India-Japan
Joint Declaration disregards public health concerns from nuclear commerce and
nuclearisation
Joint
Declaration should have called for scrapping of WHO-IAEA agreement that
compromises nuclear & radiological safety
Disregarding
lessons from preventable Fukushima nuclear disaster, a profoundly man-made
disaster, the Indo-Japan joint declaration titled Japan and India Vision
2025 Special Strategic and Global Partnership dated December 12th, 2015 welcomed
“the agreement reached between the two Governments on the Agreement between
the Government of Japan and the Government of the Republic of India for
Cooperation in the Peaceful Uses of Nuclear Energy, and confirmed that this
Agreement will be signed after the technical details are finalised, including
those related to the necessary internal procedures.”
Having
decided to pursue the nuclear path, the Prime Ministers of India and Japan “expressed
concern over North Korea's continued development of its nuclear weapons and
ballistic missile programmes, including its uranium enrichment activities”. Such
averments underline double standards being practiced at the behest of nuclear
companies.
The
pious expression seeking “the denuclearisation of the Korean Peninsula” under
relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions appears hollow because unless
there is universal denuclearization how can denuclearization of Korean
Peninsula alone can serve the ultimate purpose of global disarmament.
“The
two Prime Ministers, on the occasion of the 70th year since the atomic bombings
of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, reaffirmed their shared commitment to the total
elimination of nuclear weapons. They called for an immediate commencement and
early conclusion of negotiations on a non-discriminatory, multilateral and
internationally and effectively verifiable Fissile Material Cut-off Treaty
(FMCT) on the basis of Shannon Mandate. In this context, Prime Minister Abe
stressed the importance of early entry into force of the Comprehensive Nuclear
Test Ban Treaty (CTBT) which should lead to nuclear disarmament. They also
supported the strengthening of international cooperation to address the
challenges of nuclear proliferation and nuclear terrorism.” It is noteworthy that the two Prime Ministers
chose not to make any mention of anniversary of the Chernobyl and Fukushima nuclear
disaster.
“The
two Prime Ministers recognised the importance of effective national export
control systems. Japan welcomed India's intensified engagement with export
control regimes ．The
two Prime Ministers affirmed their commitment to work together for India to
become a full member in the four international export control regimes: Nuclear
Suppliers Group, Missile Technology Control Regime, Wassenaar Arrangement and
Australia Group, with the aim of strengthening the international non-
proliferation efforts.”
But
they maintained studied silence of about the conflict of interest ridden regime
of Vienna based International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA), which is acting both
as a regulator and promoter of nuclear commerce.
Indo-Japan
joint declaration for collaboration in the areas like civil nuclear energy,
solar power generation, rare earths and advanced materials to work for peace,
security and development of the Indo-Pacific region toward 2025 merits critical
attention in the context of Japan- India-U.S. Trilateral dialogue that was held
in New York in September 2015 and the inaugural Japan-India-Australia
Trilateral dialogue.
Indo-Japan joint declaration should have called for
scrapping of agreement between World Health Organisation (WHO) and the
International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) “WHA 12-40” on 28th May,
1959 that sanitizes information about adverse health impacts of nuclear
accidents. Notably, Secretariats of IAEA and WHO keep each other informed about
all relevant programmes and nuclear activities. As a consequence of this
WHO-IAEA agreement, WHO has lost its autonomy of action in the field of protection
from ill effects of radiation. Signing of such agreement by WHO is contrary to
its own constitution which states “Informed opinion and active cooperation from
the public are of paramount importance for improving the health of people …” As
long as the WHO-IAEA agreement exists, WHO’s role with regard to health impact
from nuclear accidents and activities will not inspire even an iota of
confidence. For WHO to regain its legitimacy, there is a compelling reason for
it to remain faithful to Article 1 of its own constitution of WHO which states:
“The goal of the World Health Organization shall be the attainment by all
peoples of the highest possible level of health.”
Notably, European Committee on Radiation Risk
(ECRR) has called for abandonment of the controversial agreement. There were
protests against WHO-IAEA agreement at the WHO's 62nd World Health
Assembly.
ToxicsWatch Alliance (TWA) and No to Nuclear
Energy Forum (NNEF) denounces the subordination of the WHO to IAEA. This
appears to aimed at underestimating and misreporting of nuclear risk and
radiological emergencies. This agreement is against natural justice and truth.
India, Japan and other countries should urge the General
Assembly of WHO in May 2016 to unsign the WHO-IAEA agreement. Indian Government
should consider submitting a proposal for inclusion of revision of this
agreement in the Agenda to the WHO’s Executive Council in January 2016 and
Japan Government should be persuaded to support it to enable WHO to regain its
autonomy. Considering the supremacy of people' health over all other interests,
there is a compelling logic in seeking revocation or appropriate revision of
the questionable agreement.
Post a Comment