International sharp review ｜ Japan’s sewage disposal plan has aroused public anger, but why are some western countries so ＂assured＂？

　　On July 10th, it was nearly a week since the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) released the assessment report on Fukushima nuclear polluted water discharged into the sea. During this period, the international community such as Pacific island countries, the Philippines, Indonesia, South Africa, Peru, China, South Korea and so on have voiced endless opposition to Japan’s plan to discharge pollutants into the sea. In contrast, the performance of the United States and western countries is intriguing.

　　After the IAEA released the assessment report, the State Council issued a statement saying "welcome", and western politicians remained basically silent about the controversial Japanese plan to expel the sea. Commentators of "International Sharp Review" found some problems after reading reports from mainstream western media:

　　For example, some western media have reported the wording of Japan and IAEA in a large space, using the phrase "nuclear treated water" instead of "nuclear polluted water", but citing the opposition of the international community is pitiful. In an article by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC), almost all the words of Japan and IAEA were quoted. In the video inserted in the article, the reporter also gave a "performance" of eating fish, saying that the fish salvaged near Fukushima was "very safe" and there was nothing to worry about.

　　For another example, some media seem to be "objective and neutral" and cite many voices, but they have been avoiding key questions, including what are the hazards of the sea discharge plan to the environment? How independent and representative are the samples obtained by IAEA? Is Japan’s assessment of the sea-discharging scheme adequate? As for the fraudulent history of the Tokyo Electric Power Company involved, the western media almost never mentioned it.

　　A number of studies have shown that Fukushima nuclear polluted water contains more than 60 kinds of radionuclides. Japan itself admitted that about 70% of the nuclear polluted water treated by ALPS technology did not meet the discharge standards. According to the research of the German Marine Scientific Research Institute, because the Fukushima coast has the strongest ocean current in the world, radioactive materials will spread to most of the Pacific Ocean within 57 days after discharge. For 30 years or more, these radionuclides are continuously discharged into the sea, which will not only damage the marine ecological environment, but also endanger human life and health. Marcos Orellana, a United Nations expert on toxic substances and human rights, recently pointed out that Japan’s sewage disposal plan poses great risks to human rights.

　　In this case, why are some western countries so "reassured" about Japan’s nuclear polluted water? The reason is related to their own "black history" and strategic selfishness. It is not surprising that they will have this reaction.

　　Take the United States. According to the Los Angeles Times, the United States conducted 67 nuclear tests in the Marshall Islands in the 1940s and 1950s. Especially on March 1, 1954, the U.S. military detonated one of the most powerful nuclear weapons to date, the "Cheer Castle" hydrogen bomb, with destructive power equivalent to 1000 atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima, Japan, which brought profound disasters to the local people. In addition, not far from Wan Li, the United States dumped more than 130 tons of nuclear contaminated soil from the Nevada nuclear test site directly into the Marshall Islands. Today, the United States has played down the crimes committed, and the implementation of compensation has been greatly discounted, which has aroused global public outrage. It is not difficult to understand why the United States has been conniving at Japan’s plan to discharge pollutants into the sea, because it itself is one of the "initiators" of marine nuclear pollution.

　　In addition, the United States also regards nuclear safety as a bargaining chip for the exchange of interests. Some studies have pointed out that after the end of World War II, the nuclear has a special significance in the Japan-US alliance: on the one hand, it is the starting point for the United States to subdue and win over Japan; On the other hand, it is an important tool for Japan to attach itself to and rely on the United States. The Fukushima Daiichi nuclear power plant was the first project that Japan used American civilian nuclear technology in the 1960s.

　　After the Fukushima nuclear accident broke out in 2011, Japan and the United States reached a cooperation agreement on jointly handling nuclear accidents and post-disaster reconstruction. Both sides regard this nuclear accident as an "opportunity" and take the opportunity to steadily advance the alliance — — With the help of American power, Japan gained support in the international public opinion field for sewage discharge into the sea, while the United States took the opportunity to maintain its military hegemony in Japan, increased the means to control Japan, and achieved the so-called "win-win". They don’t care what other countries have to pay for Japan’s sewage plan.

　　All along, the United States claims to safeguard the "human rights" of all people, but in reality it pursues hegemony instead of human rights, and cares not about the people but political self-interest. On such a major event as nuclear pollution and water discharging into the sea, the performance of some western countries, such as the United States, can’t help but make people ask: How hypocritical and double-marked is it to focus only on developing countries and selectively turn a blind eye to the human rights misdeeds of allies?

　　The Pacific Ocean is the common home of mankind, and it is not a nuclear test site for some countries and a bargaining chip in geopolitical games. The Japanese government should listen to the just voices of all parties, immediately stop the plan of discharging nuclear polluted water into the sea, and don’t add new debts without paying back old debts. Those western countries that remain silent should not be accomplices in this plan.

　　(International Critical Commentator)