Artículo No. 31 Al Qaeda: Pawns of CIA Insurrection from Libya to Yemen By Webster G. Tarpley, Ph.D.

April 04, 2011 "Information Clearing House" -- After two weeks of imperialist attack, Libya is being mangled by Al Qaeda terrorists, civil war, NATO air raids, cruise missiles, Predator drones, and C-130 gunships – all made possible by the CIA-backed Al Qaeda rebels ofCyrenaica. US, British, French, and Dutch commandos have taken leadership of the rebel forces, and are arming them with modern weapons in flagrant violation of the arms embargo specified in UN Security Council resolution 1973. Al Qaeda is also stealing heavy weapons on its own, as the president of Chad has reported. The singing tomorrows of the fatuous US-UK color revolution rhetoric have dissolved, exposing the hideous reality of a brutal, cynical, imperialist drive to destroy the modern nation-state itself.

Rebel Triumvirate of Terror Rules Darna

According to the London Daily Telegraph of March 26, Darna (also transliterated as Derna orDarnah), a key city in the rebel heartland between Benghazi in Tobruk, is commanded by al-Hasidi, an Al Qaeda terrorist controller who trained and hobnobbed with Osama bin Laden at the Khost terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. Hasidi boasts of having sent 25 fighters to fight US andNATO forces in Afghanistan; one wonders how many they managed to kill.Hasidi was a USprisoner of war after being captured by the Pakistanis, but tells the Wall Street Journal of April 2 that he now hates the US only “less than 50%” hinting that Americans can redeem themselves by appeasing Al Qaeda with arms, money, political power, and diplomatic support. At his side in the city leadership is Sufian bin Kumu, Osamabin Laden’s chauffeur, another terrorist who was an inmate at Guantánamo Bay for six years. Also among the Darna city fathers is al-Barrani, a devoted member of the Libyan Islamic Fighting Group, which merged with Al Qaeda in 2007.

This gaggle of fanatics, psychotics, and criminals is billed by the CIA media as an effective ruling elite for the future democratic governance of Libya. In reality, the Benghazi rebel council, heavily larded with Al Qaeda terrorists, could only preside over the descent of the country into a chaos of tribalism, warlords, and criminal syndicates which would spell the end of civilization itself in the area. Precisely this appears to be the goal of US policy, and not just in Libya.

Darna, Northeast Libya: the World Capital of Terrorist Recruitment

Nor are these persons atypical. A December 2007 study by the US Military Academy at West Point showed that Libya (population 7 million) provided 20% of all Al Qaeda fighters crossing the Syrian border into Iraq at that time. This same city of Darna (population about 60,000) was the single greatest center of terrorist recruitment anywhere in the world, edging outRiyadh, Saudi Arabia (population 4.5 million); the rebel capital of Benghazi also placed in the top four. Libya sent twice as many terrorists into Iraq per capita as did Saudi Arabia, and 85% of the Libyans who indicated a specialty chose that of suicide bomber.

The London Economist, BBC Newsnight, and an increasing number of pro-Obama warmongerquackademics are attempting to obscure these plain facts. These are now mellow, pluralist, democratic terrorists, they argue. The CIA limited hangout operation known as Wikileakshas helpfully provided a few doctored cables purporting to show that it was really US support of Qaddafi that drove these fanatics into despair and terrorism — which is also part of the CIA line. On April 1, the Benghazi rebels themselves used the media presence at Friday prayers to hold up signs denying that the rebellion is run by Al Qaeda. If so, let them oust the terror triumvirate of Darna, and reveal the names of the dozen or more anonymous members of the rebel council who are suspected of belonging to Al Qaeda.

Hillary Clinton concedes she has no “100% insight” into the rebels, and US Admiral Stavridis,theNATO commander, has told the Senate Armed Services Committee that he sees only “flickers” ofAl Qaeda. In truth, the central role of Al Qaeda is no flicker, but is as bright as the noonday sun over the Mediterranean

Four Plagues of Libya

The Libyan insurrection has four components. The first is provided by the British, and consists of the monarchist and racist Harabi and Obeidat tribes of the Benghazi-Darna-Tobruk corridor, whose traditional culture is that of the obscurantist Senussi Order. During the resistance to Italian colonialism, these tribes allied with the British and were rewarded by seeing the head of the Senussi Order placed on the throne in the person of King Idris I, overthrown by Qaddafi in 1968. Deprived of their role as the monarchist ruling class, these tribes hate the black or dark-skinned pro-Qaddafi Fezzan tribes of southwest Libya, and this has fed into the lynching and massacre of many black Africans from Chad, Mali, and Sudan working in Libya, which the western media have ignored. Enan Obeidi, the woman who claims she was raped by Qaddafi forces, is an Obeidat fromBenghazi, and this puts her story into question. For the media, she is a new edition of the Kuwait incubatorbabies hoax of 1990, made to order to whip up war hysteria against Qaddafi.

Two ingredients come from the CIA. These are Al Qaeda itself, founded as the CIA’s own Arab Legion against the USSR by then CIA deputy director Robert Gates – the current Defense Secretary– in Afghanistan in 1981-82. Another CIA ingredient is the Libyan National Salvation Front, based first in Sudan and then in Northern Virginia, which is supposedly sending the CIA asset Khalifa Hifter to lead the rebel military, most likely also to cover the presence of the Al Qaedatypes.

A fourth component is contributed by the French, who arranged the defection of top Qaddafi associate Nouri Mesmari last fall, as reported by Maghreb Confidential. A clique of generals around Mesmari helped foment the military mutinies against Qaddafi in northeast Libya.

And Libya is not unique. In Yemen, Al Qaeda operatives are decisive components of the CIAputsch attempt against President Saleh, which US is promoting in order to fragment Yemen into two or more rump states. Here the Al Qaeda leader is al-Shihri, a Saudi who was freed along with several other Guantánamo inmates and sent to Yemen by the Bush administration, allegedly as a humanitarian gesture, but in reality to provide leadership for the coming destabilization. Also inYemen is the American-born Anwar Awlaki, known in the trade as Awlaki the CIA lackey, an obvious US double agent who has been used to give the Al Qaeda seal of approval to dozens of terrorists including the Fort Dix six, Major Hasanof Fort Hood, and Mutallab of Nigeria, the Christmas 2009 underwear bomber.

In Syria, the CIA goal is to deprive Iran of an ally, to isolate Hezbollah, to oust Russia from the Tartus naval station, and to build the power of the Muslim Brotherhood, which is the principal force promoting the insurrection so far.

Demand that the State Department Explain Why the US is Arming Al Qaeda Terrorists

Turkish Prime Minister Erdogan has rightly warned against the NATO policy of arming the Libyan rebels, since this would be “conducive to terrorism.” Russian Foreign Minister Lavrovhas also condemned any NATO arming of the rebels. Pope Benedict XVI’s call for a cease-fire goes in the same direction. Russia, Turkey, China, and other governments must now formally demand explanations from the State Department as to why the US is providing the most dangerous international terrorists with modern weapons and training, while proposing to award them large chunks of the $32 billion of frozen Libyan government assets, plus a share in coming oil revenues. This is enough to make the Mediterranean, the Arab world, and southern Europe boil over with refugees, piracy, mayhem, and war.

Under Bush and Cheney, the alleged presence of Al Qaeda was used as a pretext for bombings and invasions. Under Obama, an overstretched and moribund US-UK imperialism is using Al Qaeda as its own irregular infantry in the effort to harass and cripple the nation-states of the world, causing them to disintegrate into a tribal, sectarian, criminal, and warlord chaos. In the current phase, Al Qaeda has resumed its original status as CIA guerrillas. As a result, civilization itself is threatened across vast areas of the globe. If you are skeptical, just take a look at the city council of Darna,Libya.

Artículo No. 30. Asia times 6.4.11 Arab revolts hand it to Hezbollah By Chris Zambelis

As the surge of revolutionary fervor that has taken the greater Middle East by storm continues to spread, many observers are grappling with the political uncertainties the tumult has produced from Morocco to the Persian Gulf and beyond.

The popular uprisings that prompted the ouster of the dictatorships in Tunisia and Egyptand threaten the panoply of authoritarian despots clinging to power in other countries have already had a profound effect on regional politics. Despite their highly fluid nature, it is not too early to assess the impact of these events on the position of prominent actors such asLebanon's Hezbollah.

The movement's place amid the unfolding unrest bears special relevance, considering the open hostility that has characterized its relations with the recently toppled Hosni Mubarak regime and other governments threatened by the wave of protest. The popularity Hezbollah enjoys among a large segment of the very same people who have taken to the streets to demand political freedoms, rule of law, representative government and economic opportunities adds another dynamic worth closer examination.

Solidarity in resistance
Having weathered the massive Israeli assault during the July 2006 war and deftly outmaneuvering attempts by political opponents to undermine its position and blame it for the February 2005 assassination of Lebanese prime minister Rafik Hariri, Hezbollah's stock as a political party, social movement and paramilitary force in Lebanese and regional affairs continues to rise.

In characteristic fashion, Hezbollah has not been coy about articulating its positions on the uprisings that have shaken the foundations of power in the Middle East in various media outlets, particularly its own Beirut-based al-Manar satellite television network. [1]

Initially, however, Hezbollah adopted a cautious approach to the opposition activism that engulfed Tunisia and Egypt. Hezbollah was concerned that a show of support for the protests early on would tarnish their legitimacy and lend credence to allegations repeated by the embattled regimes that the protesters were acting at the behest of hostile foreign elements aiming to destabilize the region.

Hezbollah essentially opted to refrain from issuing an endorsement of the protests until the popular grassroots character of the rebellions entered into the discourse of global media coverage and analysis. Hezbollah's secretary general Hassan Nasrallah encapsulated this point in a statement broadcast during a February 7 event in Beirut organized to support the opposition in Egypt: "In case we announced solidarity earlier, they would have said that the revolution was motivated by Hezbollah or Hamas cells or even by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards. Then, this real, original and patriotic movement would be accused of serving a foreign agenda".

Hezbollah has since expressed solidarity with what it sees as the assertion of the true will of the Arab and Muslim masses who strive for social, political, and economic justice in the face of illegitimate and corrupt autocracies that it claims are beholden to the United Statesand Israel.

In this regard, Hezbollah has framed the political activism taking place in the region through a larger resistance narrative analogous to the one it applies to its own circumstances, a theme echoed by Nasrallah in remarks directed at the Egyptian opposition: "Our belief says that what you're doing is very great and one of the very important turning points in the history of this nation and region. Your move and victory will change the whole face of our region to the interest of its peoples in general and especially Palestine."

The fall of the Mubarak regime, a long-time enemy of the group, has had special resonance for Hezbollah. In spite of its Shi'ite character, Hezbollah is very popular in predominantly Sunni Egypt for its resistance against Israel and support for the Palestinian cause, as demonstrated by the protests in Egypt and the Sunni-led Arab world in support of Hezbollah during the July 2006 war and the heroic status Nasrallah has enjoyed since.

Amid the chaos that accompanied Mubarak's ouster, Hezbollah managed under murky circumstances to free Muhammad Yusuf Mansour (aka Sami Shehab), a member of the group serving time in an Egyptian prison. Egyptian authorities convicted Mansour along with a host of others on espionage, weapons, and terrorism-related charges in 2010.

Egyptian authorities claimed, among other things, that Mansour was planning attacks on Egyptian soil. While Nasrallah acknowledged Mansour's membership in Hezbollah, he denied that his activities threatened Egypt; instead, Mansour was leading an effort to support the Palestinians in Gaza.

In a masterstroke of political theater that has become a signature of Hezbollah, Mansour appeared in person during the group's annual February 16 commemoration of its deceased leaders in the Dahiyeh, the southern suburbs of Beirut where Hezbollah enjoys tremendous support.

Speaking to jubilant crowds though a video feed broadcast on a large screen television,Nasrallah thanked Egyptians for freeing Mansour and highlighted the fact that the Mubarak's decision to step down on February 11 coincided with the anniversary of the 1979 victory of the Iranian revolution.

Expanding on his observations of the events in Tunisia and Egypt, Nasrallah's televised March 19 speech addressed the wider unrest experienced in Libya, Bahrain, and Yemen: "Our gathering today is to voice our support for our Arab people and their revolutions and sacrifices, especially in Tunisia, Egypt, Bahrain, Libya and Yemen. The value of this solidarity is moral, political, and ethical ... A great victory was achieved in Egypt andTunisia. Libya entered civil war, and in Bahrain and Yemen the regimes put their own peoples on the brink of civil war."

Nasrallah singled out Libyan leader Muammar Gaddafi over the disappearance of Imam Musa Sadr, the Iranian-born founder of the Afwaj al-Muqawama al-Lubnaniya (AMAL - Lebanese Resistance Detachments) movement and a major figure among Shi'ite in Lebanonand other parts of the Middle East.

Sadr is credited with helping galvanize Lebanon's Shi'ite community to assert themselves in Lebanese politics and society. Sadr went missing under mysterious circumstances along with two others during a visit to Tripoli in 1978 and is widely believed to have been executed by Libya. However, some claim that he is still being held in captivity, a view repeated by Nasrallah amid the current conflict in Libya: "We are looking forward to the day when Sadr can be liberated from this dictatorial tyrant."

Events in Bahrain, which hosts the US Navy's Fifth Fleet, have also not been lost on Hezbollah, especially the sectarian dynamics underlying the unrest, where a US and Saudi-backed Sunni monarchy led by King Hamad Ibn Issa al-Khalifa rules over a majority Shi'ite population that is largely underserved and faces widespread discrimination in daily life.
Commenting on the regime's decision to crack down violently on the peaceful demonstrators and Saudi Arabia's decision to send troops to back its ally, Nasrallah declared:

The regime in Bahrain was not threatened and the resistance was peaceful, yet the army was used against it. This is a first. We heard that some arrested opposition leaders had their houses demolished. This is Israeli style ... I ask some in the Arab and Islamic world who are remaining silent about the injustice that our brothers in Bahrain are facing: Why stay silent about these peaceful protests or condemn their movements? Is it because they are Shi'ite? If someone in a country belonged to a certain sect, should he be relieved of his human rights? ... No one asked about the religion or sect of the Palestinian, Egyptian, Tunisian or Libyan people.

The push to topple President Ali Abdullah Saleh of Yemen alsodrew a response from Nasrallah:

In Yemen there are many complications, but no doubt that we absolutely cannot be silent about the murder and crimes that are occurring. We salute the resistance of the Yemeni people and their commitment to the peacefulness of their movement.

Geopolitical considerations
Rhetoric aside, Hezbollah's support for the rush of opposition movements stems from calculated pragmatism; the course of events that is redefining the Middle East, upending the regional status quo, is shaping up in Hezbollah's favor. As a member of the so-called "Resistance Axis", a bloc composed of Iran, Syria and Hamas that stands in opposition to the US-led order made up of Israel and friendly Arab autocracies such as Saudi Arabia, it is easy to see why Hezbollah (and its allies) gained by the current unrest, a point not lost onNasrallah: "Israel today is wailing over the loss of its last strategic ally in the region [ie Egypt] after it lost the shah in Iran in 1979 and after it lost to a great degree Turkey due to its aggression on Lebanon and Gaza, its murderous policies and its crimes against the Freedom Fleet [ie the Gaza Freedom Flotilla]."

Hezbollah is frequently cited as a threat by the sitting autocrats in the region, a threat that is often portrayed in sectarian terms: Hezbollah's Shi'ite character and alliance with Iran, in essence, represents a force for instability and radicalism. In reality, however, the threat posed by Hezbollah to the ruling regimes stems from its penchant for criticizing sitting governments and inspiring domestic opposition among those who tend to identify with Hezbollah over their own leaders, many of who are viewed as agents of the United Statesand Israel.

From its doctrinaire origins as an outpost of the Iranian revolution in the Levant, Hezbollah now boasts multiple, overlapping identities that speak to numerous audiences in Lebanonand beyond. As a political party, organic Lebanese organization and transnational Shi'ite Islamist movement, Hezbollah is at once a defender of all Lebanese - regardless of sect - and Lebanese sovereignty against Israel, an advocate for pan-Arab and Palestinian nationalist causes, and a force for social justice and resistance. This reality frightens the ruling regimes and is likely to be cause for continued concern.

Despite Israel's overwhelming military power, it is widely acknowledged that Hezbollah's impressive showing during the July 2006 war helped it achieve an effective deterrence capacity in relation to Israel. With a reputation for living up to its promises and exceeding expectations on the battlefield, it is also worth considering how the changing regional landscape will impact Hezbollah's strategies in a future war with Israel.

In this context, Nasrallah's suggestion that Hezbollah engage Israel on its own soil, specifically, in the northern Galilee region, warrants a closer look. During his February 16 speech, Nasrallah declared:

The major achievement of the resistance is that it complicated the possibility of Israeloccupying Lebanon. Even more, today, Israel is concerned that Hezbollah might liberateGalilee ... I tell the resistance fighters to be prepared for the day when war is imposed onLebanon. Then, the resistance leadership might ask you to lead the resistance to liberateGalilee.

Nasrallah's bold statement follows a series of threats that hint at the group's intention to dramatically escalate hostilities in any future conflict with Israel, such as its pledge to target Israel's Ben Gurion International Airport and major urban centers in central and southern Israel in retaliation for Israeli strikes on similar targets in Lebanon: "I say to the Israelis: if you attack Beirut's Rafik Hariri airport we will attack Ben Gurion airport in Tel Aviv."

Hezbollah has also demonstrated its ability over the years to infiltrate the Israeli security establishment through the successful recruitment of ranking Israeli military and intelligence officers). Given this track record, it is not out of the realm of possibility that Hezbollah will attempt to fight in some capacity in northern Israel in the next confrontation with its archenemy. The symbolism behind such a move would be profound.

While it is unlikely that Egypt will abrogate its commitment to the Camp David Accords in the near future, a major shift in Egyptian foreign policy down the line is not out of the question. Because popular opinion in Egypt and across the Middle East remains strongly opposed to Israel for its continued occupation of Palestinian land and the complicity of Arab regimes in this policy, such as the role played by the Mubarak regime and Palestinian Authority during Israel's 2008 invasion of Gaza, the possibility that Egypt will adopt a foreign policy posture that is more reflective of public opinion should not be ruled out.

While it is too early to count Egypt as a member of the "Resistance Axis", even a modest shift in Egyptian foreign policy away from its traditional pro-US and pro-Israel position would bolster Hezbollah in relation to Israel and its other opponents in the region. The weakening of the US-led alliance due to the ongoing protests in friendly autocracies and the simultaneous rise of more representative governments that will cater to public opinion will also continue to play to Hezbollah's advantage.

Conclusion
As the groundswell of domestic pressure continues to spread across the Middle East,Hezbollah's position is poised to improve. At the same time, the latest rumblings of dissent in Syria - a crucial Hezbollah ally - against the ruling Ba'ath regime demonstrates how the contagion of revolution sweeping the Middle East can also come back to haunt the group.

Some reports out of Syria indicate that protesters in Dera'a, a conservative and largely Sunni town located along Syria's southern border with Jordan, chanted anti-Hezbollah and anti-Iran slogans alongside calls for political reform.

Following in the footsteps of other regimes in the region, Syria has implicated outside agitators in the unrest. Until this point, Hezbollah has - not surprisingly - avoided addressing the developments in its longtime ally. However events play out in Syria, the broad trajectory of political change witnessed in the region to date has so far strengthened Hezbollah's hand.

Note
1. Footage of Al-Manar satellite television programming, as well as transcripts and official statements issued by Hezbollah, is available at the station's official websitewww.almanar.com.lb.

Chris Zambelis is an author and researcher with Helios Global, Inc, a risk management group based in the Washington, DC area. The opinions expressed here are the author's alone and do not necessarily reflect the position of Helios Global, Inc. 

Artículo No. 29. Nuclear Power in Europe after Fukushima: A Special Report · March 16, 2011 |

The 27 countries in the European Union derived 31 percent of their electricity needs and 14.6 of their primary energy consumption from nuclear power in 2010. In roughly the last eight years, there has been a considerable momentum on the Continent to boost that capacity. Countries that had halted the construction of new reactors (Germany and Sweden) or effectively abandoned nuclear power altogether (Italy and Poland) had been considering reversing their moratoriums, phase-outs and outright bans. Three factors spurred the momentum toward a nuclear Renaissance in Europe: Almost 25 years of accident-free nuclear industry since the Chernobyl disaster in 1986; technological improvements in the design of reactors; and a geopolitical impetus to wrestle the Continent from the grip of Russian energy exports following a number of politically motivated Russian natural gas cutoffs. There has also been a concerted push byEurope’s indigenous nuclear energy industry to open up the potential EU market of 400 million people for the sale of its latest generation of nuclear reactors. The March 11 9.0-magnitude Tohoku earthquake in Japan and its subsequent effect on the Fukushima Daiichi and Daini nuclear power plants has dampened — and even ended — enthusiasm for nuclear power in some European nations, however. The combination of the powerful earthquake and massive tsunami that hit Japan’s Pacific Coast where the two affected power plants were situated sparked the nuclear crisis in Japan. TheFukushima accident is still ongoing and developing. It is at this point assumed that the reactors in the nuclear plants in question were shut down immediately following the seismic activity, as they were designed to. The onsite backup generators that were supposed to cool down the core also shut down about an hour after the earthquake, however. The leading theory is that they were damaged by the subsequent tsunami. (click here to enlarge image) Europe is un likely to see an earthquake of similar proportions and even less likely to see a similar tsunami. Even so, a tradition of anti-nuclear industry activism in a number of European countries and contemporary political dynamics could engender a move against a European nuclear revival post-Fukushima. It is important to emphasize that not all European countries are similarly situated. France and Germany, for example, approach nuclear energy from diametrically opposed perspectives. In France, the nuclear power industry — and military capacity it spawned — for decades has been perceived as a guarantor of French independence and global relevance, whereas in Germany, nuclear power has negative connotations due to the country’s nearly 50-year status as the likely nuclear battlefield between the Cold War superpowers. Environmental movements accordingly have evolved along different lines, and national psyches approach nuclear power from starkly different perspectives. The European countries below are listed from most to least likely to see plans for nuclear projects altered in the wake of theFukushima accident. Germany Germany’s nuclear program was the first to be politically damaged by the Fukushima accident. German Chancellor Angela Merkel on March 14 put on hold for three months plans approved narrowly by the Bundestag in October 2010 to prolong the life of Germany’s 17 nuclear reactors by an average of 12 years, a decision that is still contested before the highest German constitutional court. On March 15, Merkel extended the German government response by stating that the nuclear reactors that began operating before 1980 would be shut down and remain so for the period of the announced three-month moratorium. The Isar 1 nuclear reactor in the city of Essenbach has begun preparation for a shutdown. Government officials in the state of Brandenburg and the city ofBerlin have also asked Poland to reconsider its plans for a nuclear revival. The decision by Berlin is not surprising to STRATFOR for two reasons: long-held anti-nuclear sentiment in the country that draws its roots in the country’s Cold War role and the contemporary political environment. The Cold War and the status of Germany as a pseudo-independent battleground between East and the West have had a profound impact on German sentiment toward nuclear power. Peace and Green movements that emerged from Europe’s 1968 student protests were grafted on to the reality in West Germany that the country lacked real say over its foreign policy and would most likely be first to face annihilation in a nuclear exchange between the two Cold War superpowers. Nuclear power — and the hosting of U.S. nuclear weapons in West Germany — became the ultimate symbol of Berlin’s subservience to U.S. interests. The 1979 Three Mile Island incident in the United States and the 1986 Chernobyldisaster in what was then the Soviet republic of Ukraine greatly reinforced this anti-nuclear sentiment. No reactors were built inGermany after Chernobyl. To this day, Germans remain far more skeptical of the benefits of nuclear technology — from food irradiation to nuclear power plants — than most Europeans. Strong environmentalist and anti-nuclear-weapon sentiment inGermany led to the emergence of Germany’s Green Party, which is one of the world’s most successful environmentalist parties in terms of actually getting into government. The Green Party negotiated the Nuclear Exit Law during its time in a governing coalition with the center-left Social Democratic Party (SPD) in 2000. The law called for all German nuclear reactors to be shut down by 2021. Merkel had to uphold the agreement when she entered a Grand Coalition with the SPD in 2005 but was vocal about the need to change it throughout the duration of her party’s uneasy marriage with the center-left. She ultimately got her way following September 2009 elections and the formation of a new coalition with the Free Democratic Party (FDP). The 12-year extension, however, has been largely unpopular inGermany. Polls have shown a consistent unease about nuclear power. The 2010 Eurobarometer study — which has standardized methodology across 27 EU member states and is therefore the only Continent-wide study we can rely on for an assessment of European attitudes toward nuclear power — shows 52 percent of respondents in Germany wanting the current level of nuclear power reliance reduced — by far the greatest percentage among major European countries. Considering that the study was conducted more than a year before the Fukushima accident, it is likely that the sentiments toward nuclear power have only turned more negative. Merkel has countered that nuclear reactors need to be extended to act as a “bridge” to renewable energy. Her opponents among the environmental and left wing parties have argued that the bridge argument is a pretext for the center-right to facilitate the development of new power plants in the future. (click here to enlarge image) The center-left argument may not be far from the truth. While Germany is indeed one of the global leaders in renewable energy — it derived about 16 percent of its electricity from renewable sources in 2009 — it is difficult to see how it would manage to replace the approximately 27 percent of electricity derived from nuclear power with renewable sources by 2035. Although studies show that it would be possible to accomplish that task, the shutting down of reactors according to the Nuclear Exit Law would have begun already in 2010, with four in total shut down by 2011. Replacing so much lost capacity on the front end with renewable sources would be difficult if not impossible. The alternative is turning to other conventional sources — namely Russian natural gas — to fill in the gap left by abandoning nuclear power. Despite Berlin’s generally positive relationship withMoscow, Germany does want to give Russia any more of an upper hand in its energy relationship. Germany already gets around 40 percent of its natural gas from Russia, a number that may very well increase with the coming online of the 55 billion-cubic-meter (bcm) Nordstream natural gas pipeline at the end of 2011. Merkel may therefore have gambled on the issue for the sake of German energy independence, calculating that popular sentiment would catch up to the geopolitical needs of the country at some point. This calculation has now backfired on Merkel. The German government already has suffered a blow to its popularity due toBerlin’s signing off on the eurozone bailouts of Greece and Irelandand Merkel’s insistence on defending the euro in perpetuity with a major 500 billion euro ($698 billion) bailout facility. There have been a number of other problems for Merkel’s CDU along the way, from general infighting of the coalition government to a number of high-profile resignations, namely that of President Horst Koehler, the forced resignation of Defense Minister Karl-Theodor zuGuttenberg, and the announced retirement of BundesbankPresident Axel Weber. Germany is set to hold seven state elections in 2011; the first on Feb. 20, held in the city-state of Hamburg, saw Merkel’s CDU defeated. Merkel’s policy of extending the life of current reactors has come at a very bad time, especially with a critical state, Baden-Wuerttemberg, holding elections March 27. Baden-Wuerttemberg is home to Stuttgart, one of Germany’s most important industrial centers, has the third-largest GDP and population and is considered a conservative stronghold that the CDU has ruled since 1953. It is also the site of four major reactors — and the site of a March 12 protest of nearly 50,000 against the extension of nuclear power that was planned before theFukushima accident. The situation for Merkel’s CDU in the state is very serious, perhaps prompting the CDU Baden-Wuerttembergenvironment minister to say in an interview March 14 that the two oldest reactors in the state could be closed down in 2011 if Merkel continues the moratorium, likely a move to improve the CDU’selectoral chances two weeks before the election. Merkel is likely positioning the three-month suspension on extending the life of reactors due to the upcoming state elections in Saxony-Anhalt on March 20 and in Baden-Wuerttemberg and Rhineland-Palatine on March 27, buying time until the Fukushima accident blows over — though it is unclear if or when that will happen. Furthermore, with sentiment against nuclear power inGermany ever strong, and now resurging, the industry’s future inGermany looks very grim. The wider question is what will happen to Merkel’s CDU if the accident leads to a loss of Baden-Wuerttemberg. Such a loss would bring back memories of the SPD’s loss of its traditional power base of North-Rhine Westphalia in 2005, a loss that ultimately forced Gerhard Schroeder to call early federal elections leading the way for Merkel to assume power. Political instability in Germany at a time when the eurozone crisis is ongoing would have ramifications far beyond just the nuclear industry. While ultimately the alternative to CDU — an SPD-Green government — would have a policy toward Europe not much different from Merkel’s, the election campaign in the midst of the ongoing European economic troubles would have the potential to cause uncertainty. Stakes in Germany are therefore larger than just for the future of nuclear industry, but the future for nuclear power certainly does not look good in the EU’slargest economy and country. Italy Italy was one of the first European countries to build nuclear reactors for power generation. Unlike the rest of Europe, it did not feel impelled to commit itself to nuclear power after the 1973 oil shocks due to its relatively plentiful natural gas deposits, which at the end of 1988 stood at 330 bcm. In 1988, Italy’s domestic natural gas production was able to satisfy about 40 percent of its natural gas consumption, but by 2008 that percent has dwindled to just less than 11 percent. Because of the decision not to build any nuclear power plants in the window between 1973 and 1979 (prior to the Three Mile Island incident), before the public opinion in Europe soured on nuclear power, Italy now finds itself importing around 14 percent of its electricity needs from abroad and in absolute terms is one of the largest electricity importers in the world. Its large electricity imports mean Italy has higher electricity costs than most of its European neighbors. A high reliance on natural gas for electricity generation also means a high reliance on natural gas imports. While Germanyimported in 2008 more natural gas from Russia (36.2 bcm) thanItaly (24.5 bcm), Italy is far more dependent on natural gas for electricity generation than Germany (54 percent compared to only around 18 percent, respectively). It imports 29 percent of its natural gas needs from Russia, a number likely to rise in 2011 due to the interruption of Libya’s exports to Italy via the Greenstreamunderwater pipeline. This means that Italy not only imports electricity directly from its neighbors — most actually comes from French nuclear power plants — it also imports the bulk of the natural gas used to generate electricity from its natural gas-burning power plants. The unrest in North Africa has highlighted the danger of relying on energy imports from unstable regimes likeLibya. (click here to enlarge image) All this makes Italy the European country most in need of nuclear energy, but the anti-nuclear movement in Italy has long been active and powerful, and it became stronger following Three Mile Island and Chernobyl. In the 2010 Eurobarometer survey, 62 percent of Italians wanted to see Italy — which generates no electricity from nuclear power — either reduce or retain the same level of electricity generation from nuclear power. The center-right government of Silvio Berlusconi — which is becoming increasingly unpopular due to a number of scandals and ongoing economic troubles — could now see the opposition use its May 2009 decision to reverse the ban on nuclear power to rally disparate forces against the government. While enthusiasm for the center-left Italian parties is not high, nuclear power is a clear issue that people can identify with and rally around, allowing the center-left to mobilize against Berlusconi. Furthermore, unlike most of their West European brethren, anti-nuclear activists inItaly can point to regular seismic activity in their country, particularly in Italy’s south as a reason to take the Fukushimaaccident seriously. Moreover, the Italian Constitutional Court ruled in favor of the opposition’s call for a referendum on construction of nuclear power plants in January, which means that a referendum on the question will now likely be held between April and June. Popular angst against Berlusconi’s government combined with theFukushima accident could spell an end to the nuclear revival inItaly when the referendum is held in mid-2011. United Kingdom There has been a consensus in the United Kingdom among the center-left Labour party and center-right Conservative party that a return to nuclear power is necessary for British energy independence. Like the government under former Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown, the current government favors building new nuclear reactors, and it wants to build around 10 new reactors by 2020. Following the Fukushima accident, British Energy and Climate Change Secretary Chris Huhne ordered an official investigation to determine what London can learn from the Japanese nuclear crisis on March 14. The United Kingdom only derives 18 percent of its energy from nuclear power, with one reactor built since the Chernobyl disaster. This is in large part due to considerable public opposition to nuclear power. Anti-nuclear protesters in the United Kingdom are among the most active in Europe, and are notorious for at times using militant tactics. The Fukushima disaster could rally nuclear opponents once again. The current junior coalition member, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP), has traditionally been skeptical of nuclear power and has had to mute its traditional views to become part of the governing coalition with the Conservatives. Thus far, the LDP lawmakers have remained silent on the issue and have not opposed the coalition consensus, but this could change if the Fukushima accident begins to resonate with the public. The LDP already has suffered a loss in popularity for working with the Conservatives on a number of issues, and it may not be able to avoid an argument with its senior coalition partner if it wants to hold on to some semblance of its electoral base. For London, the issue ultimately is one of energy independence. British reserves of North Sea natural gas — which in 2008 supplied the United Kingdom with 45 percent of its electricity generation — are dwindling, going from 760 bcm at the end of 1998 to 340 bcmat the end of 2008. The United Kingdom will increasingly have to rely on imports from Norway to satisfy its natural gas needs. Nonetheless, importing natural gas from Norway is far different than importing it from Russia, which means that nuclear energy is less of a national security issue for the United Kingdom than it may be for other European countries. This means that the United Kingdom has alternatives to nuclear power, which casts the fate of the nuclear industry in the United Kingdom into doubt. Despite the strong interparty consensus on the issue, therefore, the United Kingdom remains a country where public opinion — and anti-nuclear energy activists — will have to be monitored carefully to gauge which way the country will go following the Fukushima incident. Sweden The Swedish center-right government of Prime Minister FredrikReinfeldt reversed a 1980 ban on nuclear power by a 174-172 vote in June 2010 following the Three Mile Island incident. At the time, it was feared that the ban reversal would be short-lived, as national elections were scheduled for September 2010 andReinfeldt’s center-right coalition’s future was uncertain. ButReinfeldt stayed in power, albeit in a minority government. On the question of nuclear power, the government has the support of the far-right Sweden Democrats. Therefore, the lifting of the ban is, for the time being, secure. Reinfeldt said in an interview March 13 that there would be no review and that the “decision still stands.” Unlike most European countries, Sweden actually had an independent nuclear weapons program in the 1950s. Given its proximity to Germany and Russia, Stockholm pursued a policy of neutrality backed by an aggressive military posture and a domestic military industrial complex. Its reactor at Agesta, now closed down, was widely believed to be created to produce weapons-grade plutonium. For Stockholm, nuclear power was seen as the ultimate guarantor of safety, even though it officially abandoned its weapons program. Nuclear power, therefore, does not carry the negative associations in Sweden as it does inGermany. Sweden produces roughly all its electricity from nuclear power and hydropower equally. The problem for Stockholm is that its hydropower capacity has largely been tapped out, and the country has produced roughly the same amount of electricity since its last nuclear reactor came online in 1985. To boost electricity production, the country would either have to import electricity — probably from Finnish nuclear power plants — or natural gas fromNorway or Russia. The government, however, has made it clear that it does not want to boost the use of greenhouse gases, an issue for which it has the support of environmental groups. The strong support of nuclear power by a government that was just elected — a government that is committed to reducing its reliance on greenhouse gases — means Stockholm is likely to stick to its decision to revive its nuclear industry, at least while the current minority government holds power. Moreover,Stockholm can increase the capacity of current reactors via improvements on the current plants and still make a considerable impact on its electricity output. Therefore, it can avoid the controversial issue of building new plants on new sites. Poland The Polish government only recently announced its decision to create a legal framework for building nuclear power reactors. Thedecision was made in February and will likely be voted on by the parliament in June. Support for nuclear power is strong in Poland, with data from the 2010 Eurobarometer survey indicating that 30 percent of respondents wanted an increased use of nuclear power, the highest results in the European Union. With nearly 40 million people and Central Europe’s largest economy (the European Union’s eighth largest), Polish entry into the nuclear club is significant. Poland never had a need for nuclear power plants because its plentiful coal deposits have always provided it with ample supply of domestic fuel for electricity generation. To this day, coal provides 94 percent of Poland’s electricity. The Soviet Unionplanned to construct a nuclear power plant in Poland, but the plans were abandoned in 1990 due to a combination of lack of necessity, environmental fears post Chernobyl and general anti-Soviet sentiment. The Polish public essentially saw nuclear power as part and parcel of Soviet domination, and the half-completedZarnowiec plant was scrapped after half a billion dollars had been spent on construction. Today, however, nuclear power is seen as a way to escape dependence on Russian natural gas exports. With the European Union pushing curbs on greenhouse gases, Poland’s over-dependence on coal is seen as a potential liability. Poland is therefore looking for alternatives in shale gas exploration, liquefied natural gas and, now, nuclear power. Until these alternatives are in place, Poland will have to increase its dependence on piped Russian natural gas as it builds at least three new natural gas power plants, one of which is planned to be built jointly with Russia’s Gazprom by 2017.