SOUTH Pacific

Nuclear shipments sail into South Pacific's ire

activists and gov ernments are seek ing tougher inter national legal action against nuclear shipments, amid alarm over two ships carrying nuclear fuel that are due to pass through the region’s waters this

month. The shipment of MOX fuel mixed plutonium and uranium oxide for Japan’s nuclear plants - is being trans ported by two British-flagged vessels that left Britain and France in mid-July en route to Japan.

Local activists say the ‘Pacific Pintail’ and ‘Pacific Teal’ carry an estimated 446 kg of plutonium in 40 nuclear fuel ele ments - enough material to construct 60 nuclear bombs.

The alarm over the latest shipment of radioactive material is prompting new demands by different groups for stronger action by Pacific islands against the trans port of such through their waters - includ ing the right to claim liability and com pensation should accidents take place

involving the dangerous shipments.

PCRC has called for a review of the Rarotonga Treaty and Waigani Conven tion to strengthen provisions against nuclear shipments and dumping in Pacif ic waters.

The Rarotonga Treaty of 1985 created a nuclear-free zone in the South Pacific,

where testing, production and deploy

ment of nuclear weapons and explosion devices and dumping of nuclear waste are banned.

PCRC also called on signatories to the Waigani Convention, which bans the export of hazardous wastes to the South Pacific, to apply pressure on Japan, France and Britain to halt the shipments of nuclear waste through it.

“We believe that South Pacific govern ments should work together (through the 16-member South Pacific Forum) to end all nuclear shipments through the region,” PCRC’s Losena Salabula said.

“Currently the shipments of plutonium

are not banned by the Rarotonga Treaty for a South Pacific Nuclear Free Zone, or the 1995 Waigani Convention,” Salabula

added.

“Pacific governments must work together to halt the shipments of radioac tive materials through our seas,” Nic McLellan, education research developer at PCRC, said, adding that any accident threatens the marine resources of Pacific

“Japan, France and

Britain are refusing

to discuss compensation

if there is an accident and

have failed to conduct

detailed environmental

assessments of the

hazards of shipping plu

tonium through our

region”

states’ Exclusive Economic Zones (EEZs).

Worse, he added, “Japan, France and Britain are refusing to discuss compensa tion if there is an accident and have failed to conduct detailed environmental assess ments of the hazards of shipping plutoni um through our region.”

The PCRC has joined Greenpeace International and the South Pacific Forum in criticising Japan, France and the United Kingdom over the shipment of MOX reac tor fuel.

In a statement issued last week, the sec retary general of the Fiji-based South Pacific Forum (SPF) Secretariat, Noel Levi, said: “We note the assurances by the shipping states of the safety measures that are said to be in place.”

But he said the Forum Secretariat had so far “been unable to convince and com pel France, Japan and the United Kingdom to begin discussions on a liability regime for compensating the region for potential economic losses that could be caused to tourism, fisheries and the environment in

the event of an accident involving a ship carrying radioactive materials even if there is no actual envi ronment damage caused.”

The British-flagged ves sels journeyed from Bar row in Britain and Cher bourg in France, carrying

the first commercial shipment of MOX reactor fuel to Japan.

Japan has the waste from its nuclear power industry reprocessed in Britain and France, a procedure that involves separat ing uranium and plutonium from used nuclear fuel to reuse the plutonium.

Plutonium is a highly radioactive ele ment that is produced in nuclear reactors.

Inhalation of a single microgram, smaller than a speck of dust, can cause fatal lung cancer.

It is the most highly prized fuel used for making nuclear weapons and has been an essential fuel driving the nuclear arms race over the last half century.

The PCRC says the two ships are expected to pass through the Tasman Sea between Australia and New Zealand, and then through the EEZs of the Pacific island nations, on the way up to Japan.

Greenpeace International’s Suva office called the sketchy, after-departure announcement of this shipment “an insult to the concerns and demands of dozens of enroute nations.” Pacific island countries should take all possible action to ban the transport and prohibit the international trade in weapons-usable plutonium, it added.

“Coming after the departure of this dangerous shipment, this announcement fully reveals the transporters’ arrogant disregard for the sovereign will and legit imate concerns of the enroute nations,”

Samantha Magick of Greenpeace Interna tional Suva said.

“Enroute nations including members of the South Pacific Forum grouping have demanded prior consultation and resolu tion of urgent safety, security and liabili ty issues,” she said.“lnstead, they have received an after-the-fact ultimatum of

Continued on page 44

Continued from page 43

intent. This is truly an international scan dal.” In 1992, the United States govern ment required Japan to send an armed warship to escort the plutonium ship ‘Akatsuki Maru’.

This ship passed between Australia and New Zealand and then through the FEZ of Pacific nations, including the Solomon Islands, New Caledonia, Vanu atu and the Federated States of Microne sia.

This time, in efforts to cut costs, the two British-flagged ships bearing the MOX reactor fuel are only armed with 30 mm guns and staffed with UK Atom ic Energy Authority officers.

“Such efforts are a publicity stunt and will not deter a real terrorist attack,”

PCRC said in a statement.

The Caribbean countries earlier opposed the shipment of spent nuclear fuel from Japan to Sellafield in the Unit ed Kingdom via the Panama Canal, which is the shortest route.

In a July 16 statement, the heads of the Caribbean Community (Caricom) which include Commonwealth nations such as the Bahamas, Jamaica, Barbados and Guyana, said they were outraged at the callous and contemptuous disregard of their appeals by France, United Kingdom and Japan to desist from what they called the dangerous misuse of the Caribbean sea.

Previous shipments of high-level radioactive waste travelled through Pacific waters in 1995, 1997 and 1998.

But in spite of clear legal require ments governing the latest shipment, critics say the Clinton administration is unwilling to object to the inadequacy of the security arrangements on the ‘Pacific Pintail’ and ‘Pacific Teal’ to avoid diplo matic headaches with France, Japan and the United Kingdom.

Nearly four tonnes of Japan’s plutoni um are stored at Sellafield in Britain and nearly 16 tonnes at the La Hague repro cessing plan in France. Another 40 tonnes is due to be separated from Japan ese spent reactor fuel over the next five to eight years. (IPS) ■