The Planet of the Apes (atomic power
enthusiasts) has new life this week.
On Monday night China’s President Xi arrived
in London, and the media have been solidly briefed he will sign a series of
commercial agreements on Wednesday consolidating China’s inward investment into
UK infrastructure: with the jewell in
the crown the backing for new nuclear power.
The nuclear promoters have long berated
anti-nuclear activists, arguing extravagantly if we don’t have new nuclear, we
will go back to the cave man era, and freeze in the dark. As it happens, Xi Jinping- or Uncle Xi as the Communist Party
of China propaganda a machine would have him called by China’s 1.3 citizens-
was actually brought up for seven years
in his youth in a cave house, when his father,
a major party figure, was exiled to the country from Beijing under the Cultural
Revolution re-education programme. (http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4589616.ece)
So now the nuclear neanderthals have their
champion in Xi Jinping, and Britain’s
first new nuclear power plant since 1995 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Energy) - when the rump of the old state-owned nuclear
industry in the guise of Nuclear Electric was privatised as British Energy
(since itself bought out by French State power generator, Electricte de France)
– is to be built by UK subsidiary EDF Energy in the first new twin reactor
nuclear station at Hinkley C- for a
total current cost of an eye-watering £24.5 billion.
How can we explain how an industry moribund
for nearly a quarter of a century can be resurrected from the dead like Freddy
Krueger in the cult horror film series Nightmare
on Elm Street? Is there some kind of hidden driver that sees the hyper
pro-market chancellor George Osborne elbow aside his energy secretary Amber Rudd, to take over
the nuclear deal with Beijing, (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2015/sep/25/george-osborne-presses-on-with-hinkley-power-station-despite-criticism) which he and David
Cameron started two years ago with their charm offensive visit to China (“China companies to take
major part in UK nuclear power developments, British chancellor reveals,” South
China Morning Post, Thursday 17 October, 2013; http://www.scmp.com/business/economy/article/1333628/uk-allow-china-majority-stakes-nuclear-projects-osborne) to establish a
nuclear power partnership that involves the Chinese State Investment bank, two
Chinese state owned nuclear companies , the French State owned nuclear
Generator, (EDF), the French Stater-owned ( and near bankrupt) reactor design
company (Areva) and a raft of state-supported subsidies worth tens of billions?
At that time Osborne said at the fifth UK-China Economic Financial
Dialogue on 15 October 2013 ( which followed a visit to
China the previous month by then energy secretary Ed Davey to smooth the way) (https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/uk-china-economic-financial-dialogue-chancellors-statement%20):
“Britain and China are partners in growth. In the
agreements we have made today and the other deals I am announcing this week, we
are showing how Britain and China are taking the next big step in our
relationship. It means more trade, more
investment and more jobs. More jobs in Britain. More jobs in China. And from
services to science, from infratrastructure to innovation, we are working
together and creating ties between our countries. We embrace these
opportunities on the basis of shared interests, greater understanding and
mutual respect. That has been my
approach to today’s dialogue and to the whole of my trip this week.”
Two
academics at the Science Policy Research Unit(SRU) at the University of Sussex,
Professor Andy Stirling and Dr Philip
Johnstone, argue in a recent article in
academic blog site, The Conversation (All at sea: making sense of the UK’s
muddled nuclear policy (https://theconversation.com/all-at-sea-making-sense-of-the-uks-muddled-nuclear-policy-48553), that perhaps this very odd and ideologically perverse nuclear
partnership can be explained using the
concept of the “deep state”, insisting: “now is the moment
to ask some searching questions about what nuclear policy is doing to British
politics.”
A one-time senior British diplomat, Carne Ross - who was the
British expert on Iraq at the UN from 1997 to 2002 – developed the idea of the ”deep
state” in trying to explain how the Iraq invasion plans could have been covered
up (“Is there a UK ‘deep state’?” Anthony Barnett, Open Democracy, 26 July 2010;
https://www.opendemocracy.net/ourkingdom/anthony-barnett/is-there-uk-deep-state
What
is striking about nuclear power development – especially in countries also
possessing nuclear weapons- is how
similar it has been in all major countries, whether the dominant economic
structure is capitalist (US), corporatist (UK and France), State
Capitalist/communist or Soviet Union (State Communist (now capitalist). The
institutional arrangements and secrecy surrounding the development has mirrored
each other across all five states.
In
their seminal
study The Nuclear Barons, published
in 1981, journalist Peter Pringle and political advisor and lawyer James
Spigelman, demonstrate how across the political divide “the atom offered each
country’s decision makers many opportunities to indulge a yearning for power,
relish a sense of achievement proclaim a vision for the future …with decisions
often frequently distorted by personal ambition and institutional
self–interest.”
They went on “As the nuclear revolution
expanded, the advocates built special institutions to keep the atom apart from
the checks and balances of the normal political process…the atomic institutions
became almost totalitarian in their powers often requiring scientists and
engineers to suppress information that stood in the way of the nuclear
revolution.”
Thus the US created the domineering Atomic
Energy Commission (now the Department of Energy), the Soviet Union had the
meaningless Ministry of Medium-Sized Machines
(now Rosatom), the UK created its Atomic Energy Authority, France its
own Atomic Energy Commission (Commissariat a L’Energie Atomique) out of which
Areva and EDF grew; and China Started with Non Ferrous and Rare Metals Company,
it developed post war with Soviet Union, and added the Institute of Atomic
Energy a few years later: all had primary military nuclear functions, out of
which civilian nuclear research, design
and development grew.
Last week The Times
highlighted alleged UK security service concerns over the security implications
of doing nuclear deals with China (“Nuclear deal with China is threat to UK security, 16
October, www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/politics/article4587446.ece#tab-5)
Indeed, the China National Nuclear Corporation (CNNC)
boasts on its website that it “successfully developed the atomic bomb, hydrogen
bomb and nuclear submarines”. http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/business/Industry/article1620628.ece
Moreover, Professor
of International Development at theUniversity of Bristol, Jeffrey Henderson,
wrote in The Conversation, on 5
October, (“Serious
issues for George Osborne on China’s role in the UK’s nuclear future”)
“One of the
companies involved at Hinkley Point – China National Nuclear – produces China’s
nuclear weapons. This means that as well as the Communist Party, CNNC is almost
certainly controlled by the People’s Liberation Army (as all Chinese
military-related companies are). Given geopolitical uncertainty (with rising
tensions between China, Japan and the US over China’s territorial claims in the
East and South China Seas), allowing such a company anywhere near Britain – not
to mention in an industry as strategic as power generation – verges on the
insane. Has MI5 been consulted on this, and if it has, what was its advice?”
However, junior
Foreign Office minister Hugo Swire sought to allay security fears in a written Parliamentary answer to
Labour backbencher Paul Flynn in a reply last Friday (16 October) stating:
“Security in the civil nuclear industry is of paramount importance to the
Government. The UK has in place, robust security regulations which are enforced
by an independent regulator, the Office for Nuclear Regulation. These
regulations cover sensitive nuclear information as well as holdings of nuclear
material and nuclear sites. The Government keeps the regulatory framework for
security in the civil nuclear industry under continuous review. The Government
welcomes Chinese investment to the UK, including in the nuclear energy sector.)
What he the omitted to mention is the chief nuclear
security and safety inspector, Dr Andy Hall, has just abruptly resigned. (http://news.onr.org.uk/2015/09/retirement-of-dr-andy-hall/)
In an interview with China Daily published today to mark his visit to Britain (“China and UK poised to sign agreements worth
billions of pounds” 19 October, http://chinadaily.newspaperdirect.com/epaper/viewer.aspx) President
Xi praised Britain’s “visionary and strategic choice” to become China’s best
friend in the West. He added “China is ready to pursue cooperation of various
forms with the UK and other countries in international production capacity and
equipment manufacturing to synergize respective strengths… There should be no swing doors or glass doors
that are placed as non-economic or non-market based barriers,” in an oblique
reference to criticisms of Chinese human rights.
Osborne seems determined not to let the
niceties of human rights get in the way of his new ‘Golden Age’ grand project.
In China last
month he announced £2bn of new government guarantees for the new Hinkley C project – with UK taxpayers now also liable for around two thirds of the total project
cost. With the vast majority of investors put off by the risks associated with
the project, critics of the scheme have argued that desperation rather than
long-term planning has driven the generous terms delivered to China by the UK.
In his deal struck at last month’s 7th UK-China
Economic Financial Dialogue, Osborne
concluded the following detail:
22. In the important
field of nuclear energy: Both sides welcome the strengthening of the
partnership in civil nuclear energy since the signing of the Memorandum of
Understanding on civil nuclear energy cooperation dated October 2013. The UK
side warmly welcomes and supports Chinese investment and participation in the
Hinkley Point C project and progressive involvement in the UK nuclear new-build
market, including leading the development of other U. nuclear site(s) as fast
as practicable, and supports the deployment of Chinese nuclear reactor
technology, subject to meeting the requirements of the UK’s independent
regulators. The China National Energy Administration and the UK Department of
Energy and Climate Change agreed to enhance communication with each other with
a view to facilitate the enterprises of both sides to explore cooperative
opportunities in China, UK and other third countries, and to assist Chinese
investors with understanding UK requirements and coordinating on regulatory,
legal and electricity market issues, flowing from investment in UK new nuclear
build.
23.
The UK
and China welcomed the extensive collaboration carried out across the nuclear
fuel cycle, including in decommissioning, nuclear fuel transportation, and
waste management under the MOU on Enhancing Cooperation in the Field of Civil
Nuclear Industry Fuel Cycle Supply signed in June 2014. CAEA and DECC will
continue to strengthen coordination to support relevant enterprises to secure
more tangible results from cooperation in this area and looked forward to the
signing of further commercial agreements/contracts. Both sides agreed to
explore further the potential synergies between the UK’s Northern Powerhouse
and China’s the Belt and Road Initiative, recognising the significant regional
clusters of nuclear expertise established in British and Chinese regions, and
welcomed the development of deeper regional ties between the UK and China in
nuclear industry. China and the UK both welcomed the the first regional
agreement between Sichuan Province and Cumbria, bringing together the UK’s
Centre of Nuclear Excellence to deepening commercial links with China’s
National Nuclear Corporation’s established cluster of expertise in Sichuan.
24.
The UK
and China note previous agreements signed between respective research
institutes in the field of nuclear scientific research and intend jointly to
establish a new research and innovation centre for nuclear. Both sides will
engage further to agree details of the programmes for the centre which will
carry out joint research in areas of shared interest with academia and
industry.
(https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/462160/EFD_combined_POP__21_Sept_web.pdf)
But the
Department of Energy and Climate Change is reticent to explain just how these
deals will work out in practice, with minister for nuclear issues, Andrea
Leadsom, giving the same vague composite
answer on 16 October to three probing questions asked last week by Mr Flynn,
stating:
The Joint Research and Innovation Centre (JRIC) is envisaged to be the
subject of a commercial agreement between the National Nuclear Laboratory and
the Chinese National Nuclear Corporation.
These two organisations are still in the process of negotiating such an
agreement and will need to consider details on the structures, funding,
governance and accountability of the JRIC. As such, it is too early for
Government to be able to comment on the outcomes of such a negotiation.
We continue to maintain an interest in developments of these discussions
and will work, where appropriate, with our counterparts in the Chinese
government to ensure that outcomes are mutually beneficial to the research
landscape of both nations.
Not all are convinced. The Financial Times reported on Monday
that “The plans to open critical UK
infrastructure assets up to the Chinese drew private criticism from western
diplomats based in Beijing, who criticised Downing Street for “doing an
Osborne”: a reference to the chancellor’s five-day warm-up tour of China last
month when he said the UK should “run to China”.
It added: “According to several of the
diplomats, the regular encrypted cables sent back to European and North
American capitals over recent weeks have been filled with snide remarks and
criticisms of the UK’s kowtowing in the run-up to Mr Xi’s state visit.
(“Diplomats accuse
Britain of ‘kowtowing’ to secure Hinkley backing,” 19 October, http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/367e6f6a-7583-11e5-933d-efcdc3c11c89.html#axzz3ow07joLq)
In an interview with China Central Television on Friday, David Cameron dismissed doubts,
asserting: “We see no conflict with
having that very special relationship (with the United States), with wanting to
be a strong partner for China as the Chinese economy continues to grow and
China emerges as an enormous world power.”
Britain this week may have to decide whether
its new best friend is worth it.
No comments:
Post a Comment