The massive earthquake and ensuing tsunami that struck Japan on March 11, which led to the crisis at the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant, have triggered a debate on nuclear energy in Taiwan. The response of President Ma Ying-jeou’s (馬英九) government echoes the way it defends its China policy — underestimating the risk and telling the public that it need not worry because everything will be just fine.
Taiwan’s nuclear power plants are built near faults and volcanoes, and the three operational plants are already getting old. According to the March 19 edition of the Wall Street Journal, those three plants and the fourth one, which is still under construction, are among the most risk-prone in the world.
A responsible government would immediately stop operations at the three working plants to allow for safety inpsections, and then seriously consider scrapping the fourth one. It would also make greater efforts to expand alternative energy resources, improve energy efficiency and implement the existing “nuclear-free county” clause in the Basic Environment Act (環境基本法).
However, that is not what this government has in mind. It would have us believe that Taiwan’s nuclear power plants are as safe as houses. It raises the specter of economic collapse if the country were to abandon nuclear energy, while citing selective statistics to mislead the public.
While failing to set the public’s mind at rest, the government is also wasting a good opportunity to work out the best combination of energy resources for the nation.
Between the two extremes of scrapping nuclear power and further developing it, there are other options, such as gradual plant closures and slowly reducing our dependence on nuclear energy.
The government’s China policy also poses a grave threat for Taiwan. In a sense, this threat is even more serious, because Taiwan cannot decide the outcome alone. China is using a carrot-and-stick strategy to work toward the goal of annexing Taiwan.
However, the Ma administration seems to believe that if Taiwan acts obsequiously and pleases China by promoting a “diplomatic truce” and scrapping its defenses, the result will be peace and economic bonuses. Under the previous administration of president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁), the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) used its majority in the legislature to oppose procurements of US arms.
Since taking office in 2008, Ma has repeatedly bragged about the “peace bonuses” of his China policy. He wants the public to share in his self--assurance, while the country unwittingly walks further and further into danger.
As to assessing the risks of its current China policy and working out how to respond if something goes wrong, the government has nothing to offer.
Just as we protect our own homes, we have to stand together in defense of our homeland.
Over the past three years, the government has narrowed Taiwan’s prospects by replacing “internationalization” with “sinicization.” The more Taiwan becomes integrated with China, the harder it gets to pull out.
The government is doing something similar with regard to nuclear power, expecting the public to accept it regardless of the risks and refusing to reconsider its nuclear energy policy.
The only assurance Ma can offer is: “With me in charge, your heart can be at ease.”
Unfortunately, given this administration’s record of incompetence, there can be few people who feel “at ease” as long as Ma remains in office.
Lu Shih-hsiang is an adviser to the Taipei Times.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS