The March 11 disaster was Japan’s largest catastrophe since the atomic bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki during World War II. Its impact was much greater than that of the 1995 Hanshin earthquake. Even the Japanese government, having used the best disaster response model, is struggling in the face of this crisis. Governments around the world have been obliged to re-evaluate their own disaster preparedness. We believe that Taiwan can also learn from the Japanese disaster in at least five aspects.
First, Japan conducts several earthquake drills throughout the country every year. This time, it also had the benefit of an advanced tsunami early-warning system. The number of casualties was thus much lower than that of the 2004 tsunami in South Asia. In addition, the Japanese public was aware of what needs to be done in a disaster and were able to conduct themselves in a calm manner.
Second, the compound nature of the disaster decimated the effectiveness of the response. The traditional management system is designed to respond to specific disasters, to be directed by different departments individually and was not designed for a more integrated response. As a result, Japan was caught off guard. This highlights the importance of an integrated disaster response mechanism and inter-departmental integration.
Third, the risk of radiation from the stricken Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant has exacerbated the situation, complicating relief efforts and necessitating the emergency evacuation of huge numbers of people from the disaster areas. Consequently, there was the risk of a secondary crisis, with insufficient supplies of fuel, food, water, everyday necessities and medical supplies. The mobilization of the Japan Self-Defense Forces has allowed the authorities have the situation under control, but too many essential tasks still need to be done. The importance of logistical management is thus self-evident.
Fourth, the international tsunami warning mechanism worked well and Japan’s neighbors were immediately informed. The response to the nuclear crisis, however, has been more problematic. It is of utmost importance to react to critical moments quickly during an unfolding crisis, as the windows of opportunity that present themselves are often fleeting. A great deal of expert advice from overseas was not implemented in time, clearly showing that international coordination at the right time and in the right place is crucial.
These days, the effect of a national disaster is not confined to only one country and an understanding of other countries and a sensitivity to other cultures can only be of benefit to relief efforts.
Fifth, when the disaster broke out, the management at the Fukushima Dai-ichi plant failed to assess the potential risks in time, or at least to inform the public of them, damaging the public’s trust in the authorities’ ability to deal with the situation. In the immediate aftermath, when the Japanese media were keeping the public informed of breaking news at frequent intervals, it actually had the effect of reassuring the public, who felt they at least knew what was going on, thus minimizing possible social panic. This shows the importance of risk communication, crisis-handling coordination, effective command chains and integrated leadership.
In addition, Japan has maintained comprehensive records detailing medical and disaster relief efforts going back for more than a century, useful as references for future relief efforts. Our own preparedness pales by comparison. In Taiwan there are no systematic, long-term educational programs in place to cultivate future leaders of disaster prevention and crisis management with the expert knowledge and experience to deal with these events.
It is true that 13 colleges and universities have public health departments, but there have been few courses and little research available in the way of disaster prevention, and most courses that do exist tend to focus on knowledge and theory without practical drills.
Other crucial elements, such as the integration of critical components available in different systems, forward-planning, the gathering and timely analysis of data and cutting-edge knowledge on, and hands-on experience of, cooperation and leadership tend to be ignored.
During the 2009 influenza A(H1N1) pandemic, the governments of Hong Kong and Singapore authorized infectious disease specialist teams to lead the research investigations, applying those evidence-based results immediately to public health prevention efforts. When faced with unexpected events, scientists are able to find the best strategy to solve problem. The process produced a number of young leaders, now equipped with valuable experience in epidemic control, who were immediately recruited by the WHO.
Taiwan is more vulnerable to a range of threats, including earthquakes, typhoons and the spread of infectious diseases, than Japan, and then, of course, there are the nuclear power plants. Therefore, we must take advantage of the opportunities offered by disasters to cultivate future leaders capable of predicting and handling disasters in local communities whenever the need arises.
We sincerely recommend the government do the following. First, Taiwan should actively participate in international organizations related to disaster prevention to get the latest ideas, information and documents available. Second, it should establish a real-time disaster surveillance system and make it available online to keep the public and decisionmakers informed. Third, public-health education and practical training should include disaster relief components. Fourth, the media should be responsible for keeping the public informed about what to do in the event a disaster happens, something that is all the more pressing for those who live in vulnerable areas.
King Chwan-chuen is an adviser to the Taiwan Association for Promoting Public Health, Frank Shih is chairman of the Disaster Relief Committee of the Taiwan Society of Emergency Medicine and Solomon Chen is a pediatrician at Pingtung Christian Hospital.
TRANSLATED BY EDDY CHANG
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) has long been expansionist and contemptuous of international law. Under Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平), the CCP regime has become more despotic, coercive and punitive. As part of its strategy to annex Taiwan, Beijing has sought to erase the island democracy’s international identity by bribing countries to sever diplomatic ties with Taipei. One by one, China has peeled away Taiwan’s remaining diplomatic partners, leaving just 12 countries (mostly small developing states) and the Vatican recognizing Taiwan as a sovereign nation. Taiwan’s formal international space has shrunk dramatically. Yet even as Beijing has scored diplomatic successes, its overreach
In her article in Foreign Affairs, “A Perfect Storm for Taiwan in 2026?,” Yun Sun (孫韻), director of the China program at the Stimson Center in Washington, said that the US has grown indifferent to Taiwan, contending that, since it has long been the fear of US intervention — and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army’s (PLA) inability to prevail against US forces — that has deterred China from using force against Taiwan, this perceived indifference from the US could lead China to conclude that a window of opportunity for a Taiwan invasion has opened this year. Most notably, she observes that
For Taiwan, the ongoing US and Israeli strikes on Iranian targets are a warning signal: When a major power stretches the boundaries of self-defense, smaller states feel the tremors first. Taiwan’s security rests on two pillars: US deterrence and the credibility of international law. The first deters coercion from China. The second legitimizes Taiwan’s place in the international community. One is material. The other is moral. Both are indispensable. Under the UN Charter, force is lawful only in response to an armed attack or with UN Security Council authorization. Even pre-emptive self-defense — long debated — requires a demonstrably imminent
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) said on Monday that it would be announcing its mayoral nominees for New Taipei City, Yilan County and Chiayi City on March 11, after which it would begin talks with the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) to field joint opposition candidates. The KMT would likely support Deputy Taipei Mayor Lee Shu-chuan (李四川) as its candidate for New Taipei City. The TPP is fielding its chairman, Huang Kuo-chang (黃國昌), for New Taipei City mayor, after Huang had officially announced his candidacy in December last year. Speaking in a radio program, Huang was asked whether he would join Lee’s
RSS