Japan’s crisis and the anti-nuclear backlash

Germany and Switzerland suspend plans to build new power stations. Will others follow?

The nuclear crisis in Japan continues to get worse. After an explosion at reactor 2 at the Fukushima power station and a fire (now extinguished) at reactor 4, radiation from the plant has reached harmful levels. Everyone within 30 kilometres of the danger zone has been told to stay indoors, and a no-fly zone has been imposed around the power station.

The prime minister, Naoto Kan, has warned: "Radiation has spread from these reactors and the reading of the level seems high . . . There's still a very high risk of further radioactive material coming out." The plant's operator, the Tokyo Electric Power Co, reported dose rates of up to 400 millisieverts per hour – eight times the legal limit for exposure in one year.

But as several scientists have reminded us this morning, this is not another Chernobyl. The four damaged reactors at the Fukushima plant were shut down automatically when the earthquake was detected. In Chernobyl, by contrast, the reactor exploded while operating at full temperature, with the result that far greater levels of radioactive material were released.

Despite this, the Fukushima accident has already prompted a rethink in several European countries not renowned for their large earthquakes. In Germany, Angela Merkel, who reversed the popular SPD-Green pledge to phase out nuclear energy by 2022, has announced a "three-month moratorium" on plans to renew 17 power stations. In other words, the Japanese catastrophe has provided Merkel with the political cover necessary to drop an extraordinarily unpopular policy (88 per cent of the public want all plants closed).

Germany isn't alone. Switzerland, another country not known for its high levels of seismic activity, has suspended the approvals process for three new nuclear power stations.

In Italy, where large earthquakes are more common, plans to introduce nuclear energy by 2013 are now in doubt. But it's notable that the US, where eight plants are located on the earthquake-prone West Coast, has offered a robust defence of nuclear power. Yet as the New York Times noted: "most of the nuclear plants in the United States share some or all of the risk factors that played a role at Fukushima Daiichi: locations on tsunami-prone coastlines or near earthquake faults, ageing plants and back-up electrical systems that rely on diesel generators and batteries that could fail in extreme circumstances."

Given the uncertain outcome of events in Japan, other countries, including Britain, are suspending judgement. The twin challenges of energy security and climate change have bolstered the case for nuclear power in recent years. The long-term consequences of any decision to change course deserve serious consideration.

George Eaton is political editor of the New Statesman.

Photo: Getty
Show Hide image

The Prevent strategy needs a rethink, not a rebrand

A bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy.

Yesterday the Home Affairs Select Committee published its report on radicalization in the UK. While the focus of the coverage has been on its claim that social media companies like Facebook, Twitter and YouTube are “consciously failing” to combat the promotion of terrorism and extremism, it also reported on Prevent. The report rightly engages with criticism of Prevent, acknowledging how it has affected the Muslim community and calling for it to become more transparent:

“The concerns about Prevent amongst the communities most affected by it must be addressed. Otherwise it will continue to be viewed with suspicion by many, and by some as “toxic”… The government must be more transparent about what it is doing on the Prevent strategy, including by publicising its engagement activities, and providing updates on outcomes, through an easily accessible online portal.”

While this acknowledgement is good news, it is hard to see how real change will occur. As I have written previously, as Prevent has become more entrenched in British society, it has also become more secretive. For example, in August 2013, I lodged FOI requests to designated Prevent priority areas, asking for the most up-to-date Prevent funding information, including what projects received funding and details of any project engaging specifically with far-right extremism. I lodged almost identical requests between 2008 and 2009, all of which were successful. All but one of the 2013 requests were denied.

This denial is significant. Before the 2011 review, the Prevent strategy distributed money to help local authorities fight violent extremism and in doing so identified priority areas based solely on demographics. Any local authority with a Muslim population of at least five per cent was automatically given Prevent funding. The 2011 review pledged to end this. It further promised to expand Prevent to include far-right extremism and stop its use in community cohesion projects. Through these FOI requests I was trying to find out whether or not the 2011 pledges had been met. But with the blanket denial of information, I was left in the dark.

It is telling that the report’s concerns with Prevent are not new and have in fact been highlighted in several reports by the same Home Affairs Select Committee, as well as numerous reports by NGOs. But nothing has changed. In fact, the only change proposed by the report is to give Prevent a new name: Engage. But the problem was never the name. Prevent relies on the premise that terrorism and extremism are inherently connected with Islam, and until this is changed, it will continue to be at best counter-productive, and at worst, deeply discriminatory.

In his evidence to the committee, David Anderson, the independent ombudsman of terrorism legislation, has called for an independent review of the Prevent strategy. This would be a start. However, more is required. What is needed is a radical new approach to counter-terrorism and counter-extremism, one that targets all forms of extremism and that does not stigmatise or stereotype those affected.

Such an approach has been pioneered in the Danish town of Aarhus. Faced with increased numbers of youngsters leaving Aarhus for Syria, police officers made it clear that those who had travelled to Syria were welcome to come home, where they would receive help with going back to school, finding a place to live and whatever else was necessary for them to find their way back to Danish society.  Known as the ‘Aarhus model’, this approach focuses on inclusion, mentorship and non-criminalisation. It is the opposite of Prevent, which has from its very start framed British Muslims as a particularly deviant suspect community.

We need to change the narrative of counter-terrorism in the UK, but a narrative is not changed by a new title. Just as a rose by any other name would smell as sweet, a bad policy by any other name is still a bad policy. While the Home Affairs Select Committee concern about Prevent is welcomed, real action is needed. This will involve actually engaging with the Muslim community, listening to their concerns and not dismissing them as misunderstandings. It will require serious investigation of the damages caused by new Prevent statutory duty, something which the report does acknowledge as a concern.  Finally, real action on Prevent in particular, but extremism in general, will require developing a wide-ranging counter-extremism strategy that directly engages with far-right extremism. This has been notably absent from today’s report, even though far-right extremism is on the rise. After all, far-right extremists make up half of all counter-radicalization referrals in Yorkshire, and 30 per cent of the caseload in the east Midlands.

It will also require changing the way we think about those who are radicalized. The Aarhus model proves that such a change is possible. Radicalization is indeed a real problem, one imagines it will be even more so considering the country’s flagship counter-radicalization strategy remains problematic and ineffective. In the end, Prevent may be renamed a thousand times, but unless real effort is put in actually changing the strategy, it will remain toxic. 

Dr Maria Norris works at London School of Economics and Political Science. She tweets as @MariaWNorris.