Aborigines from the Tao (達悟) tribe on Orchid Island recently took to the streets to demand that nuclear waste be removed from the island when the current storage contract expires. Then, just as the government's headache over the issue was developing, China was reported to be willing to assist with the disposal of the waste and provide locations for storage. What's more, China -- in an apparently completely sincere move -- said that all the waste could be taken away within 45 days and that this was a model that could be followed in the event of future waste problems.
This looked not only like rain arriving just in time for the government, but also like a new opportunity to improve cross-strait relations. Beijing appeared to be displaying an immense amount of goodwill.
We could roughly predict and understand the attitude of the Mainland Affairs Council (陸委會). But why did Environmental Protection Administration chief Hau Lung-bin (郝龍斌) also reject the idea? The basic problem lies in the environmental concerns associated with nuclear waste.
The waste remains a problem after disposal because of the risk that radioactive substances will leak into groundwater and harm future generations. This, after all, is why the Orchid Island residents took to the streets, expressing their unwillingness to live with nuclear waste no matter how much Taiwan Power Co (台電) claims that the disposal process is extremely safe.
From a basic humanitarian standpoint, how could we allow the Chinese to live with the waste? We fully understand the Orchid Island residents' indignation and support their protests. But that does not mean the problem will disappear after being sent somewhere out of sight -- and in this case the "somewhere else" is Guangdong Province. There is no reason why others should put up with things that we are afraid of and want to get rid of.
Disregarding the possible reasons why the Chinese policy-makers are prepared to ship the nuclear waste to Guangdong, it is obvious that they have never taken the feelings of Guangdong residents into account. They have been as inconsiderate as Taiwan's government was when it put the waste on Orchid Island in the first place.
From a long-term perspective, this matter could never have a positive effect on cross-strait relations because the people of Guangdong won't forget that the people of Taiwan, simply because of their wealth, sent toxic nuclear waste to their province. This perception, rather than promoting mutual goodwill and understanding, would have a negative effect on relations between the people of either side, deepening the misunderstandings and animosity between them.
The issue of nuclear waste should be resolved as an environmental problem, not a political one. Environmental protection should override politics since it is an issue shared by all humanity. We must certainly hope to solve the problem of nuclear waste for all time with safer technology and the assistance of other countries. But the point is not that China is China, but rather whether it possesses the capability to handle nuclear waste. If the waste is simply to be stored at a greater depth, say 8,000m underground, it will still continue to pollute the world by seeping into groundwater. The problem will remain and the damage to humanity will become even more grave.
The best solution is to tap new, economical energy resources. We must develop alternative methods of power generation, such as boosting the electricity-generating effects of co-generation and solar energy. For the dangers of nuclear waste to be eliminated, humanity must stop relying on nuclear energy. Otherwise, even in a country as huge as China, the waste will eventually claim every inch of the land.
Chien Hsi-chieh is the executive director of the Peacetime Foundation of Taiwan.
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
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.
As Maldivian President Mohamed Muizzu’s party won by a landslide in Sunday’s parliamentary election, it is a good time to take another look at recent developments in the Maldivian foreign policy. While Muizzu has been promoting his “Maldives First” policy, the agenda seems to have lost sight of a number of factors. Contemporary Maldivian policy serves as a stark illustration of how a blend of missteps in public posturing, populist agendas and inattentive leadership can lead to diplomatic setbacks and damage a country’s long-term foreign policy priorities. Over the past few months, Maldivian foreign policy has entangled itself in playing
A group of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) lawmakers led by the party’s legislative caucus whip Fu Kun-chi (?) are to visit Beijing for four days this week, but some have questioned the timing and purpose of the visit, which demonstrates the KMT caucus’ increasing arrogance. Fu on Wednesday last week confirmed that following an invitation by Beijing, he would lead a group of lawmakers to China from Thursday to Sunday to discuss tourism and agricultural exports, but he refused to say whether they would meet with Chinese officials. That the visit is taking place during the legislative session and in the aftermath