Qualms & Wires

There have been a lot of emotional reactions about Japan among the political family to whom I owe my current day-job.

Some of the emotion has been of this order. The French Greens statement mentions immense anger, clenched fists, heavy hearts, before going on to declare that the Greens are on the front line fighting against "this war humanity has unleashed against itself". Poetic, if you like your poetry seething with righteous indignation.

Then there is the emotion in response to these type of reactions, which sees the instrumentalisation of a still unfolding human tragedy on a massive scale as something Greens should aspire to being above. And in response to some of the thinly veiled messages of "we told you so". Then again, Europe Ecologie clearly didn't feel the need to veil anything, they just went ahead and bluntly said that the Japanese were likely to pay "pay a heavy price" for the carelessness of the choice to use nuclear energy, "contrary to all reason". Especially given the timing, this was really the final kick in the teeth in a statement that is so pompous and so offensive to anyone whose been affected by the disaster, as to make one wonder how certain members of the Party with a conscience could possibly have allowed it to be released.

This seems to be the worst of a series of reactions which had the unfortunate side-effect of undermining any criticism by Greens of the nuclear industry lobbyists who rushed to defend nuclear, as quickly as they themselves rushed to condemn it. It meant that the Australians were skating on very thin ice when they denounced the "undignified scramble from nuclear power advocates to trivialise the unfolding disaster at Fukushima in order to promote the technology".

What's more, it seems that it's precisely this kind of hyperbolic, excessive language that many in Japan have criticised and warned against. At least from what I've gleaned so far from those on the ground, qualifications of a "nuclear apocalypse" and other such epithets seem to be regarded as misguiding and infuriating. Descriptions of a "mass exodus" or the immense of another Tchernobyl only serve to disinform and fuel mass hysteria, as well as to detract attention from the genuinely devastating aftermath of the earthquake and tsunami.

Besides all this emotion there were also incredibly dignified and elegant statements, such as that of MEP Philippe Lamberts who warned against fueling a hasty debate and argued that the Greens' views on nuclear energy are well-known, and that now was not the time to restate them. Groenlinks, the Dutch Greens have also shown commendable restraint.

There have since been a number of pieces making more technical arguments for not saying no point blank to nuclear, such as Monbiot's piece. For me this is almost a step too far. What I've been feeling incredibly uneasy about is the way the situation in Japan has been used as a vehicle to further domestic political aims concerning nuclear energy, which detracts attention away from the continuing effects of the natural disaster. But there is also something problematic about a stance on any issue that can consists of only a 2 or 3 letter word. Experience teaches us that there is almost always slightly more to it than that. So the fact that there appears to be a diversity of perspectives within the Greens is no bad thing and in fact it's part of what makes it one of the healthier political movements.

One of the really strong points the Greens have going for them is precisely the fact that they have the kind of integrity and long-term vision which means they don't operate in a way determined by political opportunism, and short-term incentives allowing them to gain popularity. In other words, without playing the political game in such a cynical way, and without exploiting the misfortunes of others elsewhere to further their own agendas at home, on principle, however noble that agenda may be in our estimation.

Perhaps it is naive to think that Greens can operate in the world of politics without playing the game to some extent. They want to implement their ideas and that necessarily means chasing votes, whether we like it or not. But there's a careful balance that needs to be kept. Because making too many compromises for vote-scoring will undermine precisely the strengths and qualities which make them remarkable and unique.