Campaigning for a Nuclear-Free World: Lessons for the Future

Shaun Burnie

During the month long NPT Conference from April 7 to May 12, 1995, when the world's diplomats met to review progress on disarmament and non-proliferation, the Nuclear Weapon States (NWS) continued to pursue their programs. Some of the activities by the NWS that took place during this period were:

  • The United States spent an estimated $780 million on nuclear weapons;
  • The United Kingdom sent its newest Trident nuclear submarine on patrol;
  • France inaugurated a new above-ground nuclear testing facility and threatened to resume underground tests in the Pacific;
  • Russia continued to produce new nuclear warheads;
  • Some 4.8 tons of plutonium were created in nuclear power reactors worldwide;
  • Around one ton of weapons-usable plutonium - the equivalent of 130 nuclear weapons - was produced in civil reprocessing facilities globally.

Many interpretations can be made concerning the consequences of the 1995 NPT Review and Extension Conference. I will discuss two diametrically opposing views:

  1. The world is now safer from the threat of nuclear proliferation, and global nuclear disarmament is a significant step closer;
  2. Nuclear proliferation, both horizontal and vertical, has been endorsed by the NPT Conference, and disarmament efforts have been set back significantly.

In order to make up our minds as to which version is more accurate, we need to look at who the proponents are of each of these views. The former view is held primarily by Western governments, particularly the nuclear states, joined by their apologists within some sections of the arms control community. The latter view tends to be held by those campaigning most actively against the world's nuclear powers.

The disastrous reality is that the world is not a safer place after the NPT Conference, that nuclear proliferation in its broadest sense is increasing, and that complete elimination of nuclear weapons remains a distant hope.

The work of the anti-nuclear movement around the world, ever important, has never faced so many intractable challenges at the same time that it appears to be in global decline.

After the NPT Conference, the director of the US Arms Control and Disarmament Agency (ACDA), John Holum, expressed the view that indefinite extension is a necessary step toward general and complete nuclear disarmament. Given the record of the nuclear states during the past 50 years, it would be ridiculous to take this comment seriously, other than making sure his soundbite thoughts are made into firm commitments.

The question is, who will make that happen? Governments? The media? No, they will only move toward a nuclear-free world if there is public pressure, and that is the issue I will turn to now - how and what needs to be done.

To give a sense of the range of issues we, the anti-nuclear movement, are confronted with when I talk of a nuclear-free world, I have listed a summary of the subjects covered by the international wire agencies during the four weeks since the end of the NPT Conference on May 12. It is a selection of subjects reported on during the period of May 12 to June 9:

  • The United States' nuclear waste cleanup budget is cut;
  • The Russian-Iran nuclear deal moves ahead;
  • Nuclear fusion research takes a major step forward in China;
  • Israel welcomes a decision on NPT but rejects membership;
  • France maintains that it needs 10 more nuclear tests;
  • The United States expresses concern over nuclear terrorists;
  • Slovakia announces it will finish its Mochovce nuclear power plant, and turns down $50 million from the Austrian government;
  • Protests take place in Germany at the Phillipsburg reactor;
  • 5,000 protesters gather at the Gorleben nuclear waste dump;
  • A nuclear power plant will be established in the Philippines;
  • China conducts a nuclear test on Monday May 15;
  • Finland plans to bury its nuclear spent fuel;
  • In the United States, Waste Isolation Pilot Plant (WIPP) is to move ahead faster;
  • Greenpeace protesters are charged with conspiracy;
  • Nuclear projects are halted or suspended in Germany by anti-nuclear movement: cost 30 billion marks;
  • Chernobyl closure and the completion of the Zhaporiche VVER 1000 nuclear reactors;
  • Iran announces plan to build 10 nuclear power plants;
  • Japan's Fast-Breeder Reactor (FBR) is stopped due to pump failure;
  • Ukraine's best reactor, Chernobyl 3, is running on 98.9% capacity;
  • New US tritium production reactor - the triple play reactor - is to be funded;
  • Armenia plans to restart nuclear power plant Medzamor;
  • Egypt expresses interest in nuclear power plants;
  • Sweden plans to phase out nuclear power by 2010;
  • Taiwan expresses interest in nuclear waste dump in the Marshall Islands;
  • China conducts an intercontinental missile test;
  • The African Nuclear Weapons-Free Zone is declared;
  • The US Pentagon seeks to resume nuclear tests;
  • Zirconium is smuggled to Iraq.

In the month since the end of the NPT Conference, there have been more than 100 nuclear stories reported on the international wire services, such as Reuters and Associated Press. Of these, more than 88% were negative, meaning they moved back the dawn of a nuclear-free world.

What does this tell us? That 50 years after the start of the nuclear age, it is still with us. That in most areas, the situation is getting worse, with perhaps the important exception of strategic nuclear weapon systems (excepting French, Chinese, and British plans).

And yet, in most of these cases, there is some involvement from the anti-nuclear movement - be it opposition to nuclear testing in the Pacific, or to the siting of a nuclear waste dump in California, or massive opposition to the opening of an interim nuclear waste storage site in Germany. The nuclear issue, especially when it appears to most directly impact people's lives, still continues to generate opposition as almost no other issue can. However, at the same time, in traditional regions of anti-nuclear opposition, activism seems to be in general decline; this is true both in North America and Western Europe.

The answer to why there is decline will not be addressed here. Rather, we need to learn how - with declining resources across the entire movement - we can effectively challenge the nuclear states. Two examples - one from the recent past, the other an ongoing battle - highlight both the future direction that I believe the anti-nuclear movement will increasingly have to take, and the likely effectiveness of our efforts. In both cases, it is well to remember that the nuclear age of the past 50 years is an age that will now continue for the rest of humanity's existence, whether that be decades or hundreds of thousands of years. Such is the nuclear legacy. Even the smallest victory is worth striving for, as the consequences of no victory are too great.

The Campaign Against THORP

The first case concerns the UK plutonium reprocessing facility THORP -  a facility conceived in the 1970s, built in the 1980s, and due to open in early 1992. The $4 billion plant is designed to reprocess nuclear spent fuel containing uranium, plutonium, and fission products.

The reprocessed plutonium, although not weapons grade, can be used to make nuclear weapons - as much as 7,000 kilograms each year - while only eight kilograms are needed per weapon. Opposition to the THORP facility included all elements of the global anti-nuclear movement, used all available tactics, and addressed all issues affected: environmental, economic, threat of proliferation, and domestic, regional and global politics. I will summarize just some of the highlights of the campaign against THORP:

  • In 1992 to 1993, international pressure increases against a plutonium transport from Europe to Japan, creating anxiety within the British government over its decision to open THORP.
  • Reports are released on the disastrous economics of reprocessing, adding to existing doubts.
  • Growing concern over the proliferation impact of commercial plutonium programs is expressed.
  • Opposition within Japan to receiving plutonium from THORP is reported in British media.
  • Environmental and health effects of Sellafield - and THORP in particular - are put on the European agenda. National governments, the European Parliament, and the Paris Commission - representing countries from around the North Sea area - occupy themselves with the issue.
  • International concern extends to the United States, where government policy is opposed to commercial reprocessing.
  • Increasing nervousness of the British government leads to the announcement of public consultation on THORP.
  • Tens of thousands of letters of opposition flood into the British government and cause further delays in the commissioning of THORP.
  • Paris Commission governments pass a majority decision against THORP. The decision includes states that have reprocessing contracts with THORP.
  • The British government is increasingly lobbied by the nuclear industry over the employment impact should THORP not open.
  • The European Parliament is targeted for activities by unions in favor of THORP.
  • There is increasing perception that the British government may decide against the plant, although government departments are opposing each other.
  • Such a decision, however, is seen as too sensitive at a time of low public support because of the state of the British economy.
  • The British government announces, two years after construction is completed, that THORP will open.
  • Air and sea discharges of radioactivity are reported to increase by 900% and 1,100% respectively, as a result of the commissioning of the THORP plant.

The postscript to this is that the delays will cost British Nuclear Fuels Ltd. (BNFL) - and thus the taxpayer - more than $160 million. In 1994, contracts with German utilities were canceled after a change in the German Atomic Law. New contracts with other customers for an even greater amount of spent nuclear fuel were subsequently signed in early 1995. The new plutonium fuel plant - the Sellafield MOX Plant (SMP) that is under construction - is due to open in 1996.

Opposition to THORP was built on cooperation between local activists at Sellafield, and national and international activists, all pressuring governments and articulating a common message through the media. And yet the plant opened. Why? Not because the anti-nuclear movement was not strong enough, but because the political, strategic, and short-term economic factors were too great to overcome. The lesson of THORP is that even though the anti-nuclear movement will often lose the battle, by fighting campaigns, support and hope for a nuclear-free world grows stronger.

The Mochovce Campaign

The second issue - and one that is still current - is the Mochovce nuclear power plant in the Slovak Republic. The reactor type is a VVER 440, with major safety defects of its own separate from those inherent to all nuclear power plants. The Western nuclear industry - led by France and Germany - have targeted the plant, still under construction, to be the first to receive major Western assistance for upgrading prior to commissioning. Again, I would like to present an overview of the campaign:

  • The long-standing concern over the safety of reactors in Eastern Europe mobilizes opposition to Mochovce.
  • Links are formed between the emerging anti-nuclear movement in Eastern Europe and Western European activists.
  • The Western European industry pushes for European financing from the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD), and from EURATOM.
  • The campaign in Slovakia focuses on alternatives and economics.
  • The campaigns in Austria and other European states focus on environmental and safety issues.
  • The campaign builds public opposition in member states of the EBRD.
  • Studies on the economics and alternatives are released in a targeted manner.
  • The EBRD is split in its decision making.
  • The European Parliament passes a strong anti-Mochovce resolution.
  • Delays occur in the EBRDs financing decision.
  • French contractors, after spending $70 million, begin to pull out their work force at plant site.
  • Millions of people present their opposition to Mochovce in the form of petitions to the EBRD.
  • There is general recognition that EBRD financing of Mochovce is dead.

After the mobilization of public opposition in many European countries; after media coverage constantly running against the funding of Mochovce; after governmental opposition led by Austria (including an offer of $50 million in aid) - the result is probably, at least in the short term, the end of financing for Eastern reactors. It is a major defeat for the desperate Western nuclear industry.

Unfortunately, Slovakia is now seeking assistance from the Czech Republic, which through Skoda receives assistance from Siemens. Also, a possibility exists that Slovakia will receive Russian assistance. The battle continues.

What is the lesson? Mochovce has shown that public activities, information dissemination, targeted media work, and political lobbying - when tied into decision-making time frames - can have successful results. The identification of these opportunities is crucial to the future of anti-nuclear work, and has often been one of the weakest areas of anti-nuclear campaigning. And yet, the possibility exists that the Mochovce plant may still operate.

What about the rest of the world? The greatest civil nuclear battle of the 21st century may well be in Asia; as many as 100 reactors could be built over the next 30 years in China, the Republic of Korea, Japan, and perhaps South-East Asia. Even with a strong anti-nuclear movement in these countries, however, it is likely that many plants will be built. And as the nuclearization of these countries increases, the tendency to weaponize their nuclear programs will also increase; this is particularly true of East Asia (the Korean peninsula and Japan).

The anti-nuclear movement in Western Europe and North America needs to move as quickly to develop relations with emerging anti-nuclear movements in Asia as the nuclear industry is moving to establish their markets in the region. The sharing of experience and information is crucial at this stage, but we should also acknowledge that some factors differ. Not least of these is the pressing demand for energy and distribution infrastructure that exists in Asia, given the current path of development there.

In other key regions, prospects for denuclearization are generally bleak. In the Middle East, the lesson learned from the NPT Conference is that nuclear power guarantees political influence. Resolution of the issue remains dependent upon a delicate peace process that will take years, if ever, to work through. Only then is it realistic to imagine that Israel would move to denuclearization. In the meantime, the risk grows of more states in the region developing a nuclear program that has both a commercial and military role.

Alternatives

The past 50 years of the nuclear age and the resistance that has evolved to oppose it, point the way to the future. In most cases, there will be resistance and, in the short term, defeat. Industrial and political interests still have too much at stake in the atom. However, there is an underlying trend that can be easily obscured by the day-to-day scale of the nuclear threat. This trend is a coalescing of interests - environmental, economic, and political - and many of these interests will focus on providing realistic alternatives to things nuclear. This is already being witnessed in North America and in Europe. The problem is that it will not be sufficient to address and answer all nuclear issues - particularly the political, strategic, and military rationale for nuclear programs.

That is why the campaign for a nuclear-free future is so interlinked with the broader issues of global political change; without fundamental change in the relationships between states, the nuclear issue will not be resolved.

I have an emerging reputation among my closest colleagues of being too pessimistic about the future. And I ask myself increasingly whether it is possible to sustain one's self while fighting nuclear issues for one's entire working life. I asked this question recently of a previous guest speaker, Frank Barnaby. He informed me that he had been working on plutonium issues for 44 years; the first 10 were spent putting plutonium into warheads, and the remaining 34 have been spent opposing its use.

This is one of the most important issues facing the planet's environment and somebody has to work on it. That seems to me to be an appropriate message to the entire anti-nuclear movement, and it's as optimistic as I can be.

contents glossary of terms seminar overview wise homepage search the wise pages