What comes first?

Perhaps I am one of the few still in the dark about Jordan’s nuclear programme.

While I thought the country was still in the midst of a national debate at all levels, government and public, about whether to go nuclear or not to meet national energy needs, the Jordan Atomic Energy Commission (JAEC) surprised me, and perhaps others, when it signed a deal with a Russian company to construct the first of two nuclear plants to be completed in the upcoming years.

All details about the deal were obviously negotiated and completed, including the site and how to sustain its cooling process by a questionable source of water.

This took place while Parliament has yet, as far as I know, to conclude its considerations of this far-reaching energy policy and while the public was led to believe that nothing concrete had been decided, pending a final judgment of the pros and cons of the nuclear project.

The immediate issue is the legal status of the accord struck with the Russian company in the absence of a formal decision to opt for nuclear energy.

JAEC has been targeting the public with TV ads explaining and advocating the nuclear choice, highlighting the virtues of going nuclear, including the number of nuclear plants planned by various countries despite the growing reservations of other nations.

This is all fair and nice, but what is not is the absence of the opposite view on state television, the view stating the downside of nuclear plants, including the number of countries that decided to phase out reliance on nuclear energy in favour of renewable energy sources.

A more balanced state television policy on this issue would have been in order.

The deal was signed with a Russian company ostensibly committing Jordan to construct two nuclear plants with no regard for the outcome of the ongoing national debate on the issue.

Over and above the many obvious drawbacks of nuclear plants, including their safety record and vulnerability to earthquakes and other forms of threats, one wonders about the source of funding for this huge project.

International donors would probably have a say about the wisdom of going nuclear under the circumstances, which include the geopolitical situation in the region and the rise of terrorism in the Middle East, which could make nuclear plants an easy target.

What would happen if, for one reason or another, the implementation of the contract to build a nuclear plant in Jordan is delayed or suspended for reasons beyond our control?

Is there a penalty clause in the contract?

True, the arguments are plenty for and against nuclear plants as source of energy, especially for a country so thirsty for energy that has practically no natural resources for developing it except sun and wind.

Whatever is the case, the completion of the national debate must precede the final commitment to construct nuclear plants in the country.