A week and a half after Typhoon Morakot struck, rescue efforts are still in progress and discussion of the future of townships partially or totally destroyed has only begun. Once relief efforts are scaled down, however, this question will become as important — and as prickly — as probing the government’s inept response to the disaster.
It is a question that not only concerns southern Taiwan, but has a bearing on communities across the nation that may be at similar risk of landslides and flooding during torrential rains.
The communities hit hardest by Morakot face a difficult fight to make their hometowns safe, and some experts are concerned that certain areas may not be safe for years to come, if ever, while others want villagers blocked from returning to affected areas for at least three or four months in case of further mudslides.
The head of National Taiwan University’s Global Change Research Center, Liu Chung-ming (柳中明), warns that changes to the environment have wrought permanent damage on some lowland areas that makes them unsuitable for habitation. Areas in Pingtung County have sunk below sea level, putting residents at increasing risk of severe flooding. Liu also believes that sea walls intended to prevent flooding in these areas had the inadvertent effect of retaining Morakot’s floodwaters.
Other academics warn against rebuilding ravaged communities within the next five years, as mountainsides could remain unstable for at least that long.
Part of knowing when or whether it would be safe for villagers to return home is understanding what factors caused the mudslides and flooding. What role did human activity — farming and deforestation, fish farms, overuse of groundwater and construction projects — play? If the government’s rescue efforts revealed appalling inefficiencies, the answers to this question will be no less ugly.
The public will want to know, for example, why Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators blocked a land management bill proposed by the Cabinet in 2004 that was designed to stop activities that exacerbate flooding.
Residents of several Kaohsiung County townships overrun by Morakot’s mudslides fear that a nearby reservoir project was at least partly responsible for the catastrophe in their area, an argument that the Water Resources Agency has rebutted. But locals’ claims that flooding has worsened since construction on the Tsengwen Reservoir began should be looked into.
The reality is that the risk posed by damaging the environment has long been known. Morakot has proven that it can no longer be ignored, and perhaps that the extent of the risk was more than anyone had suspected.
Many communities may feel there is no positive way forward: Those that rely on crops and fish farms may have to choose between giving up their livelihoods or increasing the risk of disasters by continuing land exploitation. Another option, relocation, would involve breaking up communities, while finding new livelihoods in new locations would take time.
The tragedy of relocating entire communities cannot be discounted — particularly when so many of the devastated villages belong to Aboriginal tribes already struggling to retain their identity in the face of decades of social, government and economic pressures to assimilate.
However, communities need to know what it would take, and how long, to guarantee their safety, and if this is even possible. Failing to face these questions now would be a crime as serious as the government’s bungling of rescue efforts.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS