In Taiwan these days, domestic politics is dominated by one major issue: the question whether the construction of the fourth nuclear power plant, one third completed, should continue or whether plans should be scrapped. The issue has been the cause of lively, even acrimonious discussions. There have been statements hinting at a severe crisis in the government if not the whole country. It is therefore timely and useful to take a look at how a similar issue was handled and solved in Austria. Zwentendorf is a small village on the Danube river, about 30km northwest of Vienna. In November, dense fog hangs over the fields in this rural region. Agriculture is the most important source of income here. As the fog is lifting around noon, two vast concrete structures emerge, becoming visible for many miles. These are two power plants, the one in the village of Duernrohr being an operating steam plant with a maximum output of 757 megawatts. The other structure is Austria's only nuclear power plant, finished in 1976, and never put into operation.
The booming economy preceding the worldwide oil crises of the 70s led to a quick rise in the consumption of electric energy. Although the demand could have been covered by an extension of the number of hydroelectric plants, a call went out for using nuclear power. On the one hand, this process of energy production was considered to be just a little bit more complicated than boiling water and the more serious problems of nuclear power production remained unmentioned. On the other hand, for a small European country it was a question of prestige to possess its own nuclear power plant. The use of nuclear power was seen to be necessary in order to close ranks, scientifically and commercially, with the other OECD countries. Therefore, in 1967, the first efforts were made to introduce nuclear power into Austria.
At first, the preparations proceeded without problems. In 1968, a project bureau was founded to oversee the plant's construction. In 1969, the Austrian parliament passed a law granting preferential tax rates to nuclear power plants. The preparations were finished in 1971, resulting in the federal government1s decision to build a Boiling Water Reactor (BWR) with a maximum output level of 730 megawatts which should provide about 10 percent of Austria's energy consumption. The planning and construction process was awarded to Siemens with a budget of 5.2 billion schillings (NT$10 billion), and the opening of the plant was scheduled for 1976. The planning phase was followed by the licencing procedure and construction began in autumn 1972. In a short time, the majority government of Federal Chancellor Bruno Kreisky from the Social-Democratic party decided to build three more nuclear power plants with a total maximum output of 3300 megawatts and to complete the project by the year 1990. The government was supported by the two opposition parties, the Conservatives and the then-centrist Freedom party. The country's labor union and the chamber of commerce backed the government as well.
In the mid-70s, when the power plant in Zwentendorf was still under construction, widespread protests against nuclear plants broke out in neighboring Germany and police forces had to be brought in to contain the violence. In addition, reports critical of nuclear power found their way into influential Austrian newspapers. Public opinion which had been pro-nuclear did a turn-around and swung into the direction of increasing protests. Further concerns were raised by the unsolved problem of storing nuclear waste, new questions about the reactor's safety and the vicinity of the plant to the metropolitan area of Vienna. A very open discussion led to an increased anxiety in the population.
However, the Social-Democratic majority government, enjoying continuous support from the opposition parties, insisted on the completion of the project which took place, as planned, in 1976. At the same time, a big information campaign to alleviate the population's considerable apprehension was started, but the campaign missed its effect because of its alignment with the pro-nuclear lobby. The opponents of nuclear power rapidly grew in public stature even though not only the government but also the strong labor unions, the business associations and most parliament members continued to back the project. The opponents continued to organize numerous anti-nuclear activities. In April 1977, an international NGO conference took place in Salzburg dealing with the issues of a non-nuclear future. Finally, in autumn 1977, large demonstrations were held near the plant and in major Austrian cities. In December 1977, the demonstrators prevented the delivery of the reactor's fuel cells which the government had tried to keep secret. This delayed the load procedure of the reactor till spring 1978, and the delivery had to be carried out with the help of military helicopters guarded by heavy police forces. Meanwhile, the peoples' protests had become so massive that in June 1978 the government decided to hold a referendum on the question wether the reactor should be activated or not at all, mainly to avoid a loss at the upcoming elections of parliament. Preparing for the upcoming referendum, the government, supported by the public electricity industry, initiated a 60-million-Schilling (NT$120 million) advertising campaign favoring nuclear power, with the protest groups consisting of student organizations, NGOs, independent citizen movements and critical scientists standing on the other side of the issue. The referendum's outcome was considered to be up in the air and a victory of the supporters of nuclear power was considered to be more likely. Almost to this day 22 years ago, on 5 November 1978, the referendum was finally held, and it brought one of the tightest outcomes in the history of Austrian vote taking. With a turnout of about two-thirds of eligible voters 50.5 percent voted against the activation of the nuclear plants and 49.5 percent for it. The absolute difference in votes was less than 30,000 in a total of 4.8 million Austrians entitled to vote. So, an enthusiastic initiative of citizens won the battle against the country's most influential interest groups and against the ruling party. Just one week after the rejection of the government's proposal the parliament passed the nuclear prohibition law that forbids the production of nuclear energy in Austria.
Years later, other countries followed the idea of a non-nuclear future as well. For example, Germany's government recently agreed to shut down all of the its plants within the next decade. Similar plans were developed in Sweden, Belgium and Switzerland while Italy has shut down its four nuclear plants as a result of a referendum in 1987. The USA dismissed any plans for additional nuclear plants because of high consequential costs of nuclear energy production (especially costs for storing nuclear waste and abandoning old nuclear power plants). After losing the referendum the public electricity companies concentrated on further utilizing the yet free resources of hydro power. In fact several small and medium class hydro plants were erected on the Danube river and in the Alps. Today the country's political representatives are advocates of a nuclear-free zone in central Europe.
Despite Germany's important decision, the goal is far from being reached because of the declared intentions of Eastern European countries to continue using nuclear power plants. From this point of view the decision against Zwentendorf was not a total victory as the country today is surrounded by numerous reactors whose safety levels are said to be totally insufficient. In the last weeks Austrian politicians directed their ire at the Czech Republic's insistence on opening its Russian-made nuclear plant in Temelin, just 50km north of the Austrian border. These days, Austrian protesters have been blocking the borders and the government is putting pressure on the Czech Republic threatening to veto the country's entry into the European Union.
In Austria, the public electricity company did not succeed in its effort to revitalize the nuclear project in Zwentendorf. The plant's equipment is being slowly dismantled and its parts serve the needs of German nuclear plants of the same type. Projects to use the concrete structure as an oil-fueled power plant or as a leisure park were not carried out mainly because of cost. Last but not least, the adventure of introducing nuclear power in Austria cost approximately 15 billion Austrian Schillings (NT$30 billion), and it costs 600 million Schillings (approximately NT$12 billion) just to maintain the building.
When comparing these amounts to the costs of storing nuclear waste, conserving run- down plants, which might have to be supervised for at least several decades after being shut down, or the hard-to-estimate costs of an accident, one can conclude that it was still a good decision never to switch on the reactor. Of course, stopping the project before completion would have saved much more. Many people were confirmed in their decision when in 1986 the nuclear plant of Chernobyl exploded and contaminated large parts of Europe with radiation. This catastrophe has been causing estimated 25,000 to 100,000 deaths until today and reinforces the wish for an end of the nuclear age and a reorientation of Europe towards alternative methods of energy production such as hydro power, wind and solar energy and the thermal use of biomass.
Florian Matiasek is a graduate student of environmental engineering at the Universitat fur Bodenkultur, the university for agricultural sciences in Vienna, Austria.
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with