Since former Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) chairman Lin I-hsiung’s (林義雄) hunger strike demanding that the government halt construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in New Taipei City’s Gongliao District (貢寮), various sectors of society have held events expressing their opposition to the plant and showing support for Lin.
However, a meeting between President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and DPP Chairman Su Tseng-chang (蘇貞昌) on April 25 to discuss the issue clearly showed that the government is incapable of or uninterested in working out a solution. It is possible that Ma still has not grasped why people are opposed to the nuclear facility and why there is such concern about Lin.
Opposition to the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant is an opposition to the way the government is depriving future generations of rights and opportunities. Lin has made it clear that he wishes to use democratic means to protect these. His long participation in the Nuke 4 Referendum Initiative Association (核四公投促進會) is further evidence of this.
Putting aside the construction expenses of a nuclear power plant, the corruption involved and how nuclear power inhibits the development of renewable energy sources — there are more important issues, such as how a nuclear accident can be prevented and how nuclear waste should be disposed of. Despite this, those in power only respond to these issues by citing nuclear safety tests that should not be believed for a second, while choosing to ignore the serious risks posed.
Everyone makes mistakes, but given the serious ramifications of an accident, nuclear power leaves no room for error. Insisting on nuclear power is not only irresponsible, it shows a lack of humanitarianism.
Even if the generation of nuclear power is halted without any accidents, how should nuclear waste and decommissioning of plants be handled without violating the principle of environmental justice and the inevitable creation of so-called “sacrifice zones,” areas — along with people’s livelihood — sacrificed for the sake of pollution?
The absence of clear plans for a post-nuclear nation shows a lack of responsibility and deprives future generations, who are not part of the policymaking process, of possibilities and opportunities they should have. In effect they are being forced to take disproportionate environmental risks, which violates the principle of intergenerational justice.
In 1987, the World Commission on Environment and Development published a book entitled Our Common Future, which was one of the first important works dealing with intergenerational justice, a key component of sustainable development. The book’s conclusion was that “the generation of nuclear power is only justifiable if there are solid solutions to the unsolved problems to which it gives rise.”
Since the risks of potential nuclear accident and nuclear waste management cannot be handled in reasonable ways that are acceptable to society, one has to ask whether the government’s promotion of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant is compatible with sustainable development.
At the end of his book A Madman’s Diary (狂人日記), Chinese author Lu Xun (魯迅) says: “Save the children” — a heart-felt call for change to China’s feudal system for the sake of future generations of Chinese.
More than a century on, Lin’s antinuclear hunger strike and the response of students and people from all elements of society are also aimed at guaranteeing that future generations are given the opportunities they are entitled to.
Ma and his officials also have children: It is about time they started thinking about them.
Huang Hsin-hsun is a post-doctoral research fellow in the Department of Land Economics at National Chengchi University.
Translated by Drew Cameron
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
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
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