A day before China marked its first annual Disaster Prevention and Reduction Day — declared to mark the anniversary of last year’s catastrophic Sichuan earthquake — the country confirmed its first case of the A(H1N1) swine flu outside Hong Kong. Chinese authorities were quick to respond by quarantining the patient, a man who returned from the US last week, and seeking contact with hundreds of passengers who traveled on the same Tokyo-St Paul, Minnesota, and Beijing-Chengdu flights.
Unlike China’s infamous mishandling of the SARS outbreak in 2002 and 2003, no attempt was made to hide the case — a small victory for transparency. The promptness with which it was reported is appreciated in Taiwan, where authorities lost no time in tracking down travelers who had boarded the cross-Pacific flight with the Chinese man. Within 24 hours, the Department of Health was able to locate most of the 23 Taiwanese passengers to inform them of their possible exposure to the virus.
This exercise in Chinese transparency came the same day that Beijing released a white paper on disaster relief efforts. On the eve of the first anniversary of the May 12 temblor that left tens of thousands dead or missing, the paper, entitled China’s Actions for Disaster Prevention and Reduction, was another show of transparency, but one less likely to win praise.
Although it recognizes the potential for increased frequency and severity of natural disasters and the need for effective safety measures, the paper is largely show. Beijing pats itself on the back, listing legislation and other action over the past decades to address various aspects of natural calamities. Its lavish self-praise would read as a cruel joke to the thousands of parents whose children died in shoddily built schools: “Always placing people first, the Chinese government has all along put the security of people’s lives and property on the top of its work.”
Conspicuously absent from the paper, which lists strategies for reducing the financial and human toll of disasters, is any mention of corruption. A key lesson learned from the devastation in Sichuan was the role that fighting graft must play in reducing the casualties of future disasters. Chinese authorities remain tight-lipped on the greed that led to hundreds of schools referred to as “tofu-dreg constructions” crumbling in the quake.
The topic has the potential to drag down scores of local officials in criminal liability and compensation suits, increase domestic discontent and international embarrassment over unscrupulous administration, and highlight jerry-built public construction that is ubiquitous in China.
Side-stepping this elephant in the room, the paper says only that the government spent 9 billion yuan (US$1.32 billion) between 2001 and 2005 to renovate 40,000 schools. It also mentions a new program to ensure that schools meet earthquake safety standards.
The paper is also silent on the rights of victims to seek compensation in disasters where official incompetence or corruption results in loss of life. The omission is a slap in the face of the grieving parents. More than just ignoring them, authorities including police have punished those who seek redress with physical and psychological threats and harassed the lawyers who try to help them.
If Beijing has learned something of the value of government accountability and openness from the Sichuan disaster, it has refrained from sharing it in its white paper. Instead, it indulges in self-congratulation while continuing to silence bereaved parents. Rather than illustrating transparency, the only thing China has highlighted is the utter lack of it.
Concerns that the US might abandon Taiwan are often overstated. While US President Donald Trump’s handling of Ukraine raised unease in Taiwan, it is crucial to recognize that Taiwan is not Ukraine. Under Trump, the US views Ukraine largely as a European problem, whereas the Indo-Pacific region remains its primary geopolitical focus. Taipei holds immense strategic value for Washington and is unlikely to be treated as a bargaining chip in US-China relations. Trump’s vision of “making America great again” would be directly undermined by any move to abandon Taiwan. Despite the rhetoric of “America First,” the Trump administration understands the necessity of
US President Donald Trump’s challenge to domestic American economic-political priorities, and abroad to the global balance of power, are not a threat to the security of Taiwan. Trump’s success can go far to contain the real threat — the Chinese Communist Party’s (CCP) surge to hegemony — while offering expanded defensive opportunities for Taiwan. In a stunning affirmation of the CCP policy of “forceful reunification,” an obscene euphemism for the invasion of Taiwan and the destruction of its democracy, on March 13, 2024, the People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) used Chinese social media platforms to show the first-time linkage of three new
If you had a vision of the future where China did not dominate the global car industry, you can kiss those dreams goodbye. That is because US President Donald Trump’s promised 25 percent tariff on auto imports takes an ax to the only bits of the emerging electric vehicle (EV) supply chain that are not already dominated by Beijing. The biggest losers when the levies take effect this week would be Japan and South Korea. They account for one-third of the cars imported into the US, and as much as two-thirds of those imported from outside North America. (Mexico and Canada, while
I have heard people equate the government’s stance on resisting forced unification with China or the conditional reinstatement of the military court system with the rise of the Nazis before World War II. The comparison is absurd. There is no meaningful parallel between the government and Nazi Germany, nor does such a mindset exist within the general public in Taiwan. It is important to remember that the German public bore some responsibility for the horrors of the Holocaust. Post-World War II Germany’s transitional justice efforts were rooted in a national reckoning and introspection. Many Jews were sent to concentration camps not