Human civilization seems to be unable to extract itself from risk. No matter how advanced a civilization is, risk follows it like a shadow, always finding various unexpected ways to ambush civilization.
The severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) epidemic has been steadily increasing recently, leading to an unprecedented state of collective panic in Taiwan. Information is chaotic and contradictory and daily life is in a state of turmoil. It reminds me of my personal experience of the Chernobyl nuclear accident which occurred while I was in Germany.
When the Germans found out through the media that radiation leaks resulting from an explosion in a nuclear plant in Ukraine would reach their country, and that it might affect one's health, panic worse than the concerns incited by SARS was instant.
Abnormal particle counts were detected in quite a few cities. People immediately rushed to empty stores of canned foods, and they were afraid of venturing outdoors. A little bit like in Taiwan today, social exchanges and consumer activities slumped. People prioritized their own safety, and some Europeans even thought the end of the world was here.
The Chernobyl accident is symbolic of the high levels of risk inherent in high technology itself. Various infectious diseases, including SARS, are another, highly threatening, risk. These two risks have a direct impact on human spiritual and material civilization.
In his book Risk Society, the German sociologist Ulrich Beck points out that "Risks of modernization sooner or later also strike those who produce or profit from them. They contain a boomerang effect, which breaks up the pattern of class and national society." Even the rich and powerful are unsafe in the face of risk.
Beck claims that modern civilized man is used to possessing wealth, but that risk only can be endured collectively. Risk is evenly distributed by another kind of "civilizational" method in which knowledge plays a crucial part. Risk perception and risk evaluation are both based on risk knowledge, and risk communication and crisis management have taken on new political meaning.
Using SARS as an example, before it has been fully determined how the virus spreads, people in Taiwan will see danger lurking behind every tree. It will also be difficult for those placed under home quarantine to avoid getting a bad reputation.
Quite a few epidemic prevention measures may be the result of overreaction, but our current knowledge does not guarantee safety. "Risk rationality" therefore implies some kind of more complete self-rescue, and behavior has become based on expert opinion and hearsay. Only the gods know how effective that is.
However, different forms of risk draw different social responses. Some risks break through the restrictions of social classes and national borders, while some create new divisions and inequalities. SARS, for example, seems to reinforce social ostracism, labeling the homeless, Chinese immigrants and AIDS patients as high risk groups.
On the other hand, if we are to block out all possible external viruses that might enter Taiwan, the nation may not only have to close hospitals, but we may even have to close the whole island off, in the greatest backlash to globalization so far.
We can also see that the further the influence of risk extends, the less predictable the resulting political effects. Similar developments can be seen in Taiwan, Hong Kong and China: if leaders are able to successfully fight the epidemic, they prove their ability to lead, and consolidate their hold on power.
If their anti-epidemic achievements are less than desired, however, the legitimacy of their rule will be in doubt. In China, it might even lead to a crisis that may rock the government.
Of course, the situation in Tai-wan may be a bit more complicated than that. Because the epidemic first spun out of control in Taipei, the question of whether it was the responsibility of the central or the local government will become a point of contention in risk politics.
The only comfort in the current situation of fear and turmoil is the constant duality of risk. In addition to being destructive, risk also expands our understanding of and the importance we attach to responsibility. Mankind must not only consider thoroughly the rationality of the mechanisms for the creation, dissemination, prevention and control of risk that modern civilization has created, but when it comes to the relationship between the individual and the group, we must also consolidate a mutual ethics of responsibility to make sure that civilization remains sufficiently strong to overcome ignorance and fear, thus returning society to "normality."
In this respect, if SARS improves self-restraint as people discover the frightening results of someone acting irresponsibly, then at least that could be seen as risk-induced enlightenment.
Ku Chung-hwa is a professor of sociology at National Chengchi University and chairman of the Taipei Society.
Translated by Perry Svensson
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