To silence the protests against nuclear power, the government has announced that the first reactor of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in Gongliao District (貢寮), New Taipei City, will be sealed after a security inspection, that work on the second reactor will be suspended and that the future of the plant will be decided after a referendum.
Although Premier Jiang Yi-huah (江宜樺) stressed that construction has been suspended and not discontinued, work on the plant has stopped. Even though the government’s ambiguous approach has managed to cool antinuclear protests somewhat, the issue is still smoldering and could flare up at any moment. In the final analysis, the three-decade-long conflict over the plant will have to be settled by a referendum.
The reason the issue is so difficult to resolve is that nuclear power is a complex issue that requires an advanced level of knowledge. The situation varies between countries and every plant is different, which makes comparisons difficult. In Taiwan, the ability to access reliable information varies greatly between the government and the public: Taiwan Power Co (Taipower) has monopolized its data, making it very difficult for anyone else to get a glimpse of it.
Whether in terms of estimates of power requirement, nuclear safety data or spent fuel treatment, the government and non-governmental organizations have their own sets of numbers providing evidence for their ideas and neither is capable of convincing the other.
In its policy implementation, the government has always favored promotion over communication. Every time it has to deal with a complaint concerning the nuclear issue, it gives the standard responses: Without nuclear power, there is a risk of power rationing by 2018 and in the event of a shortage of power, industry will be prioritized; without nuclear power, electricity prices will go up by 40 percent; coal-fired power generators cause serious air pollution; nuclear power generation is the cheapest and most stable energy source.
In a situation where support for the government is high and people trust it, this might be an acceptable approach to policy implementation, but in the current situation when support for the government is low and public trust is lacking, such slogans are useless.
Prior to a nuclear referendum, the government should release relevant data to alleviate public concern by giving concrete numbers and clear explanations. Some of the questions it has to answer are:
What are the energy policies for a nuclear-free Taiwan and what are the costs of and development plans for substitute energy sources?
What are the economic development plans for the short, medium and long term and what are the industrial policies for each period? What are the estimated power requirements for the complementary measures?
Taipower’s past power estimates and development plans always included the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant, but now it has to stiffen its resolve and assess how electricity prices will change without nuclear power.
A referendum on the plant will not be about emotions, and the government must be prepared for an unprecedented battle of expert knowledge. To coordinate with the referendum and the national energy conference slated for September, the government must prepare data about electric power and explain the situation, development plans and responses in schools, communities, industries, mass media and on social media, and it must accept a debate over the concerns and criticism of non-governmental organizations, experts and academics.
Even if the government is fully prepared, that does not mean that it will be able to protect the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant, but it at least must make a concerted effort to win back the public’s trust.
If the government does not change its attitude to communication and honestly face public concern, it will lose power.
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS