Heat waves have swept across the world this summer. Tempera-tures in places like China's Zhe-jiang Province soared to 41?C, nearly resulting in disasters. Public attention on extreme temperatures has blurred the focus on more extensive and important natural calamities.
China has suffered serious droughts since June. Zhejiang, Fujian, Hunan and Jiangxi provinces are faced with the severest drought since 1971. By Aug. 12, around 7.76 million hectares of farmland and 90 million people had been affected in 12 provinces.
The drought has dealt a heavy blow to industrial and agricultural production in southern China. Official statistics on economic losses are yet to be released but it is not difficult to estimate how astonishing the figures will be.
I mention droughts because natural disasters are often overlooked in studies of China's prob-lems. The outside world always pays more attention to financial crises, unemployment, problems in agriculture, rural villages and farmers and upheaval in border areas. But from the historical viewpoint, a large proportion of social unrest and dynastic changes in Chinese history actually stemmed from grave natural disasters.
In his book, China: From Disaster to Culture published in the US last year, young Chinese scholar Ren Bumei (任不寐) said natural disasters and related social turmoil occurred far more frequently in China than in Western Europe and that such repetitions have also molded Chinese culture.
Essentially, Chinese culture is one formed by disaster victims. In other words, this is what the author called "victims' ration-ality," whose core content is the fear for survival. The fundamental task of China's modernization is to surpass the survival fears brought about by repeated calamities.
Ren analyzed the effects that disasters have had on China from a cultural angle. But he also reminded us that in a country like China, which has an enormous population and relatively scarce resources, natural disasters are an important factor that might cause social instability.
The number one calamity is earthquakes. Of the world's 17 biggest quakes, each of which claimed more than 50,000 lives, 13 took place in China. The Tang-shan quake in 1976, which led to hundreds of thousands of deaths, remains a terrifying memory.
The second is floods. Floods occur along the Yellow River and the Yangtze River almost every year. This poses a great threat to a primarily agricultural economy. The big flood in 1998 rocked China's economy.
The third is droughts. Two-thirds of China's 700 cities are facing water shortages. Droughts are even worse in impoverished places like Shandong and Henan. According to statistics, disaster-stricken areas in China in the 1980s were 1.7 times larger than in the 1970s and 2.1 times larger than in the 1950s.
Natural calamities also affect social psychology and senti-ments. "Victims' rationality," as described by Ren, in fact explains the psychological influence of disasters. Massive social movements or turbulence often take shape amid common, extensive and long-lasting social expectations. People often act on their expectations of unrest, and serious disasters strengthen such expectations.
One of the major features in China's development is the high degree of uncertainty. The possibility of serious natural calamities and their impact on society constitute one of the reasons behind the uncertainty. Everyone is aware that China has accumulated too many social contradictions and internal crises but it remains unknown what will touch off the explosion of all the crises. How-ever, enormous disasters are apparently one of the fuses that may ignite the explosion.
Wang Dan was a student leader during the 1989 Tiananmen Square demonstrations.
Translated by Jackie Lin
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers