Greenpeace China is in the process of opening a Taiwan office. While saying that Greenpeace China will not issue opinions on political issues, a representative said the Taiwan office would be subordinate to the Chinese office and that one’s position on Taiwanese independence would be a consideration when interviewing applicants.
Thanks to its public relations skills, Greenpeace International is probably the world’s best known environmental protection organization. It has clashed with Japanese whalers on the high seas to protect whales and tracked international transports of toxic waste. It has sneaked into and closed down coal power plants and hung banners from chimneys. In 1985 the French secret service sank the organization’s boat The Rainbow Warrior in New Zealand to stop it from interfering with nuclear arms tests in the South Pacific. This fearless pursuit of its goals is admired by many who want to protect the environment.
In the past, shared ideals have led the Taiwan Environmental Protection Union (台灣環境保護聯盟) to cooperate with Greenpeace International in protests against nuclear power and the handling of nuclear waste. It has shared the Taiwanese environmental protection experience with other countries, and feels strongly that it is only through solidarity and mutual help that weaker groups will be able to protest against the inequalities created by the existing political and economic system. That is why we are very happy to see international environmental protection organizations set up offices in Taiwan. Greenpeace China’s plan to open up an office in Taiwan, however, raises many concerns.
Greenpeace opened an office in Hong Kong in 1997, and in 2002 it set up an office in Guangzhou, Guangdong Province. Over the years, the activities of the Chinese branch have differed vastly from what people might expect: It has focused on opposing genetically modified foods and promoting renewable energy. On issues where Greenpeace International has clashed with other countries, such as nuclear safety, nuclear pollution, nuclear waste treatment, industrial pollution, toxic waste, over-development, excessive logging and so on, Greenpeace China has done nothing. Did Greenpeace China show any concern for possible leaks of radioactive materials during the great earthquake in Sichuan Province in 2008 or the recent deadly earthquake in Qinghai? No.
I find it hard to believe that the introduction of genetically modified foods is the most serious problem facing an industrializing country like China, and I also find it difficult to believe that China does not suffer from the environmental issues afflicting other countries. Could it be that Greenpeace has chosen to accommodate the Chinese government and decided to remain silent on highly controversial, highly sensitive issues? Is this the result of some kind of agreement? Could it be that Greenpeace China is not only neglecting China’s massive environmental problems, but that it is also accommodating the Chinese state apparatus in declaring that Taiwan is part of China? Doesn’t making one’s view on Taiwan’s independence or unification with China a criterion in the employment process mean that Greenpeace has chosen to prioritize politics and abandon everything else?
Too many organizations in Taiwan place politics above all else, and this has created a climate where it is very difficult to maintain a calm tone in public debate. We certainly don’t need yet another organization claiming to work for the protection of the environment to come to Taiwan and further complicate our environmental protection efforts.
Gloria Hsu is a professor at National Taiwan University’s Department of Atmospheric Sciences and former chairwoman of the Taiwan Environmental Protection Union.
TRANSLATED BY PERRY SVENSSON
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
In an article published on this page on Tuesday, Kaohsiung-based journalist Julien Oeuillet wrote that “legions of people worldwide would care if a disaster occurred in South Korea or Japan, but the same people would not bat an eyelid if Taiwan disappeared.” That is quite a statement. We are constantly reading about the importance of Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), hailed in Taiwan as the nation’s “silicon shield” protecting it from hostile foreign forces such as the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), and so crucial to the global supply chain for semiconductors that its loss would cost the global economy US$1
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
Sasha B. Chhabra’s column (“Michelle Yeoh should no longer be welcome,” March 26, page 8) lamented an Instagram post by renowned actress Michelle Yeoh (楊紫瓊) about her recent visit to “Taipei, China.” It is Chhabra’s opinion that, in response to parroting Beijing’s propaganda about the status of Taiwan, Yeoh should be banned from entering this nation and her films cut off from funding by government-backed agencies, as well as disqualified from competing in the Golden Horse Awards. She and other celebrities, he wrote, must be made to understand “that there are consequences for their actions if they become political pawns of
RSS