Despite court ruling, MSDF needs better training program
The Yokohama District Court on Wednesday acquitted two Maritime Self-Defense Force officers over a fatal collision between an MSDF destroyer and a fishing boat in February 2008 that resulted in the deaths of two fishermen.
The two officers--one was on night duty aboard the Aegis-equipped Atago during the accident and the other shortly before--were charged with professional negligence resulting in the deaths of a 58-year-old fisherman and his 23-year-old son who were aboard the fishing boat Seitoku Maru.
The court ruling said there was no proof of a criminal act. This was a major setback for prosecutors, who failed to prove that the two officers were negligent.
The prosecutors submitted as evidence a navigational chart purporting to show the course of the Seitoku Maru up to the collision with the Atago, to prove it was the destroyer that should have taken evasive action under the relevant law.
The defendants, however, argued that the collision resulted from the fishing vessel's making an abrupt right turn.
The ruling said one of the most serious problems with the prosecutors' case was their reconstruction of the presumed course the Seitoku Maru had taken.
===
Insufficient evidence
The judge rejected the credibility of the navigational chart presented by the prosecutors and the assertion that the law called for the Seitoku Maru to take evasive action to avoid the collision.
During the trial's cross-examination of witnesses, a captain of another fishing boat said, "I think they [the prosecutors] created it [the chart] arbitrarily."
The prosecutors obviously failed to gather sufficient evidence to prove the guilt of the two officers, especially as the exact course the fishing boat took was unknown as its global positioning system device was lost at sea.
The ruling also said the two MSDF officers failed to mount a sufficient lookout during night duty. The officers changed shifts about 12 minutes before the collision.
Although the two officers were found not guilty as individuals, the MSDF cannot evade the responsibility that one of its ships was involved in a collision.
In 2009, a marine accident tribunal said the main cause of the collision was the Atago's failure to keep an adequate lookout. The Defense Ministry also admitted in a report that the Atago's lookout system was inadequate.
===
Fundamental duties neglected
The Atago is a state-of-the-art Aegis-equipped destroyer that entered into service about one year before the collision, and was equipped with a top-level radar system.
No matter how superbly it was equipped, a vessel may end up being involved in an accident if crew members neglect their fundamental duties to ensure safe navigation. That lesson should be learned from the case.
The collision occurred in waters crowded with vessels off Boso Peninsula in Chiba Prefecture. To prevent a similar accident, how MSDF ships navigate in such waters as well as the rules of the sea must be thoroughly discussed.
Besides this case, the MSDF has been involved in a number of other incidents, such as the leakage of classified information of the Aegis naval air defense system and a fire on a destroyer when it was in port. These incidents led to a large number of MSDF officers being punished.
The MSDF is in the process of recovering the public's trust.
Now that the court has handed down its ruling, it is time for the MSDF to consider putting its members through a more stringent retraining process.
Govt must take on its share of N-compensation
The government on Wednesday compiled a framework for paying compensation over losses related to the crisis at Tokyo Electric Power Co.'s Fukushima No. 1 nuclear power plant in Fukushima Prefecture.
However, the content of the framework leaves much concern about whether sufficient compensation can be made for the damage inflicted.
The amount that TEPCO cannot pay will be temporarily shouldered by the central government, and TEPCO will have to repay the state in installments at a later time. It now seems likely that affected people will be compensated.
The obligation to compensate people for losses in principle rests with TEPCO, and therefore it is natural for the utility company to make its utmost effort in this regard.
However, we question the fact that TEPCO has to in effect shoulder an unlimited amount of compensation. If this point is left unchanged, TEPCO's management strength will soon give out, interfering with the payment of compensation and the stable supply of electricity.
===
State's burden insufficient
The government also bears responsibility in this crisis, for promoting nuclear power. It must introduce a system in which the state satisfactorily shares the burden if the total sum of compensation exceeds a certain amount.
The compensation framework was compiled mainly by Economy, Trade and Industry Minister Banri Kaieda and others.
Initially, the government will establish a new organization through which the government and the electricity industry will financially support TEPCO's compensation scheme. A special type of government bonds will be used to procure funds for the new organization, and the amount used for compensation will be repaid by TEPCO over a long period of time.
TEPCO is urged to implement thorough internal restructuring measures to squeeze out funds for compensation.
The company has already decided that top management officials will return or forgo part or all of their yearly salaries and regular employees' pay will be cut by 20 percent.
It is natural for the company to take such measures, as it has caused a serious crisis and is seeking the government's help.
Electric power companies other than TEPCO will also contribute funds to the new organization. The Fukushima No. 1 plant crisis involves them as well, and it is wise to set up a system to accumulate funds in preparation for emergency situations.
===
Do more than law stipulates
The problem with the latest system is that the government's share of the burden is quite limited.
Under the Compensation for Nuclear Damages Law, the state provides up to 120 billion yen per nuclear power plant for accidents caused by earthquakes or tsunami. In the Fukushima Prefecture case, the government's share of the burden of compensation is essentially limited to this amount.
The government has repeatedly emphasized that it, too, is responsible for compensation related to the accident. If so, it should step forward and take up a greater burden.
The nuclear compensation law also stipulates that the state shall be entirely responsible for paying for losses resulting from "abnormally large natural disasters."
If the losses caused to the agriculture and fisheries industries by groundless rumors is included, the total amount of compensation will certainly reach into trillions of yen. The government is not acting responsibly if it leaves most of the burden on TEPCO and the electricity industry alone.
0 comments:
Post a Comment