Part 2 of 2 Parts (Please read Part 1 first)
There are twenty-one current partners in the Forum Dialogue Partnership program. It was established by Forum leaders in 1989 to invite selected countries outside of the Pacific Islands region with significant cooperation and engagement and political or economic interests, to take part in a dialogue with Forum Leaders. Other Partners include the U.S., China, the U.K., France and the European Union.
There are six criteria which must be met in order for Japan to maintain their membership in the Pacific Islands Forum Dialogue Partnership program. When he was questioned about whether Japan meets all of the criteria, Henry Puna supplied some insights into what Forum leaders thought about it.
One issue that was raised was whether or not Japan’s actions to date with respect to this nuclear issue and the conversations that have taken place indicate that they have dedicated support for the sustainable and resilient development of the Pacific region. Some critics of Japan say that the dumping they are proposing is totally at odds with that commitment.
Another issue of concern is whether Japan’s position on the release date of treated nuclear wastewater is a shared interest and common position that supports foreign priorities? Puna said that that is really a decision that their leaders must make. He said that we can only advise leaders. However, any ultimate decision is to be made at the leaders’ level.
Puna was asked whether or not Japan was on the edge of being expelled from the Partnership program. He said that such an action was an option for the leaders to take. Other countries have been removed from the program in the past. While France was continuing with their nuclear testing in the Mururoa atoll, they were actually suspended as Dialogue partners.
Puna was asked what Japan had to do to keep their seat in the Dialogue Partnership program. He said that this situation was an excellent test of Japan’s sincerity and commitment to the Pacific. He stated that the Forum was not asking for Japan to cancel the discharge of the wastewater. However, the Forum was asking that the discharge be deferred until such time as all relevant information and data was provided to our panel of experts.
On the question of whether the issues was going to be raised at the next Pacific Islands Forum meeting, Puna replied that it was going to depend on the events of the next couple of months.
The U.S. National Association of Marine Laboratories (NAML) is an organization of more than one hundred laboratories. They have expressed their opposition in a recent paper. They say that there is a lack of adequate and accurate scientific data supporting Japan’s assertion of safety. There was an abundance of data supporting serious concerns about releasing radioactively contaminated water.
The NAML has called on the Government of Japan and International Atomic Energy Agency scientists to more fully and adequately consider the options recommended by the Pacific Island Forum’s Expert Panel.