from at least some Democrats for his proposals to pass the Senate. But several line items they had dubbed &#8220;poison pills&#8221; during negotiations over the 2017 budget have reappeared in the new proposal, including funding for a wall along the Mexican border.
And on Monday, Democrats were already starting to draw battle lines, calling the programs critical for workers who are still struggling to recover from the recession.
&#8220;It&#8217;s a budget that takes a meat cleaver to the middle class by gutting the programs that help them the most, including many that help create jobs and power the economy,&#8221; Senate Minority Leader <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/chuck-schumer/" target="_self">Chuck Schumer</a> (D-N.Y.) said Monday on the floor.
The size and scope of the White House&#8217;s proposed cuts could make it tough to swallow even among Republicans. The proposal includes, for example, changing the funding formula for Medicaid, which some GOP moderates and state governors have opposed. It also calls for changes to &#8220;CHIP,&#8221; which provides benefits for low-income children who do not qualify for Medicaid. Finance Committee Chairman Orrin Hatch (R-Utah) was one of the original sponsors of the bill that created the program.
<blockquote>
<h3>&#8220;The president &#8230; should not rely on unrealistic and rosy economic growth projections to pay for his proposals or fix our debt. It is not a good idea to spend as if you won the lottery in hopes that you actually do.&#8221;-Judd Gregg and Edward Rendell, co-chairmen, Campaign to Fix the Debt</h3>
</blockquote>
The budget assumes the White House will be able to dramatically lower tax rates for households and businesses. The administration has proposed reducing the corporate rate to 15 percent and streamlining individual rates from seven brackets to just three. The White House provided no additional details about its proposal Monday but said it is a key component to pushing economic growth to 3 percent.
Mulvaney said the deep spending cuts, coupled with faster growth, will reduce the deficit as a percentage of GDP starting next year. He said the budget will balance by 2027.
However, many economists doubt the administration will be able to reliably and repeatedly hit a 3 percent target — even with significant tax cuts — due to the country&#8217;s aging population and declining productivity. The Congressional Budget Office currently estimates growth at about 1.9 percent.
&#8220;The president is right to focus on job creation and tax reform. But he should not rely on unrealistic and rosy economic growth projections to pay for his proposals or fix our debt,&#8221; said Judd Gregg and Edward Rendell, co-chairmen of the Campaign to Fix the Debt. &#8220;It is not a good idea to spend as if you won the lottery in hopes that you actually do.&#8221;
But Mulvaney said the administration stands by its forecast and that economists are underestimating the benefits of Trump&#8217;s proposals.
&#8220;That assumes a pessimism about America, about the economy, about the people, about its culture that we&#8217;re simply refusing to accept,&#8221; Mulvaney said. &#8220;We do not believe that [3 percent] is something fanciful.&#8221;

White House 2018 budget proposal is out, and it slashes the social safety net

South Africa&#8217;s government may appeal last week&#8217;s <a href="http://cnbc.africa/news/2017/04/26/s-court-rules-nuclear-plan-unlawful-must-set-aside/">court judgment declaring a cooperation pact with Russia&#8217;s state-owned nuclear company Rosatom unlawful</a>, the energy minister said on Tuesday.
South Africa and Russia signed an Intergovernmental Agreement (IGA) in 2014 for cooperation between Rosatom and South African utility Eskom, which aims to build 9,600 megawatts (MW) of nuclear capacity to wean the African nation off coal.
The pact drew criticism from civil society and environmental groups which accused the government of seeking to reach secret deals with Russia without holding an open bidding process.
On Wednesday, the High Court deemed the pact unlawful and said any actions taken by the government so far to start procurement should also be put aside.
&#8220;Do we have to appeal the judgment? We are looking at those options,&#8221; Energy Minister Mmamoloko Kubayi told parliament&#8217;s energy committee before a meeting of the ministry&#8217;s legal team on Wednesday to discuss the legal issue.
South Africa, which has struggled to keep pace with rising demand for electricity, is seeking to diversify its energy mix away from coal-fired plants that supply most of its power.
The court ruling risks delaying the government&#8217;s plan to add new capacity to the already strained power generation network.
In other remarks to the energy committee, the minister commented on an investigation into the sale of oil reserves by the state-owned Strategic Fuel Fund (SFF), without Treasury approval. SFF had said it was rotating stock not selling it.
&#8220;I can confirm that it was not a rotation of stock, it was a sale of stock,&#8221; Kubayi said.
(Reporting by Wendell Roelf; Editing by Ed Stoddard and Edmund Blair)

S.A government may appeal court ruling on Russia nuclear pact

South Africa&#8217;s controversial push to build a fleet of new nuclear plants suffered a setback on Wednesday after the High Court set aside the procurement process and a pre-agreement with Russia.
South Africa, which has the continent&#8217;s only nuclear power station, has asked power utility Eskom to procure an additional 9,600 megawatts (MW) of new capacity as it diversifies its energy mix away from ageing coal-fired plants.
The expansion plan is opposed by environmental and clean-energy groups, while some economists have said the country&#8217;s ailing economy cannot afford to build new nuclear plants whose costs are estimated around 1 trillion rand ($76 billion).
Judge Lee Bozalek said any request for proposal or request for information to kickstart the procurement process was set aside as well as a deal to cooperate with Russia on the plan.
&#8220;The minister&#8217;s decision on or about 10 June 2015 to table the Russian IGA before parliament&#8230; is unconstitutional and unlawful and it is reviewed and set aside,&#8221; he said.
In late 2014, then energy minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson signed an Intergovernmental Agreement, with Russia state nuclear company Rosatom, saying the countries would cooperate in reactors with total installed capacity of up to 9,600 MW.
It was not immediately clear whether the government would appeal the ruling.
Both Eskom and the Department of Energy declined to comment on the ruling.
($1 = 13.1237 rand)
(Reporting by Wendell Roelf; Writing by Mfuneko Toyana; Editing by James Macharia)

S.A court rules nuclear plan unlawful, must be set aside

Some of the world&#8217;s biggest economies won&#8217;t attend high-level negotiations aimed at banning nuclear weapons — an indicator that global denuclearization remains a distant dream.
<div class="group-container ">
<div class="group">
The United Nations (UN) kicks off a five-day conference in New York on Monday to discuss such a ban in what many political commentators have called a milestone event. But visibly absent will be Security Council members <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/united-states/" target="_self">U.S</a>., <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/united-kingdom/" target="_self">U.K.</a>, <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/canada/" target="_self">Canada</a>, <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/france/" target="_self">France</a>, <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/russia/" target="_self">Russia</a>, and <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/china/" target="_self">China</a>, who don&#8217;t believe in the prohibition of weapons. <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/australia/" target="_self">Australia</a>, <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/germany/" target="_self">Germany</a>, <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/japan/" target="_self">Japan</a>, <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/norway/" target="_self">Norway</a>, and <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/south-korea/" target="_self">South Korea</a> also don&#8217;t support the measure. <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/north-korea/" target="_self">North Korea</a>, which recently defended its right to nuclear arms following a series of <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/21/reports-of-north-korea-launched-missile.html" target="_self">recent ballistic missile launches</a>, will also be absconding from this week&#8217;s discussions.
Excluding Pyongyang, the decision to shun talks drew international criticism as it clashed with each government&#8217;s obligations to a non-proliferation treaty that&#8217;s been in force since 1970. Known as the NPT, the agreement is focused on curbing the spread of nukes with complete disarmament as its end goal.
<blockquote>&#8220;Given the dangers arising from a lack of cooperation on nuclear security issues and the <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/2016/12/23/trump-to-putin-lets-have-a-nuclear-arms-race.html" target="_self">potential emergence of a new arms race</a> between the nuclear powers, principled and engaged leadership from nuclear-weapon states is sorely needed,&#8221; said UNA-UK, a London based nonprofit that conducts independent analysis on the UN, in a recent statement.</blockquote>
Washington believes an outright weapons ban would be &#8220;fundamentally at odds with NATO&#8217;s basic policies on nuclear deterrence,&#8221; as it outlined in an October letter to NATO members. Deterrence, or the threat of nuclear retaliation to avert enemy attack, has been a staple of international security policy since the Cold War.
Instead, a gradual reduction of nuclear forces remains the only path to eventual disarmament, the U.S. stipulates.
</div>
</div>
<div class="group-container ">
<h4 class="subtitle">Underlying reasons</h4>
<div class="group">
Global hesitation to ban nukes stems from a multitude of factors.
Historically, Western countries have been at the forefront of the nuclear disarmament initiative but currently, many governments prefer to enjoy the protection of the U.S. nuclear umbrella, John Park, director of the Korea Working Group at the Belfer Center, Harvard University, told CNBC on Monday.
Washington, whose <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/2017/03/07/why-modernizing-us-nuclear-arsenal-may-find-more-bipartisan-support.html" target="_self">nuclear arsenal of 6800 warheads</a> is second to Russia&#8217;s 7000, according to the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), has long guaranteed to defend its non-nuclear allies, which include Japan and South Korea.
While this runs directly counter to denuclearization efforts, <a href="http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/11/us-says-might-not-shoot-down-north-korean-icbm-eying-intel.html" target="_self">expectations for Pyongyang to launch an inter-continental ballistic missile</a> has made the world increasingly reliant on the American umbrella, Park explained.
As a result, Park believes denuclearization is an increasingly remote option, warning that global priority will shift to non-proliferation by default.
Internal bickering among NPT signatories is another issue.
&#8220;The broad decision of nuclear-weapon states not to engage with this disarmament movement is a symptom of deteriorating relations between the nuclear haves and have nots,&#8221; said UNA-UK.
According to the NPT, non-nuclear signatories are prohibited from developing nuclear weapons while nuclear-armed countries committed to a process of disarmament.
&#8220;But with little visible appetite for disarmament from nuclear-weapon states, this bargain is increasingly called into question,&#8221; warned UNA-UK. Dissatisfaction with the slow pace of disarmament have thus resulted in tension between states, it added.
</div>
</div>

Denuclearization a pipe dream? UN holds talks to ban nukes, but major powers don’t show up

South African power utility Eskom will this week issue a request for proposals to add 9,600 megawatts of nuclear power to the national grid, acting chief executive Matshela Koko said on Tuesday.
Koko was speaking to reporters on the sidelines of a court case in Cape Town where environmentalists and clean energy activists are challenging government&#8217;s decision to add nuclear to its energy mix.﻿

S.Africa's Eskom to invite bidders for nuclear power fleet this week

French state-controlled utility EDF is ready to take part in a tender offer for nuclear plants in South Africa, an EDF official said on Wednesday. 
South Africa wants to build 9.6 gigawatts of nuclear power capacity by 2030, but the government has delayed tendering for new nuclear power stations after requests for consultation and discussions made it impossible to start the process by the end of September as initially planned.
&#8220;We are ready to take part in the tender,&#8221; Simone Rossi, head of EDF&#8217;s international division, told reporters at a presentation of the utility&#8217;s projects in Africa.
South African utility Eskom operates two French-built pressurised water nuclear reactors that generate about five percent of the country&#8217;s electricity. They were commissioned in 1984-85 and each have a capacity of more than 900 megawatts.﻿

French utility to take part in tender for S.A nuclear

Nuclear power generation is not the most cost-effective option for South Africa&#8217;s energy future, Business Day reported on Thursday, citing a report by a team of advisors to the energy minister.
South Africa has earmarked atomic expansion as a key part of raising its power generation but the price tag of up to 1 trillion rand ($74 billion) for 9.6 gigawatts of nuclear power has raised concerns over whether the plan is affordable.
The ministerial advisory committee on energy was set up by energy minister Tina Joemat-Pettersson to analyse the draft blueprint, or Integrated Resource Plan (IRP), on future energy generation.
&#8220;A least-cost effective IRP model, free of any artificial constraints and before any policy adjustments, does not include any new nuclear power generators,&#8221; Business Day quoted the report as saying.
The spokeswoman for the energy department Thandiwe Maimane did not respond to three phone call requests for comment.
The energy minister has said that Africa&#8217;s most indistrialised country will delay tendering for new nuclear power stations after requests for consultation and discussion made it impossible to start the process by the end of September as initially planned.﻿

Nuclear energy not for South Africa – report

Activist groups are challenging a plan by South Africa&#8217;s government to expand the country&#8217;s nuclear power generation capacity on the grounds that the process was unconstitutional.
Africa&#8217;s most industrialised country has earmarked nuclear expansion as a key part of increasing its power generation but the price tag of up to 1 trillion rand ($74 billion) for 9.6 gigawatts of nuclear power expected to be operational by 2030 has raised concerns over whether the plan is affordable.
Fears the nuclear project could be the most expensive procurement in South Africa&#8217;s history, and that decisions could be made behind closed doors without the necessary public scrutiny, have been raised by opposition parties and environmentalists.
Earthlife Africa Johannesburg and the Southern African Faith Communities Environment Institute said in a statement that the High Court in Cape Town would hear their case on Dec. 13 and 14 this year to block the nuclear power expansion.
&#8220;We are very pleased that the court understands the urgency of this matter at a critical stage in South Africa&#8217;s energy decision-making process,&#8221; said Liz McDaid, a spokeswoman for the activists.
Communications officials at the energy department were not available to comment.
The energy minister has said the government will issue requests for proposals on the new nuclear fleet on Sept. 30, amid concerns the costs will be prohibitive as the country tries to cut its heavy dependence on coal-fired plants.
($1 = 13.5915 rand)
 
(Reporting by Wendell Roelf; Editing by James Macharia)﻿
<div></div>

nuclear

Why we need African leadership to end the threat of nuclear weapons

Why nuclear power for African countries doesn’t make sense

Why SA shouldn’t be too quick to drop nuclear from its energy mix – experts

South Africa’s Eskom cannot commit to nuclear expansion: acting CFO

Op-Ed: Zuma’s allies are once again gung-ho about nuclear. Will they get their way?

SA’s nuclear future

Moammar Gadhafi may explain Kim Jong Un’s nuclear ambitions

South Africa committed to nuclear power expansion, process to be open: Zuma

S.Africa aims to choose company for nuclear project by year-end

White House 2018 budget proposal is out, and it slashes the social safety net

S.A government may appeal court ruling on Russia nuclear pact

S.A court rules nuclear plan unlawful, must be set aside

Denuclearization a pipe dream? UN holds talks to ban nukes, but major powers don’t show up

S.Africa's Eskom to invite bidders for nuclear power fleet this week

French utility to take part in tender for S.A nuclear

Nuclear energy not for South Africa – report

Activists seek court ruling to bar S.A's plan to expand nuclear power

News Tips

Advertise With Us

nuclear

Why we need African leadership to end the threat of nuclear weapons

Why nuclear power for African countries doesn’t make sense

Why SA shouldn’t be too quick to drop nuclear from its energy mix – experts

South Africa’s Eskom cannot commit to nuclear expansion: acting CFO

Op-Ed: Zuma’s allies are once again gung-ho about nuclear. Will they get their way?

SA’s nuclear future

Moammar Gadhafi may explain Kim Jong Un’s nuclear ambitions

South Africa committed to nuclear power expansion, process to be open: Zuma

S.Africa aims to choose company for nuclear project by year-end

White House 2018 budget proposal is out, and it slashes the social safety net

S.A government may appeal court ruling on Russia nuclear pact

S.A court rules nuclear plan unlawful, must be set aside

Denuclearization a pipe dream? UN holds talks to ban nukes, but major powers don’t show up

S.Africa's Eskom to invite bidders for nuclear power fleet this week

French utility to take part in tender for S.A nuclear

Nuclear energy not for South Africa – report

Activists seek court ruling to bar S.A's plan to expand nuclear power

News Tips

Advertise With Us

Newsletters