Page 30 - IB August 2021

Opinion

only can undermine such feasibility but, more importantly, great interest.
be responsible for negative externalities especially those that Response to Puna’s appeal for information from the IAEA
would impact PIF’s ‘Blue Pacific.’ came after PALM 9. Islands Business reported that the IAEA
This disposal system, the feasibility of which has been as- was to: ‘review and monitor the safety of water release at
sured by the IAEA, can still be riddled with prospects of risks Fukushima Daiichi’ and that the agency and Japan has signed
of various types. Nic Maclellan discusses some in his article an agreement highlighting areas to be reviewed and moni-
following PALM 9. Japan, for example, has argued that the tored as follows:
radioactive tritium still contained in the treated wastewater • The radiological characterisation of the water to be dis-
will be diluted by the vast waters of the Pacific to reduce charged,
environmental damage. Maclellan, however, provides: “scien- • Safety related aspects of the water discharge process,
tists from the US Woods Hole Oceanographic Institution report • The environmental monitoring associated with the dis-
that, beyond tritium, the treated wastewater will include charge,
isotopes such as carbon-14, cobalt-60 and strontium-90 which • The assessment of the radiological environment impact
have vastly different toxicity and can be incorporated into related to ensuring the protection of people and environ-
marine biota or seafloor sediments.” ment,
Dame Meg’s replacement, Henry Puna, received the IAEA • The regulatory control including authorisation, inspection
one-liner on his way to Australia last June. He was obviously and review and assessment.
unhappy about the brevity and the insincerity of the response. If the agreement above was trilateral to include PIF as the
He was reported on Pacific Beat calling for ‘frank discussion’ third party, would Henry Puna have signed? Given the absence
and more answers from Japan and from the IAEA. He sought a of a clear policy and statements on risks and their manage-
meeting with the head of the Agency. A response was to come ment and the absence of focus on the consideration of PIF’s
later. concerns, I doubt he would have done so.
Japan’s other approach was to use its early July Pacific Is- Puna needs to persevere and seek details on how Japan
lands Leaders Meeting (PALM 9) to inform – not consult: “that and the IAEA will manage the risks that will definitely impact
(Japan) would ensure no harm will come to the environment the areas of review and monitoring stated above. Identify-
from dumping treated nuclear waste into the ocean.” ing, analysing, evaluating, ranking, treating, monitoring and
Japan’s modus operandi as regards PALM 9, is instructive. It reviewing the risks should form the total package that Japan
was non-negotiable. And it is not the first time, in any case. In and the IAEA offer to the FICs.
the 2018 PALM, Japan informed Pacific Leaders that the QUAD Given the defective record of the Tokyo Electric Power
countries (US, Japan, Australia and India) had completed their Company and the long-term nature (four decades or more) of
geopolitical remapping of the Pacific and beyond, and that the current disposal proposal, Puna’s mission to seek informa-
the PIF region was going to be a mandatory part of Indo-Pacif- tion and assurances is proper. The FICs have a right to know,
ic. It was an imposition. PIF Leaders were essentially pawns in especially the nine PIF members who are also members of
this critical decision. IAEA. On the other hand, Japan and the IAEA have the obliga-
This time around, Japan’s non-negotiable strategy was tion to provide such information.
somewhat bizarre. Having announced its stance that no harm The treatment of FICs as mere pawns in regional, geopoliti-
will come to the environment, Prime Minister Suga then “an- cal and global matters must cease. FICs, with their limited
nounced a new ‘Pacific bonds’ policy to strengthen coopera- resources, punch above their weight in extra-regionalism and
tion between Japan and Forum Island Countries (FICs).” multilateralism. Global partners, especially those who are
Furthermore, on climate change, “Japan was committed to established PIF Dialogue Partners must do their utmost to sup-
net-zero emissions by 2050 and to reduce emissions by at port the FICs in fulfilling their global responsibilities.
least 46% by 2030.” Clearly, such a policy declaration was an
inducement. And, as Nic Maclellan wrote after PALM 9, such editor@islandsbusiness.com
a diplomatic push to offer bonds was ‘damaged’ by Japan’s
plans to proceed to dumping wastewater into the Pacific The author is a former Fijian Ambassador and Foreign Minis-
Ocean. ter and runs his own consultancy company in Suva, Fiji.
We await the uptake of these ‘Pacific bonds’ by FICs with

Contact Us Today so you can benefit from our Fiji real estate agency services!
Contact Us Today so you can benefit from our Fiji real estate agency services!

30 Islands Business, August 2021