Rethinking Nuclear Energy and Democracy after 09/11
It is for me a great honour and pleasure to chair this session that concerns the decision making process of nuclear policy.
Let me start by explaining to you the position I take on nuclear policy.
In January 1997, when I was ambassador in Switzerland, I sent out a
personal message to Japanese leaders, pleading for organising a
simulation of a nuclear accident, as was done in Switzerland a few
months earlier. In doing so, I broke a sort of taboo, because in Japan,
there is a peculiar atmosphere that makes you think that referring to
nuclear dangers that insinuates an anti-nuclear attitude is to be
avoided in order not to invite serious troubles and disadvantages. Two
months later, a reprocessing plant in Tokaimura exploded. And again a
year and a half later, at the JCO uranium processing plant in the same
village, a single milligram of uranium 235 reached critical mass due to
improper handling, and a serious accident took place, as you all know.
Since my retirement two and a half years ago, I have been arguing in
Japan and abroad for the denuclearisation of the globe, based on a
total ban on the use - be it military or civil of nuclear energy.
When I presented the same argument at the Silver Jubilee Conference of
the Tata Energy Research Institute in India two years ago, former US
Secretary of Defence Mr. Robert McNamara, who was present at the
Conference ardently appealed for an earliest possible total ban on
nuclear armament, stressing the high risk of human errors leading to
catastrophic accidents. September 11 terrorist attacks, the accident
caused by a US nuclear submarine sinking a Japanese training ship in
the Pacific Ocean and the collision between a Chinese and an American
warplane over the Taiwan Straits, all seem to justify these arguments.
Nowonder the Congress of the State of New York unanimously dicided to
start examining the possibility of closing down the Indianpoint nuclear
plant on march 19 this year.
As for the actual nuclear policy of Japan, I must say that Japan has
not learned lessons from many serious accidents and pursue the same
policy of promoting nuclear energy. I think it is a great irony that
Japan, the only victim of atomic bombs, is doing this. With 53 nuclear
plants, Japan has become most vulnerable from the viewpoint of national
security.
I published a book a year ago. The title is A Plea for a New
Civilization Dedicated to future generations. In this book, I
pointed out that Japan, the victim of the military use of nuclear
energy, is treading the path toward becoming the victim of the civil
use of nuclear energy. I first used the term the sickness of Japan in
this book to explain this peculiar phenomenon.
I pleaded for a new civilization, based on ethics and solidarity that
respects the environment and the interests of future generations. Such
a new civilization calls for a conversion from material to the more
spiritual priorities, and brings about a less energy consuming
society.
I am publishing my second book from the ASAHI Newspaper in a month or
so. The title of the book is Nuclear Energy and the Sickness of
Japan. I point out that this sickness is the outcome of a lack of
three senses. That is, the sense of responsibility, the sense of
justice and the sense of ethics.
The world is also suffering from this sickness, if to a lesser degree.
I attribute all this to a lack of sensibility which is the source of
compassion and imagination.
I further ague that nuclear energy and the sickness of Japan could
destroy the world, and I cite, in particular, two cases. The first
concerns 4 nuclear plants in Hamaoka, built at the very center of an
area where an magnitude 8 class earthquake is predicted by an official
organ. The second concerns the reprocessing plant in Rokkashomura ,
Aomori prefecture, where radioactive waste materials equivalent to one
million Hiroshima atomic bombs are to be accumulated.
When it should come to the worst, the damages could by far surpass
those suffered in the last war. Nevertheless , the awareness of this
horrible danger is totally lacking in the Japanese society, due to a
self-restraint tacitly imposed on reporting the subject. This reminds
us of the athmospere that existed in Japan prior to the last War. In
this book, I call for the immediate closing down of Hamaoka nuclear
reactors. I am now preparing a statement on this subject to be issued
shortly in order to awaken the public opinion with the participation of
some famous, influential personalities.
The nuclear policy of Japan, contributed for some time to coping which
the shortage of energy resources. But after witnessing the fatal
pitfalls of giant technology, more and more people recognize the
necessity to change it. Japan, however, still faces unimaginable
dangers emanating from the difficulty for her nuclear policy to change
course.
In recent years, I sent out on numerous occasions, personal messages to
leaders, in order to warn them against nuclear dangers. In view of the
disappointing results, I have come to the conclusion that changing
course in nuclear policy requires the involvement of civil society.
Fortunately, I have recently been offered support from several civil
groups. They encouraged me to issue the above mentioned statement on
Hamaoka nuclear plants.
In my mind, the best approach, under present circumstances, is to have
civil groups influence local autonomies so that these may in turn move
the national parliament. The government cannot but be influenced by
these moves. The statement to be issued shortly aims to mobilize the
public opinion so that the local autonomies may start the right
initiative in the right direction.
I firmly believe that civil society plays a vital role in the decision
making process of nuclear policy. This reflects the dawning shift of
importance as regards determining factors of human society; from
intelligence to sensibility, from power to philosophy, from technology
to intuition, and from experts to citizens. A sensible citizen endowed
with good intuition and a sense of philosophy could defy experts and
declare that it is totally impossible to assure for a long time the
safety of a reprocessing plant with pipes of 1500 km and welded joints
surpassing 400000.
Before closing, I would like to mention thee important tasks international community is called upon to tackle.
The first concerns the dissemination of a basic fact about nuclear
energy, namely, with the internalization of the price that takes into
account all the costs needed to assure safety, the civil use of it
cannot be commercially viable. There is no reason for taking a serious
risk by depending upon it. To export nuclear plants should be out of
the question.
The second concerns the necessity to strengthen the control over the
safety of existing nuclear plants. Sovereignty can no longer serve as a
pretext to reject necessary intervention, for a fatal accident in one
country could destroy the world.
The third concerns the dialogue among civilizations. The problem of
nuclear policy must be tackled with a view to changing our life style
so that it consumes less energy. This can be best dealt within the
framework of the dialogue among civilizations. Because of the grave
consequences nuclear accidents could bring about, countries that do not
possess nuclear installations should be involved and consulted
concerning the measures taken by the concerned countries. This is also
a timely subject for the dialogue.
I believe the problem of nuclear energy boils down to the question of
ethics and responsibility. Is it ethical to export nuclear
installations to other countries, fully aware that they are dangerous
and not commercially viable? Is it ethical for decision makers to side
with importing such installations, fully aware of the dangers and the
costs?
Isnt it a lack of the sense of responsibility to allow the continued
functioning of more than 430 nuclear reactors in 36 countries, without
knowing how to dispose of waste materials, nor how to suppress an
eventual accident that requires the mobilization of hundreds of
thousands of people?
I cannot but conclude that to do nothing in order to eliminate the
obvious seeds of catastrophies reflects a sheer lack of the sense of
justice.
I do hope that this symposium organized by consciencious medical
doctors will help to heal the sickness the world is suffering from,
restoring the three senses of ethics, responsibility and justice.
We are faced with two choices. The first is to start the
denuclearization of the globe and the second is to be eventually forced
into it by a catastrophic disaster.
|
|
|