Search

Among those now working to oppose the long-term release of more than 1.3 million tons of Fukushima’s radioactive wastewater, contemporary activists can draw inspiration and perspective from an earlier transnational movement during the 1970s, when Pacific Islanders were central to stopping a plan by the Japanese government to dump 10,000 drums of nuclear waste into the Mariana Trench (Branch, 1984; Avenell, 2017). The mobilization of Pacific activists significantly contributed toward achieving the suspension and eventual cancellation of the ocean-dumping plan by taking their stories to audiences in Japan while working in collaboration with Japanese activists. In a strategy that proved crucial for influencing changes in Japanese attitudes toward ocean dumping, Pacific activists shared moving accounts of the environmental and historical injustices to which the Pacific Islanders had been subjected. They gave witness to the harm caused by 67 nuclear weapons tests between 1946 and 1979, which had resulted in the loss of homelands as well as higher rates of leukemia, lymphatic cancers, and genetic defects. These powerful testimonies challenged Japanese audiences to oppose the committing of further aggressions against those with whom they could identify as fellow atomic victims. In “Pacific Solidarity and Atomic Aggression” (2017), historian Simon Avenell writes, “This Pacific iteration of environmental injustice opened the eyes of many antinuclear advocates to the ways Pacific activists connected the radioactive waste issue to a longer struggle for independence and the obliteration of nuclear neocolonialism.” That in turn complicated the victim consciousness which had long informed antinuclear protest in postwar Japan. The activists' intervention made plain the moral case for Japanese people to act in solidarity with their counterparts in the Pacific Islands, who had similarly suffered from the lethal toll wrought by the use of nuclear technology in ways that devalued human life and the natural world. Given the breakthrough achieved through transnational activist solidarity, this historical precedent serves as a reminder that the nuclear wastewater issue must not be relegated to the politicized nationalist frameworks that have become common in contemporary media accounts. Notably in 2021, the unilateral decision to release Fukushima's radioactive wastewater alienated not only residents of neighboring countries but also many of Japan's own citizens, resulting in a breach of public trust which needs to be addressed by stopping the release and pursuing a sincere dialogue with stakeholders - not simply a campaign to attempt persuasion - according to nuclear engineer and Nagasaki University professor Tatsujiro Suzuki (2023). To attain public trust and to honor the moral and ethical legacies surrounding questions regarding nuclear waste and the Pacific Ocean, such a dialogue must extend to transnational stakeholders, and Indigenous knowledge must factor highly into the debate over an issue with vital transboundary and transgenerational consequences. 

Image: GRID-Arendal, www.grida.no/resources/7365.

Kim, Nan. 2023. "A Precedent of Success: Pacific Islanders' Transnational Activism Against the Ocean Dumping of Radioactive Waste." In 4S Paraconference X EiJ: Building a Global Record, curated by Misria Shaik Ali, Kim Fortun, Phillip Baum and Prerna Srigyan. Annual Meeting of the Society of Social Studies of Science. Honolulu, Hawai'i, Nov 8-11. 

Because this document is the first chapter of a book, there was no source list provided, therefor no conclusions could be drawn.

Didier Fassin is a French anthropologist and a sociologist in the school of science at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, NJ. He has conducted fieldwork in Senegal, Ecuador, South Africa, and France. Fassan is also trained as a physician in internal medicine and holds a degree in public health. Some of his early research focused on medical anthropology, the AIDS epidemic, mortality disparities, and global health. 

The author, Didier Fassin, is a French anthropologist and sociologist with training in medicine and public health. He has worked in the field of medical anthropology for decades through research and field experience. He currently works as a professor of social science at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton. 

The article focuses on the adapting regulations for ill immigrants to remain in France in order to receive treatment unavailable in their countries. Through the changes in protocol over nearly a decade the author shows how the system changed from case by case process in which many immigrants were denied a residence permit while suffering from serious illnesses, to an organized protocol that aimed to provide an equal opportunity to applicants regardless of location and department.

The argument is supported through a combination of personal stories, historical changes in protocol, and analysis of the reasons why applicants resort to a medical argument for residence permits. The use of personal stories of applicants highlights the inconsistencies in the process largely due to compassionate bias on the part of officials reading the applications, as well as the resources available in different cities. As the protocols were changed the article shows that while some of the inconsistencies were resolved, the process of determining who can and cannot receive medical treatment necessitates personal judgment which inevitably affects the outcome.

• “Sometimes the foreigner, too, is no more than his body, but this body is no longer the same: useless to the political economy, it now finds its place in a new moral economy that values suffering over labor and compassion more than rights.”
• “The compassion protocol is thus a procedure of the last resort that derives from a form of sympathy evoked in the face of suffering. It demands the right to keep alive individuals who have nothing except their mere existence.”
• “the medical officers were caught between the duties mandated to them by the public institution that employed them and those their profession required them to respect”

The article provides statistics of approved applications based on the medical reason for the application and the department the application was processed at based on location, to show how different acceptance rates are. The article also provides many stories of applications, invoking an emotional response that allows the reader to sympathize with the personal challenge that faces medical officers and government officials making the discussions that may dramatically affect the health and wellbeing of individuals.

The article does not address emergency response, rather it dealt with public health and the government’s responsibility for the health of immigrants. A significant part of public health is the allocation and availability of resources, which differs based on country. The argument made is that the available medical resources in France should be used to assist those who do not have access in their countries. Unfortunately, there remains the responsibility to the citizens of France to provide access to any and all resources necessary for their health which necessitates denying treatment to some immigrants. The issues faced by the government and public health interests is how to balance those moral obligations, which is discussed in the article.

The article has not been referenced extensively, as it is focused on a very specific topic. However the ideas presented in the article, and by extension the ideas presented in the book have been included in other papers including some of the author's later works.