Fiji PM defends decision to endorse report

PRIME Minister Sitiveni Rabuka has defended his decision to endorse a report penned by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) on Japan’s plan to discharge treated nuclear wastewater from the damaged Fukushima Daiichi Nuclear Power Plant.

Mr Rabuka’s unilateral statement on the subject has received a scathing backlash from his own Coalition partners, Opposition members, civil society organisations and NGOs.

While delivering his ministerial statement in Parliament yesterday, Mr Rabuka highlighted to members on both sides of the House that his decision was based on scientific findings from globally renowned experts and sources – which was disagreed on by Opposition MP Faiyaz Koya who argued the science was not “conclusive”.

“Some weeks ago, I issued an initial public statement on this environmental issue, acknowledging the controversy it has generated in Fiji, the wider Pacific region, and internationally,” Mr Rabuka told Parliament.

“This controversy is likely to persist for some time, given the complexity of the matter at hand.”

Mr Rabuka said it was crucial to clarify that his support was based on the science and assessments that were carried out by the independent IAEA, which operated within the United Nations system.

“The safety standards mentioned by the IAEA are reviewed annually by the UN General Assembly, based on estimates by the UN Scientific Committee on Effects of Atomic Radiation (UNSCEAR).

“The standards also include recommendations from independent, non-government group the International Commission on Radiological Protection (ICRP).”

In addition, he also stated that nothing was more important to him than the safety, security, and prosperity of Fiji and its Pacific island neighbours.

“I assure those who oppose my position that I share the same love for this country as they do.

“As we move forward, I am committed to continuously studying expert analysis of the treated wastewater discharge and making submissions to Japan if any problems arise.

“Our government, in collaboration with the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat (PIFS), will facilitate ongoing dialogue with the Japanese government and the IAEA to ensure we have access to the latest information and updates.”

Yet, as is the case with any contentious issue, there are dissenting views, which Mr Rabuka has acknowledged.

He said there were divergent views and responses within PIFS regarding the treated wastewater discharge.

He also stated that a majority of the expert panel that was commissioned by PIF had expressed criticism of certain aspects of the IAEA report.

However, one of them, Professor Tony Hooker, had dissented.

“In complex matters such as these, unanimity is often elusive, and national leaders must decide which expert opinions to favour.”

Mr Rabuka also pointed out that unfortunately, the view of the PIFS scientific panel was “not consistent” with IAEA findings, as it did not account for the advancements in water treatment technologies that enabled Japan to effectively remove harmful radionuclides from the wastewater.

The concern though, is that while the initial nuclear wastewater carries radioactive elements, the Advanced Liquid Processing System (ALPS) used by Japan is said to remove about 62 radioactive elements.

However, it is not able to remove tritium, a radioactive form of hydrogen, and carbon-14.

Mr Rabuka said the IAEA confirmed that the controlled release of treated wastewater from the plant was a scientifically acceptable option, and that the final decision to discharge this wastewater rested solely with the Government of Japan.

The Prime Minister also criticised former attorney-general Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, for expressing “contradictory and confusing” views.

“He initially argued that Japan presented ‘compelling evidence’ about the safety of their proposal, but then called for Fiji to assess the impact for itself.

“It is noteworthy that Mr Sayed-Khaiyum’s government did not issue a formal protest note to Japan in 2021 when the wastewater discharge plan was first announced.

“Similarly, former prime minister Voreqe Bainimarama, who was portrayed as an international environmentalist, made initial statements in 2021 seeking ‘sincere dialogue’ and ‘continuous information sharing’ with Japan.

“However, there was no formal protest, and it is essential to clarify that the discharge had not yet occurred at that time.”

He also clarified that critics had attempted to draw a connection between the wastewater discharge and past nuclear weapons testing in the Pacific, which was not grounded in scientific fact.

Mr Rabuka added that commercial type power reactors, such as the one in Fukushima, could not explode like nuclear bombs as the fuel was not enriched beyond about 5 per cent, which was significantly lower than the level required for explosives.

“I urge those who do not share my position to thoroughly study the views of scientists and other experts.

“My decision to endorse the IAEA findings was made based on my prerogative as Prime Minister. Japan has provided assurances that thedischarge will not endanger the lives of Japanese citizens or those of Pacific island countries.

“Regarding the Rarotonga South Pacific Nuclear Free Treaty, Cook Islands Prime Minister and PIF Chair, Mr Mark Brown, has stated that it is up to the Government of Japan to demonstrate that they are not dumping radioactive waste.

“I request all parties involved in this topic to not misinterpret my statement as direct support for treated waste water disposal in general, but rather consider it as support for the approach taken in this specific instance and its compliance with best available science, the rule of law, and confirmed alignment of the approach to international environmental safeguards.”

He also called on citizens to consider broader challenges such as plastic pollution, which threatened oceans and ecosystems.

Meanwhile, Opposition MP Faiyaz Koya called on the Prime Minister to reconsider his stance.

Mr Koya said the initial motion against this discharge was tabled by Government, however, Parliament was unanimous in its decision to support this move because it concerned the health of the oceans that Fiji needed to protect.

Mr Koya also criticised the Prime Minister “taking it upon himself” to decide on the issue because he thought the scientific proof was OK.

Mr Koya added that he had seen through various scientific documents which stated the opposite and called on Mr Rabuka to reconsider.

He stated that Fiji had become a massive voice around the world with respect to the environment.

“What are they going to call us now? When suddenly we’ve decided that we’re going to say that it’s OK to release that nuclear wastewater into the Pacific Ocean?” Mr Koya questioned.

“We all understand our relationship with Japan, but there are times when we differ. The science is still inconclusive. We are in a position where we guide our Pacific island brothers and sisters. They look to us for guidance.

“The dumping also violates the Rarotonga Treaty. What happened to that? We are signatories! This is not just a creek. This is the whole of the Pacific Ocean.

“We must get, and the operative word here, is conclusive, scientific results. Right now, the scientific results are still inconclusive. A huge economy, a huge country, a huge power in the world, like China, has suddenly decided they’re going to ban completely, Japanese fish. What does that say to us?”

Mr Koya said this was not a decision that should be taken lightly, and called into question the radioactive elements that would be discharged into the ocean through this wastewater.

“What happens to our walu? Are we going to end up with two headed walu, who knows? But I plead on behalf of every single Fijian, and on behalf of every single person in Government who stood up and spoke on it, please retract what you did, retract it unless we get conclusive proof.

“We must continue to condemn it with the proviso obviously that says that until we get absolute conclusive proof, that it’s okay for disbursement.

“Prime Minister, please reconsider your stance with respect to it.”