Japan

Science should guide Fukushima wastewater release plan, Pacific leaders say

Published on
/

Pacific leaders on Friday wrapped up the two-day Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) Special Leaders’ Retreat in Fiji, where Japan’s Fukushima wastewater release plan was in the limelight.

The PIF rotating chair underlined in a statement that science and data should guide political decisions on Japan’s proposed discharge of treated radioactive wastewater from the wrecked Fukushima nuclear plant into the sea.

The outgoing chair and Fiji’s Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka, together with other PIF leaders, believes the decision is not as simple as a domestic issue of Japan, but concerns the South Pacific island countries and beyond.

Given that related data and evidence provided by Japan are far from independent or verifiable, the PIF has called on the country repeatedly to delay the discharge plan.

CRITICISM FROM INT’L COMMUNITY

Civil society groups in Japan and many international organizations have also voiced objections to the plan, citing a lack of a practical demonstration and its potential threat to society and marine ecology.

Over the past years, fishermen in neighboring countries have staged several rallies, calling for immediate stop to the “grave criminal act” of releasing radioactive water into the sea. Within Japan, local civic groups have organized protests outside the government house of Fukushima Prefecture.

Japan’s unilateral push to discharge radioactive wastewater from its crippled Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant into the Pacific Ocean is irresponsible and harmful, South Korean green activists have said.

“The Pacific Ocean is not the sea of Japan, but the sea of everybody … Pollutants will flow to neighboring countries in a situation that a lot of radioactive materials have already been released and contaminated (the marine ecosystem),” Ahn Jae-hun, energy and climate change director at the Korea Federation for Environment Movement, told Xinhua.

The Japanese government’s decision to discharge the contaminated water into the sea when there are alternatives such as long-term storage violates the precautionary principle recognized by the international community, Greenpeace Seoul Office has said. Greenpeace is an independent global campaigning network for environment protection.

“We must prevent action that will lead or mislead us toward another major nuclear contamination disaster at the hands of others,” said PIF Secretary General Henry Puna.

Take a look at how Japan proceeded with that.

The Japanese government decided in April 2021 to release more than one million tons of treated wastewater into the Pacific Ocean this spring.

Three months later, Japan greenlit the discharge plan while the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA)’s task force was still conducting the review mission.

Earlier this year, Japan unilaterally announced that it would start discharging the radioactive water in spring or summer, just before the agency’s task force arrives in Japan for review.

PACIFIC OPPOSITION

Pacific island countries unanimously oppose Japan’s release plan for multiple reasons, citing ecological fragility, economic dependence on the fisheries industry, and the devastating effects of radioactive pollution caused by Western nuclear testing.

First, Pacific island countries are concerned that the released radioactive substances will spread with ocean currents and tides, risking contaminating fish. As more than half of the world’s tuna comes from the Pacific Ocean, a potentially contaminated environment could hurt the fisheries that those countries rely on.

Second, the Pacific Ocean’s delicate ecology may come under threat. If the wastewater release leads to an ecological disaster, the vulnerable island residents will leave their homes, causing an ecological and survival crisis that will deal a heavy blow to the entire Pacific region.

Last, Western countries have conducted a dazzling array of nuclear tests in the Pacific since the mid-20th century, resulting in shocking radioactive pollution and ecological disasters. These have left painful memories for islanders, who have been sensitive to the wastewater issue.

Analysts believe that Japan should not ignore the concerns and livelihoods of Pacific islanders. Neither should it dump the wastewater into the sea until disputes are settled over the legitimacy of the discharge plan, the reliability of radioactivity data, the effectiveness of purification equipment and the uncertainty of environmental impact, they added. 

You might be interested in

Japan’s Discomfort in the New Cold War

Published on

In early December 2021, Japan’s Self-Defense Force joined the U.S. armed forces for Resolute Dragon 2021, which the U.S. Marines called the “largest bilateral training exercise of the year.” Major General Jay Bargeron of the U.S. 3rd Marine Division said at the start of the exercise that the United States is “ready to fight and win if called upon.” Resolute Dragon 2022 followed the resumption in September of trilateral military drills by Japan, South Korea, and the United States off the Korean peninsula; these drills had been suspended as the former South Korean government attempted a policy of rapprochement with North Korea.

These military maneuvers take place in the context of heightened tension between the United States and China, with the most recent U.S. National Security Strategy identifying China as the “only competitor” of the United States in the world and therefore in need of being constrained by the United States and its allies (which, in the region, are Japan and South Korea). This U.S. posture comes despite repeated denials by China—including by Foreign Ministry spokesperson Zhao Lijian on November 1, 2022—that it will “never seek hegemony or engage in expansionism.” These military exercises, therefore, place Japan center-stage in the New Cold War being prosecuted by the United States against China.

Article 9

The Constitution of Japan (1947) forbids the country from building up an aggressive military force. Two years after Article 9 was inserted into the Constitution at the urging of the U.S. Occupation, the Chinese Revolution succeeded and the United States began to reassess the disarmament of Japan. Discussions about the revocation of Article 9 began at the start of the Korean War in 1950, with the U.S. government putting pressure on Japanese Prime Minister Shigeru Yoshida to build up the army and militarize the National Police Reserve; in fact, the Ashida Amendment to Article 9 weakened Japan’s commitment to demilitarization and left open the door to full-scale rearmament.

Public opinion in Japan is against the formal removal of Article 9. Nonetheless, Japan has continued to build up its military capacity. In the 2021 budget, Japan added $7 billion (7.3%) to spend $54.1 billion on its military, “the highest annual increase since 1972,” notes the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. In September 2022, Japan’s Defense Minister Yasukazu Hamada said that his country would “radically strengthen the defense capabilities we need….To protect Japan, it’s important for us to have not only hardware such as aircrafts and ships, but also enough ammunition for them.” Japan has indicated that it would increase its military budget by 11% a year from now till 2024.

In December, Japan will release a new National Security Strategy, the first since 2014. Prime Minister Fumio Kishida told the Financial Times, “We will be fully prepared to respond to any possible scenario in east Asia to protect the lives and livelihoods of our people.” It appears that Japan is rushing into a conflict with China, its largest trading partner.

You might be interested in

The Central Bank as an Organization

Published on

Following excerpts adapted from Tumultuous Times: Central Banking in an Era of Crisis by Masaaki Shirakawa published by Yale University Press. This is a rare insider’s account of the inner workings of the Japanese economy, and the Bank of Japan’s monetary policy, by a career central banker. 

Independence and accountability are indispensable building blocks of the framework for governing central banks in democratic societies. This incentivizes the central bank to achieve the stability of the currency in the long term, but it does not necessarily guarantee the actual delivery of a good outcome. Ultimately, it depends on whether or not the central bank actually makes the right decisions. Of course, it is not realistic to expect the central bank to be an infallible institution; our goal should instead be to make it less susceptible to making wrong decisions. Like any other institution, the central bank is an organization composed of people and characterized by its own unique culture. There are many organizational issues that are worthy of serious consideration.

CENTRAL BANKERS AND MEDICAL DOCTORS

Alan Greenspan, the onetime chair of the Federal Reserve Board (FRB), was once described as a “maestro” . This metaphor, though quite famous, does not fit well with what I understand the central bank governor to be, because the word “maestro” unduly emphasizes the great talent and skill of a single individual. To state the obvious, the central bank is an organization, and it is not and should not be dominated by a single person, as the knowledge and ability of a single person is inherently limited. Furthermore, the economy is not something that can be orchestrated freely through monetary policy.

I have come across numerous metaphors describing the job of the central banker. One example is that of an airplane pilot.1 When confronted with sudden troubles in the sky, pilots in the cockpit quickly need to make the right decisions. The same applies to the central banker when private financial institutions become insolvent during a financial crisis or when the functioning of financial markets is disrupted by natural disasters or computer breakdowns.

But important differences exist between a pilot and the central bank governor. As for the decision by the pilot, the time allowed in the face of imminent danger is very short. There are usually no experts on the airplane other than the pilot and the copilot once it leaves the runway. As for decisions by central bankers, the time allowed is usually longer than seconds or minutes. Further, we can tap on the wisdom of experts outside the central bank. Many people—both experts and self-proclaimed experts—express their views, and some of them are quite vocal. In fact, I suspect differences of opinion among experts are much bigger as regards monetary policy. While passengers of an airplane do not have a choice other than to leave their destiny in the hand of the pilot, the general public does not give the central bank such carte blanche.

If I were pressed to give my favorite metaphor for describing the job of the central banker, without hesitation I would choose that of the central banker as medical doctor. As doctors take care of the health of people, central bankers take care of the health of the economy—both in terms of price stability and financial stability. The biggest similarity is that both jobs presuppose an enduring relationship of trust with the beneficiaries of the services in order to do the jobs properly. Patients go to their regular doctors, as they know that the doctors can be trusted through a long-standing relationship. When we need to have surgery, doctors explain the efficacies and possible side effects beforehand, and we give our consent as we are confident that they are making an accurate diagnosis and proposing the best treatment. The same is true for monetary policy. The public’s trust of the central bank is vitally important. What constitutes such trust is twofold: the central banker makes his or her best judgment as an expert and then implements the best policies based on this judgment. Another similarity between medical doctors and central bankers is that the level of knowledge when making recommendations is often limited; both the bodies of human beings and the working of the economy and financial system are that complex.

Though there are many similarities between central bankers and medical doctors, one important difference exists. While patients can choose a doctor from a group of doctors, the general public cannot choose its central banker. That is why the public governance mechanism of the central bank—independence and accountability—is put in place. Independence makes it possible for the central bank to take monetary policy measures that it judges to be the right ones. This is necessary but not sufficient. The central bank actually has to have the ability to make the right decisions. Otherwise, an independent central bank can cause a disaster.

THE LEGITIMACY OF CENTRAL BANK INDEPENDENCE

In a democratic society, what is the legitimacy of a group of unelected officials at the central bank conducting monetary policy? Of course, the central bank is entitled to independence by law. But this legalistic answer is not complete. Central bank independence can be stripped if the country’s politicians and ultimately its citizens wish to do away with it. Furthermore, legal independence is not the same as de facto independence. In fact, the Japanese inflation rate was lower in the 1980s than that in West Germany with an independent Deutsche Bundesbank, despite the fact that the Bank of Japan did not have legal independence.

The legal independence of the central bank is a manifestation of the fact that people at large, recognizing the importance of price stability and financial stability, are prepared to delegate the task of achieving those goals to the central bank. Just stipulating independence in the central bank law is not enough; societal support for that independence is fundamentally necessary.

But the public at large understandably does not bestow such societal support for the central bank without actually enjoying good macroeconomic performance. This is a “chicken or the egg” problem. In any event, the legitimacy of the independent central bank depends on the public having a sense of trust that the central bank is competent and faithful in achieving its mission. The central bank is, like any other institution, formed by people, characterized by its unique culture, and influenced by subtle group dynamics. This means that, on top of public governance of the central bank, we have to pay sufficient attention to it from an organizational or administrative perspective.

Click here to order your copy of this book

You might be interested in

Sri Lanka in Crisis: Japan gives Green Light

Published on
/

Japan is Ready to Coordinate with Creditors

Japan will coordinate with other creditors to resolve Sri Lanka’s deepening financial crisis, Finance Minister Shunichi Suzuki said on Tuesday, urging all creditor nations to gather and discuss the South Asian nation’s debt at the same table.

“We are concerned about Sri Lanka’s severe socio-economic situation,” Suzuki quoted by Reuters.

Sri Lanka must accelerate talks with the International Monetary Fund (IMF) on a bailout, while all bilateral creditors, including China and India, must gather to discuss the issue, Suzuki said.

“Japan wants to actively cooperate with other creditor countries and public organisations.”

Japan is seeking to organise an all creditors’ conference, hoping it could help solve Sri Lanka’s debt crisis, and it is open to hosting such talks possibly with China, sources with knowledge of the situation told Reuters last week.

It remains unclear whether top creditor China would join and a lack of clarity remains about Sri Lanka’s finances, one source told Reuters.

President Ranil Wickremesinghe told Reuters this month that Sri Lanka would ask Japan to invite the main creditor nations to talks on restructuring bilateral debts. He said he would discuss the issue with Prime Minister Fumio Kishida in Tokyo next month.

Click Here to Read Complete Story

You might be interested in