Nuclear fait accompli

The House of Representatives last week began deliberation of the government-sponsored bill on nuclear power, which deals with ways of managing Indonesia's nuclear reactors -- including nuclear power plants -- should the country go nuclear in the future.

There are two basic differences between the bill and the currently used 1964 law on nuclear energy which it seeks to replace, as was explained by State Minister of Research and Technology B.J. Habibie during the bill's first reading. One is that the proposed law renders operators and developers of nuclear plants liable for any leakage or other type of accident -- setting a Rp 450 billion ($195 million) cap on the financial liability of an operator or developer. The second is that the task of supervision and administration of nuclear plants -- currently in the hands of the National Atomic Power Agency (Batan) -- will be divided, in compliance with international conventions. This allows for the possibility of state companies and private, local or foreign companies to run Indonesia's nuclear plants, with Batan acting as a watchdog agency.

Habibie promised that the government would not make any decisions or even begin debating the use of nuclear energy before the bill is passed by the House. He stressed that the proposed law not only accommodates technological changes that have occurred since 1964, but also anticipates future developments, including the time when the nation may be forced to turn to nuclear energy which he emphasized, as he has done repeatedly in the past, is a last option among various alternative sources of energy.

On the face of it, the bill appears to give more bargaining time to those who object to the use of nuclear energy. The way the government has pushed the bill into the House's already tight agenda, however, follows a pattern that should raise alarm bells, in spite of Habibie's assurances.

Even before the decision has been made, the government has already commissioned -- at no small cost -- foreign consultants to undertake feasibility studies for the country's first nuclear power plant in Mt. Muria in Central Java.

Many fear that the decision to go nuclear will be made without a thorough public debate. The widely perceived scenario is that a decision to go nuclear will be made this year, construction will begin in 1997 and the plant will become operational in 2003. Additional plants will then be built in other parts of Java to meet the growing energy demands of burgeoning Indonesia.

Several attempts by the Indonesian Forum for the Environment (Walhi), which is heading the antinuclear movement, to hold public debates on the issue were banned by the police last year. Meanwhile, similar discussions by Batan and other groups more sympathetic towards nuclear energy have proceeded and their contents widely disseminated as part of an attempt to sell the nuclear idea to the public.

The public, however, has not been entirely sold on the idea. A poll by the Kompas daily newspaper published last week found that 52 percent of educated middle-class Indonesians living in Java rejected the planned power plant at Mt. Muria.

In February, Wahli had published its own poll, which found that 80 percent of Indonesians in eight cities in Java were against nuclear power. Those opposed to nuclear power cite fears of a potential catastrophe in case of an accident as their chief reason.

There may be some questions about the way the surveys were conducted, but one has to bear in mind that opposition appears to be strong, despite attempts to prevent the antinuclear movement from presenting its arguments before the public.

In the face of such opposition, and given that the question of whether or not to use nuclear energy is far from settled, why is the House already debating a bill that presumes the decision has already been made? By discussing the bill, the House is helping to shift the debate from one on whether or not Indonesia should go nuclear, to one concerning how to manage nuclear plants, prevent accidents and what to do in case of an accident.

Although it is a government-sponsored bill, House members should not view this as a partisan issue. So much more is at stake than simply winning, losing or making the kind of compromises that have gone on behind many deliberations in the House. The lives of millions of people, including those of our children, are at stake.

Habibie was right when he said that by presenting the bill to the House, the issue is now entirely in the hands of the people. House members have the opportunity to reject the bill altogether rather than deliberating on its contents. They could insist that the matter of whether or not to use nuclear energy be discussed first, with as much discourse as possible encouraged. Only when the question has been settled in a truly democratic way, can a new bill which reflects the public's opinion be presented.

House members should avoid being part of any fait accompli on the nuclear issue.