Dr GEORGE ADITJONDRO was the first Indonesian senior academic to speak out against the Indonesian occupation of East Timor, and is an outspoken advocate of democratic reform and environmental policy in Indonesia. In exile, he now teaches at the University of Newcastle, where he was interviewed for Green Left Weekly by SHANE HOPKINSON.
Question: In January the Indonesian government announced that it was going to build its first nuclear reactor. Why did this announcement come as such a shock?
Because even within the government itself there has not been a consensus about this issue. It is not really the statement of the government, but of the Indonesian Atomic Energy Agency (BATAN).
Every time the nuclear snake raises its head, people have been attacking it and then the government, sometimes the minister of research and technology, Habibie, sometimes the president himself, will say that nuclear energy is just a last resort and other government spokespersons say that we would not build it if the people do not agree with it.
This statement from BATAN was quickly followed up by the minister of research and technology saying that Indonesia would not obtain tenders for the project but had already made a commitment to Canada for the building of the reactor. This has caused a new series of debates.
Question: What are the legal guidelines about the tendering process?
Even prior to the tendering, there is an environmental procedure to be fulfilled, an environmental impact assessment, but this has not been done. There is a chicken and egg situation. How can you do an assessment if you do not know what kind of reactor is going to be built, and on the other hand, how can you tender if you don't know if it will get an environmental green light?
The pro-nuclear lobby, which consists of BATAN, Habibie, who also heads the Agency for Technology Assessment and Development (BPPT), and the head of the Science and Technology Commission of the parliament, are trying to get the president's blessing for it and so be able to avoid the environmental procedure as well as the tendering procedure.
Question: Who stands to gain from the flouting of these procedures?
Nearly all ministers have links with the business community, especially through their children. The major example is Suharto. The Suharto family, the Ahimsa family (Ahimsa is director of BATAN) and the Habibie family are quite extensively involved in all the businesses dealing with the agencies headed by Habibie.
It is also the practice that anything to do with sophisticated technology has to get BPPT approval, and that means that they can hint that contracts will be approved if the business goes to a particular dealer or contractor.
BATAN and BPPT are strongly infected with conflicts of interest. The son of the current BATAN chief has for the last five years directed one of the three gamma radiation companies licensed by BATAN. He and his brother are major shareholders in a joint venture with the American firm SteriGenics. Habibie has family connections to over 50 companies that do business deals with numerous agencies headed by Habibie.
Some of these companies have joint ventures with conglomerates owned by Suharto's children and their spouses. His sons do business with German steel makers who in turn require Habibie's approval for contracts from the Indonesian state steel manufacturer.
Habibie's niece is the BPPT's deputy chief and is responsible for a prestigious joint venture with major Australian research institutions. Habibie's brother is secretary to the director of sea communication, who bought a 10-year-old junk ship from Japan for the Indonesian government for $8.5 million; this deal only became public because the ship sank, killing 775 of its 1154 passengers.
Question: What about the military? Are they in favour?
Strangely enough, the military are divided. The military see BPPT as an agency with so much power that they have established their own version of it, the BPPIT (Industrial Technology Assessment Agency), and they haven't given the project their blessing.
I think some fractions in the military are also concerned about the level of social protest that the project may cause and also the dependency on overseas uranium.
Once again it is Habibie who has overseen the growing links with the Australian military, which currently spends $3.2 million to provide "world class military training" in as many as 50 different training institutions, as well as supplying weapons and technology.
Other fractions in the military would love Indonesia to have a nuclear reactor. Even though it is for "peaceful" purposes, it is clear that the division between civilian and military uses no longer applies.
Question: Is Australia likely to be a supplier of uranium for these reactors?
This a possibility because ERA, which is the big uranium miner at Ranger and Jabiluka in the Northern Territory, has joint ventures with Kansai, the Japanese nuclear electricity suppliers, and Kansai has its daughter company doing the feasibility survey for Indonesia. Kansai senior management has a place on the board of ERA.
Question: You've described this decision as an ecological, economic and constitutional disaster. What are the likely effects on the Indonesian people of building these reactors?
The local people will most likely lose their land and their waters, because this is a coastal area in which people farm or fish. Villagers who live within 10 kilometres of the proposed site will have to be evicted; this could be as many as 30,000 people.
The local fishing industry will be affected, and there will be a fairly cheap compensation for their land, as in other similar projects in central Java. The clearing of the site will push tonnes of soil into the ocean, which disturbs the breeding cycle of the local milkfish.
Even if they can move several kilometres from the reactor site, the people are still living at risk, and not only the risk of radiation. The amount of cooling water needed is astronomical; the risk of thermal pollution means that they will lose their fishing industry, sending thousands of workers into the streets.
The Indonesia Environmental Forum conducted as poll which showed that 77.7% of Indonesians were opposed to any nuclear power plants in Indonesia; 48% want a national referendum on the issue.
Question: What protests have their been in Indonesia about this and what has been the government's response?
Just like the planned voyage of the Japanese plutonium ship triggered student demonstrations and anti-Japanese demonstrations in Jakarta, in university towns in Sumatra and all the way to Lombok in South Sulawesi, so protests may happen once it is clear that Suharto has given it a green light.
The groundwork has already been prepared for opposition by the Indonesia Environmental forum (WALHI) and by the Indonesian Anti-Nuclear Society (MAI), which covers a wide range of citizen groups. Also Wahid, leader of Nahdlatul Ulama, the largest Islamic organisation, whose members live in the peninsula and will be affected, has threatened to lead his 20 to 30 million members on a hunger strike against the project.
By linking the issue to uranium mining — the most probable site is in West Kalimantan, where 4000-10,000 tons of uranium have been identified — it can also raise support from the pro-Dayak people and the anti-deforestation movement in Kalimantan. It can link with the same movement in Sarawak, because the Dayak people migrate and have family and business connections with Sarawak, so the same people in Malaysia who have been supporting the Punan people may also support the Kalimantan Dayak people against uranium mining.
The official debate is accompanied by "unofficial" harassment of anti-nuclear activists. These activists have been prevented by police from attending public forums. One senior physicist has had his solar energy research facility bombed.