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
Pat Gelsinger took the reins as Intel CEO three years ago with hopes of reviving the US industrial icon. He soon made a big mistake. Intel had a sweet deal going with Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC), the giant manufacturer of semiconductors for other companies. TSMC would make chips that Intel designed, but could not produce and was offering deep discounts to Intel, four people with knowledge of the agreement said. Instead of nurturing the relationship, Gelsinger — who hoped to restore Intel’s own manufacturing prowess — offended TSMC by calling out Taiwan’s precarious relations with China. “You don’t want all of
A chip made by Taiwan Semiconductor Manufacturing Co (TSMC) was found on a Huawei Technologies Co artificial intelligence (AI) processor, indicating a possible breach of US export restrictions that have been in place since 2019 on sensitive tech to the Chinese firm and others. The incident has triggered significant concern in the IT industry, as it appears that proxy buyers are acting on behalf of restricted Chinese companies to bypass the US rules, which are intended to protect its national security. Canada-based research firm TechInsights conducted a die analysis of the Huawei Ascend 910B AI Trainer, releasing its findings on Oct.
In honor of President Jimmy Carter’s 100th birthday, my longtime friend and colleague John Tkacik wrote an excellent op-ed reassessing Carter’s derecognition of Taipei. But I would like to add my own thoughts on this often-misunderstood president. During Carter’s single term as president of the United States from 1977 to 1981, despite numerous foreign policy and domestic challenges, he is widely recognized for brokering the historic 1978 Camp David Accords that ended the state of war between Egypt and Israel after more than three decades of hostilities. It is considered one of the most significant diplomatic achievements of the 20th century.
In a recent essay in Foreign Affairs, titled “The Upside on Uncertainty in Taiwan,” Johns Hopkins University professor James B. Steinberg makes the argument that the concept of strategic ambiguity has kept a tenuous peace across the Taiwan Strait. In his piece, Steinberg is primarily countering the arguments of Tufts University professor Sulmaan Wasif Khan, who in his thought-provoking new book The Struggle for Taiwan does some excellent out-of-the-box thinking looking at US policy toward Taiwan from 1943 on, and doing some fascinating “what if?” exercises. Reading through Steinberg’s comments, and just starting to read Khan’s book, we could already sense that
RSS