[As part of its campaign to help publicize a national protest called for July 30-31 against the "Superphénix" breeder reactor in Creys-Malville, the French Trotskyist daily Rouge has published a number of articles on the rise of opposition to the government's program to develop nuclear power.
(The following article, which reports on the growth of the organized antinuclear movement, appeared in the June 10 issue of Rouge. The translation is by Intercontinental Press.]
The antinuclear movement in France began with the protests against the nuclear power plants in Bugey, in the Ain River valley, and in Fessenheim. Now the struggle has become international, dovetailing with the fight against the Wyhl plant in West Germany.
In late 1970, the CSFR (Comité de Sauvegarde de Fessenheim et de la Plaine du Rhin-Committee to Save Fessenheim and the Rhine Valley) was formed. Marches on Fessenheim were organized in 1971 and 1972. In August 1974, an international march became the focal point for three struggles: against the Wyhl plant, Fessenheim, and the building of a chemical plant in Marckolsheim, France.
In the winter of 1975, the campaign against the Wyhl plant culminated in the occupation of the site by 28,000 demonstra-
Many activists still look to the tors.
example of this action, which was referred to time and again last summer in Malville.
In France, at the present time, there is not a single plant, either projected or under construction, that does not face opposition from local committees. These committees are usually grouped in regional federations.
They include CRIN (Comité Régional d'Information Nucléaire-Regional Committee for Nuclear Information) in Nantes; CRILAN (Comité Régional d'Information et de Lutte Antinucléaire-Regional Committee for Antinuclear Information and Action) in Flamanville; MRAN (Mouvement Régional Antinucléaire-Regional Antinuclear Movement) in Châlons-sur- Saône.
Also, CRANHM (Comité Régional Antinucléaire de Haute-Normandie-Regional Antinuclear Committee of Upper Normandy); Regional Antinuclear Committee of Cruas-Meysse; APROVAS (Association pour la Protection de la Vallée de la
Seine-Association for the Protection of the Seine Valley); and CANIF (Coordination Antinucléaire de l'lle de France- Antinuclear Coordinating Committee of Ile-de-France) in Nogent-sur-Seine.
The work of these committees falls into several categories. They include educational activities, such as public meetings in different villages, letters and "statements of concern" from scientists (in Fessenheim and Malville), organizing debates with representatives of EDF (Electricité de France) who are willing to participate (in Nogent, the EDF at first refused, but later agreed to debate); and sending documents to local officials. Demonstrations and fairs are organized to get people involved. These feature mock funeral processions by victims of the plant, antinuclear floats, symbolic tombstones, satirical sketches, and so on.
To delay the expropriation procedure, organizations have been formed to buy up portions of the land chosen for the site, thus increasing the number of property owners and making the process more complicated. Once the site has been marked off, the committees try to block access to the construction area, and sometimes occupy it. This leads to a discussion of what methods and forms of struggle to use, as in the case of Malville today.
Some committees have chosen to respond to a public-interest study by filing collective letters of rejection, as in Nogentsur-Seine. Others boycott the study, as in Le Pellerin. The focus of the campaign might be a moratorium, organizing a referendum, demanding that an environmental-impact study be made, publishing the plans for emergency measures in case of an accident, and so on.
The main problems the committees face stem from the high stakes involved in the struggle. For each plant, it is necessary to muster almost a national show of strength. How can the committees avoid becoming bogged down by a regional perspective? Doesn't arguing on the basis of the unsuitability of a given site (i.e., Nogent is near Paris and threatens to contaminate the ground water; Flamanville is built over a fault and is unstable, and so on) amount to "passing the buck" to neighboring areas? In this context, should the idea of a local referendum be supported or not?
This raises the necessity for coordinating the committees. Regional associations, like the antinuclear coordinating committee of the Saine valley, are being formed.
It was Malville, touchstone of the French and European nuclear development program, that brought this out most clearly.
Today, a network of forty-six committees exists, spread out over eight departments. To coordinate the actions of the village committees, high-school and university student committees, and academic committees, "parallel" structures have been set up. Now there is a local committee (near the site), a regional committee (Rhône- Alps), a national, and international committee.
The importance of what is at stake also poses the need for the actions to have a massive character. This directly raises the question of the movement's relations with the trade unions and the workers parties.
Opposition to Soviet
A-Plants Reported
Reuters correspondent Chris Catlin reported on the Soviet Union's nuclear program in a dispatch printed in the May
27 Los Angeles Times. "The new emphasis on nuclear power is clearly reflected at the sprawling, multireactor station here on the River Don, where a big, 1,000-megawatt reactor should be in operation by next year.
"The addition of the station's fifth power plant will make Novovoronezh one of the world's largest atomic stations, with a total capacity of 2,455 megawatts."
Catlin noted that official guides at the plant placed great stress on the safety measures that are in force. He said this was "not just a result of the controversy over the pros and cons of nuclear power going on in the West. Novovoronezh had problems of its own with local protesters who were worried by the prospect of an atomic catastrophe.
"In private, power station officials say letters flooded in from opponents of the plan when it first became known that Novovoronezh had been chosen as the site."
Catlin also reported that Dr. Pyotr Kapitsa, one of the Soviet Union's most distinguished scientists, has spoken out on the dangers of nuclear power.
"In an unpublished speech last year to the Soviet Academy of Sciences, he compared a 1,000-megawatt reactor to a 1,000- ton atomic bomb.
**In case of accident or sabotage, escaping radioactivity can kill every living thing for many square kilometers, like the atom bomb did at Hiroshima,' he warned."