Ismail Fan's blog

Meltdown? (hint: not in Fukushima)

My heart goes out to anyone who is affected by the recent calamity in Japan. I will keep you in my prayers. I would also like to express my admiration for the way that the earthquake survivors have conducted themselves in the face of seemingly insuperable difficulties. You have shown the world the true meaning of dignity and perseverance and personally you have inspired me, to cherish the life that I have and to live in the moment while remembering that there is greatness even in the most fragile of souls (Photograph: AP/Kyodo News).

What has engendered a lot of trepidation in the global community after the Sendai earthquake is of course the possibility of a nuclear meltdown in any one of the Fukushima power stations. This doomsday scenario was still very gently hinted on major news media immediately following the tsunami and always delivered with reassurances from prominent scientists on its improbability. But soon after the explosion at Unit 1 took place, reality seemed to have set in. Nobody is pretending or trying to persuade their viewers anymore that a meltdown is a far-fetched idea. Here in Taiwan, the news media, staying true to their inquisitive nature, went a step further by asking: what are the ramifications for Taiwan if the meltdown is to occur?

One nuclear scientist was quick to point out that the radioactive cloud would more than likely be carried over by the trade wind and enshroud most of the northern part of the country. This was when I really started to pay attention, not just because on top of the cancer-inducing smog one has to endure living in the city everyday now there is the prospect of a fresh boost of radioactivity in the mix, but also because the memory of the uproar against building a fourth nuclear power station on the island is still so vivid in my mind. In fact, in the city of Taipei, there surrounds three nuclear power stations and like Japan, Taiwan is also an earthquake-prone country, situated slightly off the Pacific Ring of Fire.

So what gives? The option of trying to find a balance, so to speak, between energy consumption and growth is not available, at least to an export-oriented economy like Taiwan, which is consisted mainly of highly polluting and power-hungry electronics manufacturing and chemical processing industries. The keyword is "growth". How do we define growth? More importantly, where do we want our growth to come from?

With meagre natural resources, an ageing population, and a health care system forecast to go bankcrupt in the not-so-distant future, the only thing Taiwan has got going for it seems to be its people. We are the Georgia of Southeast Asia but whereas war-torn Georgia is starting to realise the importance of human capital, Taiwan remains a hapless victim of self-denial. I read that it takes a combination of things to cause a nuclear meltdown, poor construction, pressure built-up, insufficient cooling, just to name a few. Wouldn't you agree that it is probably the same for a "societal meltdown"?

A startling revelation on the New York Times: "In the case of Saturday’s blast, experts said that problem was avoidable."

Only if it had been done sooner.

Paradoxes

 “They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.” – Benjamin Franklin

It has been more than two months since the death of Mohamed Bouazizi and the start of the popular uprisings against home grown dictators all over the Middle East. The toppling of the Ben Ali and Mubarak regimes should certainly be greeted with elation as it yet again opens up a fissure for real democracy for the Arab states since the end of European colonisation. However, there are some who watch warily as their allies are being overwhelmed by their rebellious subjects one after another.

 

Amidst the trepidations in Washington and no less so in Israel towards these unforeseen developments, there are two important observations that can be made:

Paradox of Security

Successive American administrations after the Second World War have chosen to pursue national security by propping up autocratic regimes in states considered to be strategic in the fight against the Soviet Union. This approach had backfired disastrously in some cases, such as in Vietnam, but in view of the fact that the Cold War did end with the U.S. prevailing over the U.S.S.R., most people would be hard-pressed to say that this policy has failed entirely. The problem is that after the Cold War, while countries like the Republic of Korea and Japan have transformed into maturing democracies with American assistance, Arab states still remain languishing under ruthless dictatorships backed by Washington. The sinister assumption underlying the continuous application of this policy by the U.S. seems to be that the Arabs are unfit for democracy by their very nature hence American interests can only be maintained where they reside through their suppression.

 

The paradox resulting from this Weltanschauung lies in the short-term attainment of security in oil supply and for Israel has spawned the long-term threat of extremism and radical Islamism. More importantly, Washington’s support for dictators who spurn democratisation and improvement of human rights for their own people has inevitably propelled the belief that democracy will never take root in the Middle East into becoming a self-fulfilling prophecy. The toxic environment in domestic U.S. politics post-global financial crisis has unfortunately exacerbated this type of short-sightedness since Democrats and Republicans alike are now more than ever eager to make electoral gains through divisive rhetoric and quick fixes.

Paradox of History

The more we learn about people the more we realise that people never learn. The 1979 Revolution in Iran forced the Washington-backed Shah to abdicate and fled the country. Both Saddam Hussein and the U.S. at the time had wanted a piece of Iran for similar reasons, the former oil reserves and the latter continuous access to what comes out of those reserves. One would surely have to be surprised if the causes of the widespread discontentment that led to the Revolution were seriously deliberated in the inner circle of the Reagan administration because in the end it became simply a matter of replacing one pro-U.S. puppet with another in the Persian Gulf, i.e. Muhammad Reza Pahlavi with Saddam Hussein. Even though the White Revolution can at best be described as well-intentioned, it was an imposition nonetheless rather the outcome of democratic processes. In terms of human suffering, it has not only increased after Saddam gained Washington’s backing but sharply so due to the ensuing Iran-Iraq War which the U.S. helped foment and intensify.

After 9-11, it has become clear that decades of Washington’s meddling in the Middle East helped produce a monster in Islamic extremism. Under the rule of Washington-backed despots, living conditions of the citizenry range from deplorable to intolerable with little hope for the future. Not without a sense of irony though, this in part explains why anti-West fear-mongering has worked so well for the likes of Mubarak, Gaddafi and Saleh in holding on to power and controlling their people. Viewing in this light, the revolutions in Tunisia and Egypt represent a seismic change in the Arab general public’s epistemology towards the West as a symbol and as an idea. In other words, they finally understood the game and with that understanding are able to muster their collective will to seize control of their own collective destiny – the pro-democracy protestors have already scored a victory by demonstrating to the world that Egypt can stand together as one.