Argumentative strategies

CEUeTDCollection

national level. Even though in both countries claims about the possibilities to train the necessary workforce at home are confronted by anti-nuclear discourse coalitions. This is especially the case in Lithuania, where decommissioning of the Ignalina NPP is not going as smoothly as planned and many point at the fact that Lithuania did not actually build the existing plant itself.

Meanwhile in Belarusian discourse national scientists are portrayed as standing at the forefront of the global nuclear research.

A number of rather specific constraints such as financial liabilities and the state of technological advancement of new reactors is only part of global discourse linked to constraints.

However, the national pro-nuclear actors often talk about nuclear industry’s future technological promises such as inherent safety features or fast breeders to support the argument about

“advanced modern reactor technology”, although in reality most of these have nothing to do with the actual planned construction in the country.

Geopolitics as a constraint by itself has rather different interpretation in both countries. In Lithuania it is mainly linked with neighbouring countries ambitions to build their own plants and competition over a foreign investor as perceived by the pro-nuclear discourse coalition. It also relates to fears about Russia’s influence, but not so much as in Belarus where it is seen as the main constraint for any other foreign capital to take part in the project.

Fuel availability is touched upon in Lithuania in relation to energy security, but it does not become a truly distinct theme like in global and Belarusian discourses. The importance of this theme is greater here because of the question whether uranium can be supplied by other country than Russia given that Russian company is also providing nuclear technology. Therefore this issue has much stronger links to energy security and geopolitics in Belarus.

CEUeTDCollection

First, it can be argued that the very nature of the debate in Lithuania is more democratic, while in Belarus the issue is discussed in a more technocratic way. Although tables 5.1 and 5.8 in the previous Chapter outline the dominant actors and themes mainly in analytical texts sampled, they can be considered indicative of the power certain actors have over other in the studied national discourses. Second, the language plays an important role in the discursive struggle taking place on the national level. One such illustrative example common for both countries is anti-nuclear actors referring to the “dependence on Russia”, while top political leaders diplomatically preferring to say dependence on the “East” or simply a “single source”.

6.2.1 Lithuania

Political leaders and officials are the main pro-nuclear advocates in Lithuania, but they have much less monopoly over a credible argument as such, compared to scientists in Belarus. It seems that such line-up does create more opportunities to challenge the dominant pro-nuclear coalition on more equal terms. Rather than only justifying why nuclear is the best technological option, the Lithuanian political leaders are pressed to present economic feasibility studies. There is at least one rather significant difference among the two national discourses in terms of credibility and trustworthiness of discourse actors, especially in the anti-nuclear coalition. In contrast with the Belarusian debate described below, the Lithuanian discourse also features one of the top nuclear physicists who is also representing the National Academy of Sciences, the head of the Economic Department of the Bank of Lithuania and some other prominent financial analysts who are questioning the feasibility of the project not only in pages of the alternative, but also the mainstream media.

Moreover although the tone of the Lithuanian debate is also getting emotional at times, the attack on the critical camp rarely bares an openly pejorative character. The diverging narratives are competing with war, slavery and mythical metaphors that are particularly eloquent in editorials and opinion pieces. Nuclear project is portrayed as a “three-headed dragon” fighting Russian gas

“giant” that is threatening to “enslave” Lithuania and turn into an “energy desert”; others dread it as a

“monstrous” and “hellish” reactor that may eventually bring on the “nuclear winter”.

The story about the “Leo LT” consortium can be considered symbolic of a relative strength the pro-nuclear coalition has in Lithuania as it never proceeded with national nuclear projects, but was liquidated due to wide-spread corruption concerns. The narratives mainly pertaining to themes of project model and legitimacy documented in Chapter 5 serve as examples of discursive struggle on this issue. Today the Lithuanian discourse remains very political, without much discussion on issues like technology and safety. But this particular debate also highlighted failures of the Ignalina NPP decommissioning and helped to introduce to the debate more diverse themes such as national capacity to handle big nuclear projects.

CEUeTDCollection

6.2.2 Belarus

A technocratic discourse is unfolding in texts sampled from the Belarusian media. Here it proves much more difficult to question and counter-argue dominating proponents of nuclear, especially given the role of the state media that excludes critical actors from the public discourse or denounces their arguments as ill-informed or anti-state. Elite scientists are put at the forefront to answer most of the nuclear-related questions be it safety, waste management or advantaged of the chosen investor. Since most often they are expressing their views unilaterally by explaining and educating rather than justifying, they gain an advantage of framing nuclear themes in the way that they become more difficult to challenge. Similarly like in the study by Windisch (2008) on political argumentation cited in the literature review, they reject any public doubts as

“psychological”, not based on “hard facts” or simply “silly”. Belarusian scientists refer to themselves as “professionals” who do not succumb to “radiophobia” (Ermak 2008; Lukashenko 2008).

Government officials and engineers who are complementing their arguments are also difficult for the critical public to confront.

Their argumentative position is strengthened by President Lukashenko himself who notes that it was scientists who suggested nuclear as the most suitable option for strengthening energy security. Moreover, while he leaves the technical discussion to scientists, Lukashenko is rather straightforward about his opinion about critics whom he at times addresses in a rather pejorative manner. For example, he attacks anti-nuclear scientists for scaremongering: “Are these scientists?!

These are either brainless people or people without consciousness, and most probably without either” (Lukashenko 2007). Other opponents are portrayed as people pursuing publicity or personal benefit: These are political bandits of a second political Chernobyl wave. […] I will use all resources and power in my possession today to not allow this” (Krylovich 2008a). Pro-nuclear media commentators also contribute to promoting such views. Those who oppose nuclear have knowledge are called “old ladies” (rus.

“babushka”) and “green loudmouths (rus. “zelionyie krikuny”)” who haven’t not suggested a viable way solve energy problems in any country and just “want Belarusians to live at the splinter” (Kriat 2008).

Meanwhile, the opposing camp has less leverage in terms of credibility, since it is mostly comprised of weary local citizens, church leaders, concerned intellectuals, retired physicists, and foreign medical doctors or randomly quoted sociological analysts. They raise concerns about nuclear projects in a “closed society”, secrecy of decision making, underestimated environmental dangers or becoming another “black Chernobyl hole on the map” that are easy to denounce as

“radiophobia”. Some attempts to emphasize the credibility of the alternative expertise come in a form of underlining the background of the leader of a Russian green NGO who is presented as

“nuclear physicist”.

However, apart from the above mentioned power imbalances, there are instruments that media of both countries are putting at play to the advantage of-pro nuclear coalition. They are discussed in the next section further down.

CEUeTDCollection