The Euratom Treaty must be reviewed to end the EU's pro-nuclear posture, writes Nuala Ahern
President Bush announced proposals to end nuclear proliferation on February 11th at the US National Defence University in Washington. He endorsed a proposal for a new UN Security Council resolution requiring all states to "criminalise proliferation".
He also demanded changes in the nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, aimed at closing loopholes which have been exploited by nations such as North Korea and Iran. These regimes are allowed to produce nuclear material that can be used to build bombs under the cover of civilian nuclear programmes. Mr Bush attacked the illegal trade in nuclear technology, but his efforts will ring hollow if the "legal trade" in nuclear technology is allowed to continue.
Mr Bush went on to condemn nuclear reprocessing. "Enrichment and reprocessing are not necessary for nations seeking to harness nuclear energy for peaceful purposes," he stated. This poses the question as to whether the UK and France, and other EU states which use reprocessing, are to be included in this condemnation?
Already there are calls in Westminster to Prime Minister Tony Blair to support Mr Bush in his appeal to end reprocessing.
Perhaps MPs are beginning to count the cost of nuclear technology and the billions that government is prepared to spend to underwrite it. If they are, central to their concern should be a review of the Euratom Treaty, which has encouraged the massive financial support of a bankrupt technology.
The Euratom Treaty, agreed in Rome in 1957, was established to develop nuclear power. The European Parliament has in a recent resolution on the new European constitution called for the expiry of the Euratom Treaty in 2007. The treaty has never been reviewed, and has an indefinite lifespan, unlike the European Coal and Steel Treaty, which expired in 2001 after 50 years.
The Euratom treaty promotes the expansion of the nuclear industry and contradicts the stated policy of a number of member-states, including Ireland and Austria.
EU Commissioner Loyola de Palacio has recently been outlawing airport subsidies helpful to Ryanair, yet the same commissioner is presiding over gross distortions of the energy to prop up the nuclear sector. EU competition rules seem to be applied rigorously to all in the EU except the nuclear industry.
The liberalisation of the electricity market requires fair regulation, with regard to price and cost transparency. This should mean a level playing field between generators. However the treaty gives unacceptable preferential treatment to nuclear generators. This must be challenged.
The British government is sheltering behind Euratom in an effort to fund its bankrupt nuclear power plants. An EU Commission investigation into state aid given to British Energy, the nuclear operator that almost went bankrupt in September 2002, has exposed the crisis in UK policy. It also exposes the enormous scale of hidden aid given to it, over £4 billion. The EU's competition authorities must now decide whether that aid is legal. However the UK is citing the Euratom treaty in defence of its massive subsidy and Ms de Palacio is on record defending state aid to the nuclear sector on the grounds of the treaty.
The British have also put pressure on British Nuclear Fuels (BNFL), which reprocesses British Energy's nuclear fuel at Sellafield , to agree to waive interest on British Energy's massive debts. As recently as last November, British Energy was forced once again to seek extra cash because an unexpected shutdown at two plants caused cash-flow problems. It needed an extra £80 million to £100 million credit facility in addition to the £200 million credit it already had. This should be regarded by Brussels as unlawful state aid.
Current proposals for the European constitutional treaty would allow the subsidy of nuclear energy to continue. If the proposals for a new constitutional treaty are adopted, the de facto constitution will be the constitutional treaty plus the Euratom Treaty, all other treaties having been incorporated into the new constitutional treaty.
Austria has tabled a proposal to the European Council that a new convention to review the Euratom Treaty should be established. Ireland has joined with Austria in seeking such a review. Unless Euratom is reviewed or repealed, then the de facto or effective EU constitution will remain pro-nuclear and public support for the new constitutional treaty will be seriously undermined.
The momentum towards agreement on a new European Constitution means that the Irish presidency of the EU should be redoubling its efforts to ensure that the review of the Euratom Treaty does take place. In view of the concern expressed in Washington on proliferation, the review should also specifically target reprocessing in the EU at Sellafield and Cap de la Hague. It would be a dreadful mistake to proceed with a new constitution for Europe that allows the promotion of nuclear technology to continue by default because of a refusal to deal with an obsolete and unreformed treaty.
Nuala Ahern is Green MEP for Leinster