The death toll from the Sichuan earthquake is in the tens of thousands and climbing. A reasonable assumption is that as communications and access in the disaster zone improve, the number will grow still higher. Experience shows that disaster data and the type of disaster are factors determining the effectiveness of relief. Such was the case after Taiwan’s 921 Earthquake.
The same is true with Cyclone Nargis in Myanmar, where poor communications and deliberate blocks on information by the government have hindered international relief efforts.
To maximize rescue options in the crucial first 72 hours after an event, hard information must be available.
Otherwise, even abundant supplies would be of no avail, as rescuers would have no leverage and may inadvertently waste resources.
Alternatively, rescue groups can first be sent to a disaster zone to hunt for victims, but the greater uncertainty in doing this might limit its success.
In China’s case, detailed information and channels of communication can be more important than material resources.
There are several reasons for a lack of disaster information. External communication may be cut off and roads blocked in disaster areas.
Exact figures on casualties may therefore not be available to either the government or private relief organizations. Even Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s (溫家寶) relief team could not get beyond Dujiangyan on their way to Wenchuan, and so were unable to reach the most seriously affected areas. In addition, media reports have said that there has been no contact with nearly 60,000 people near the epicenter, indicating that much information remains unavailable.
Added to this, the Chinese government and media’s grasp of the situation is fragmented.
The Chinese government also has strict control of the media and other communications. It would therefore be logical to assume that communication networks are not well developed.
China has relaxed certain media controls, but the regulations there are still much stricter than in Taiwan. This is not likely to change in the short term.
With the 921 Earthquake, large parts of Nantou and Taichung counties were completely cut off. Luckily, amateur radio enthusiasts were able to piece together valuable information for relief agencies so that rescue teams were able to arrive in the disaster areas earlier.
However, their capabilities were limited, and many of these places were unable to state what they needed before relief arrived.
When the Central Weather Bureau said the epicenter of the quake was in Chichi Township (集集) in Nantou County, many assumed that the situation there would be the most severe.
Later, Puli Township (埔里) in Nantou also reported severe damage, and the media then focused on those areas, leading the public and officials to focus their attention on them.
When Chungliao (中寮) and Kuohsing (國姓) townships reported damage of similar severity, a lack of communication channels and transportation delayed the influx of aid.
On the whole, the media focused on Nantou, which quickly received large amounts of aid from the public and the government.
The Nantou County commissioner called for drinking water, instant noodles, tents and other necessities over the radio, and in just three days, the local school gymnasium, acting as an emergency response center, was overflowing with donations.
Later, the mayor said that they had enough relief and that cash donations were required, and donations quickly arrived from various sources.
Taiwan’s intense media competition turns large-scale disasters into matters of great concern for everyone.
Although relief to certain disaster areas was delayed because they did not receive media attention, media reports can nonetheless work against delays in relief delivery.
More importantly, the media force the government to respond with more gravity to a disaster, thus giving the public an extra layer of security.
The Chinese government should respond to the disaster in Sichuan and surrounding areas by focusing on the collection and dissemination of information in order to maximize the effectiveness of relief work.
Yang Yung-nane is a professor in the Department of Political Science and vice dean of the College of Social Sciences at Cheng Kung University.
Translated by Angela Hong
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