Uncategorized

With recent plans by the US Department of Defense to build an advanced mobile nuclear microreactor prototype in Idaho, Manila should not allow Washington to use Philippine military bases as prototype areas for these reactors.

According to an April report by the Associated Press, the US DoD ‘signed off on the Project Pele plan to build the reactor and reactor fuel outside of Idaho and then assemble and operate the reactor at the lab.’

As this is a project initiated by the US defense department, its military objectives had been disclosed by Jeff Waksman, project manager for Project Pele, saying, “Advanced nuclear power has the potential to be a strategic game-changer for the United States, both for the (Department of Defense) and for the commercial sector.”

The US DoD further said that the reactor designs are ‘high-temperature gas-cooled reactors using enriched uranium for fuel.’

PH Nuclear microreactor deployment

Under the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement between the Philippines and the United States, there are no restrictions to Washington on the type of facilities and materials it will construct and install in PH military bases, except a specific restriction against installing nuclear weapons.

However, Philippine authorities should be reminded that this restriction does not assuage fears that the country will not be involved in regional military conflicts, because EDCA allows the installation of conventional military weapons which may approximate the breadth and fatal impact of nuclear weapons.

More importantly, in the event that nuclear microreactors are produced by the US DoD at scale, these small nuclear plants can in fact be installed in EDCA locations in different parts of the country.

This is alarming because the country has yet to decide and implement its national policy on nuclear development based on the policy direction of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr.

In fact, it needs to be made clear that nuclear microreactors in EDCA locations in the country will not be used for civilian purposes but for military objectives by the United States in the Indopacific.

This distinction alone should give the current government pause on allowing nuclear microreactors to be deployed in EDCA location in the future.

More importantly, military nuclear microreactors will allow Washington to deploy different kinds of weapons to influence the security arrangement in the South China Sea and the greater Indopacific.

Further, as nuclear microreactors in EDCA areas will certainly be used for military purposes, this might prompt other regional actors to accuse Manila of violating the Bangkok Treaty, which is the treaty declaring SEA as a nuclear weapon-free zone and other weapons of mass destruction.

With a military nuclear microreactor in Philippine soil, Washington may be able to operate high-powered conventional military weapons which may be equivalent to weapons of mass destruction.

Certainly, Manila should follow its treaty obligations in the region, particularly as other strong powers are also looking at Manila to temper its pivot towards Washington.

Finally, allowing this kind of deployment in EDCA areas diminishes the current call of President Marcos to carefully proceed with nuclear research and development for civilian purposes.

The focus of government should be considering whether nuclear energy should be part of the current energy mix and whether the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant should be revived.

It should also consider developing other aspects of nuclear technology, which can benefit the healthcare and other critically important sectors.

As such, allowing nuclear microreactors in EDCA areas or anywhere in the Philippines should not be in the agenda.

While the Philippines needs all the help it can get in confronting the coronavirus pandemic from international partners such as multilateral agencies and non-government organizations, it is critical for the PH government to be wary of international organizations which may, on the surface, assist with scientific research, but are opaque in conducting its operations in host countries and communities.

One such is example is the EcoHealth Alliance, which for almost the entire duration of the coronavirus pandemic, has parried continuing allegations for its research on coronaviruses and its less than transparent operations in various countries.

Last September 14, nine United States senators led by Sen. Roger Marshall (R-Kansas) called on the US Agency for International Development to suspend money from three grants totaling millions of dollars to the EcoHealth Alliance, in order for the agency to investigate the embattled NGO’s oversight of research programs, including information on laboratory accidents and other adverse events.

The US senators sent a letter to USAID administrator Samantha Power, stating –

It is therefore incumbent upon USAID to be responsible stewards of U.S. taxpayer funds, help protect foreign researchers from risk, and immediately suspend all awards to EcoHealth. The suspension will allow time for USAID to investigate EcoHealth’s oversight of foreign research programs, to include taking inventory of laboratory accidents and adverse events resulting in researcher illness, recordskeeping audits, and assurance that EcoHealth is compliant with federal award requirements.

On the other hand, the US National Institutes of Health recently ended an award granted to the EcoHealth Alliance relating to its long-standing relations with the Wuhan Institute of Virology due to the refusal of Chinese officials to provide records requested by US officials.

Even if the US NIH eventually reinstated the award to the EcoHealth Alliance pending compliance commitments, the initial NIH decision to revoke the award reflects real concerns on EcoHealth operations around the world.

In fact, one of its USAID grants amounting to $4.7 million relates to supporting “long-term and equitable economic growth and advance U.S. foreign policy objectives by supporting economic growth, agriculture and trade; global health; and democracy, conflict prevention and humanitarian assistance.”

Even if the work of GlobalHealth Alliance truly relates to pursuing global health, it is unmistakable that one of the overarching objectives of this USAID grant is to advance US foreign policy.

Clearly, this objective is incompatible with the non-political and non-partisan nature of scientific research, particularly research on coronaviruses such as SARS and COVID-19.

More importantly, the EcoHealth Alliance has also been receiving funding from the US Department of Defense’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency (DTRA), which raises further questions on the full nature of its operations.

To recall, the US DTRA has funded an Animal Biosecurity Laboratory in Tarlac, including six other Regional Animal Disease Diagnostic Laboratories (RADDLs) in Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao amounting around $23 million.

Concerns have previously been raised on the real objectives of the biosecurity project itself, as the US DTRA is an agency under the DoD, which may have unstated military objectives in pursuing the biosecurity project to completion.

With the EcoHealth Alliance’s links with parties which may have objectives other than purely scientific research, the PH government should breadth of EcoHealth Alliance activities in the Philippines.

In its website, the NGO lists three projects currently being undertaken in the Philippines. This includes PREDICT, bat conservation and EIDR (Emerging Infectious Disease Repository). The PREDICT project seeks to “identify new emerging infectious diseases that could become a threat to human health” while EIDR seeks to “unravel the origins of Emerging Infectious Disease (EID) events.”

The PH Government should look into the extent of these projects in the Philippines, particularly EIDR, as it is funded both by the US DTRA and USAID, both agencies which have various program objectives other than purely scientific research.

As in the case of the US DTRA projects in the Philippines, the national government should ensure that the country is not used as launching zones for geopolitical objectives, and at worse, biological threats to the world.