Taiwan Independence and Number Four Nuclear Power Plant Deactivation: Neither is Justified

Taiwan Independence and Number Four Nuclear Power Plant Deactivation: Neither is Justified
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
April 19, 2013

Summary: Taiwan independence differs from the crusade to abolish the 4NPP. Taiwan independence advocates do not fear a referendum on the 4NPP. Taiwan independence may divide Taiwan. But so far it has yet to be fatal. Halting construction of the 4NPP, and immediately abolishing nuclear power generation may well be. A public referendum is imminent. Even Lee Teng-hui is wondering, "What will Taiwan's future be?"

Full text below:

Lee Teng-hui ruled for 12 years. During and after his reign, he adopted a Taiwan independence path even more extreme than the DPP's. The DPP now aggressively champions halting and abolishing nuclear power generation. Lee Teng-hui, on the other hand, has yet to change his support for nuclear power generation. This difference has interesting implications.

Lee follows the same Taiwan independence path as the DPP. Lee differs however, on nuclear power generation. Lee Teng-hui has cast doubt on Tsai Ing-wen's "nuclear-free homeland" initiative more than once. He wondered, "Is it possible to go non-nuclear?" He wondered, "Without nuclear power, what will Taiwan's future be?"

Taiwan independence, basically, is nothing more than demagoguery. It is a tool for power struggles within the Green Camp, between the TSU and the DPP, and betweeen Su Tseng-chang and Frank Hsieh. It is a tool for power struggles between the Green Camp and the Blue Camp, between the DPP and the KMT. In fact, all of the parties involved know that Taiwan independence is impossible. Therefore Lee Teng-hui has used the pro-Taiwan independence Taiwan Solidarity Union to hijack the DPP, and support Tsai Ing-wen's bid for president. This was nothing more than a power struggle. Also, Taiwan independence advocates openly demand "guarantees of Taiwan's primacy." Lee Teng-hui and the DPP are Taiwan independence fellow travelers.

Taiwan independence today is a phony issue. Its sole purpose is to divide Taiwan to win votes. It cannot possibly succeed. The abolition of nuclear power generation, on the other hand, is a real issue, one relevant to the ROC's economic development and national security. It differs from Taiwan independence, which is all talk and no substance. Halting and abolishing nuclear power generation is a path of no return. If we go down that path, we will find ourselves trapped in a nightmare, wondering "How in the world will we get the electricity we need?" We will be wondering, as Lee Teng-hui has, "What will Taiwan's future be?"

Lee Teng-hui knows perfectly well that Taiwan independence is a phony issue that can temporarily divide society. The abolition of nuclear power generation, on the other hand, is a real issue, for which there are no easy answers. If implemented, we will find ourselves on a downward path. No one knows where that path will end. Also, without nuclear power, Taiwan will be even less capable of achieving any sort of "independence."

Why do Lee Teng-hui, Tsai Ing-wen, and the DPP hold such different positions on nuclear power generation? Because Lee Teng-hui is not running for office. For him, nuclear power generation is not part of his power struggle. For him the critical issue is Taiwan's survival and security. Lee Teng-hui wants Taiwan to survive. Therefore he wants a pragmatic and sound energy policy. By contrast, Tsai Ing-wen and key DPP leaders advocate an immediate halt to construction on the 4NPP and the eventual abolition of nuclear power generation altogether. Why? Because they are concerned primarily with public opinion, which currently opposes nuclear power generation. They see the issue primarily as part of a power struggle. They willfully disregard its impact on national survival and national security. According to their calculations, if they can gain office by riding the anti-nuclear wave, so be it. Will the halting or abolishing of nuclear power generation lead to Taiwan's eventual decline? They cannot be bothered to think about such things for now.

Taiwan independence and the abolition of the 4NPP are intensely populist issues. A simple proclamation that "I love Taiwan" can enable Taiwan independence to flex its political muscles. The implication of course is that anyone who does not support Taiwan independence "does not love Taiwan." The anti-nuke slogan, "I am human, I am anti-nuclear" is equally simplistic -- and equally powerful. But suppose one supports safe nuclear power generation? Does that mean one is "not human," or "sub-human?" The United States, Russia, and Japan all suffered major nuclear disasters. Yet all three continue using nuclear power generation. Were those not "choices made by humans?" Lee Teng-hui differs from Tsai Ing-wen on nuclear power generation. They are different humans making different choices. One cannot say that one or the other is "not human" or "sub-human." Tsai Ing-wen merely wishes to ride the wave of anti-nuclear sentiment into political office, without concern for the eventual cost. Lee Teng-hui conversely is thinking about the consequences for Taiwan once nuclear power generation is halted and abolished.

Current controversy over nuclear power generation has resulted in another political spectacle. The 4NPP has landed Ma Ying-jeou in a dilemma, one reminscent of Lee Teng-hui's interaction with the Taiwan independence movement. When Lee Teng-hui first became president, he kept Taiwan independence advocates at arm's length. Hence the "National Unification Guidelines." Later however, his attitude changed. His "sorrow endured by the Taiwanese" morphed into "The Republic of China no longer exists." He moved further and further toward Taiwan independence. Lee Teng-hui was clearly caught in the traditional dilemma faced by the Kuomintang. He did not know how to defend the Republic of China. Nor did he know how to refute the rhetoric of Taiwan independence. As a result, he unconsciously gravitated toward Taiwan independence. He pandered to populism in order to consolidate political power. In the end, Lee Teng-hui fell into the Taiwan independence abyss. This plight of the Kuomintang was reflected in the DPP's "Referendum on UN membership." The KMT supported the "Referendum on UN membership" because the KMT could not justify the existence of the Republic of China or refute the rhetoric supporting Taiwan independence.

Today the Ma administration finds itself in a similar situation regarding nuclear power generation. It does not know how to justify the continued use of nuclear power generation, or how to refute those who demand the abolition of nuclear power generation. As a result, it caved in to Tsai Ing-wen's call for a "nuclear-free homeland," the same way it caved into demands to "join the UN," with calls to "return to the UN." It offered to hold a public referendum on the 4NPP. It revealed its inability to make the case for nuclear power generation. As a result, the referendum is now seen as a sign that the Ma administration is about to throw in the towel.

To this day, the Kuomintang has lacked the ability to defend the Republic of China or refute Taiwan independence. Its sole response to the February 28 incident is to apologize, rather than demand an airing of the facts. Taiwan independence today is on the wane, primarily because the public is sick and tired of the damage inflicted upon them by Taiwan independence political wrangling. For over a decade, Taiwan independence was holy writ. But people are gradually waking from the nightmare.

Nuclear power generation is different. Suppose that a few years from now, nuclear power generation is actually abolished, and Taiwan's fate is up in the air? The public may eventually wake up, but the nightmare will not end. Taiwan will continue hurtling downhill towards disaster. The DPP's promotion of Taiwan independence did not destroy Taiwan. But its abolition of nuclear power generation could.

Taiwan independence differs from the crusade to abolish the 4NPP. Taiwan independence advocates do not fear a referendum on the 4NPP. Taiwan independence may divide Taiwan. But so far it has yet to be fatal. Halting construction of the 4NPP, and immediately abolishing nuclear power generation may well be. A public referendum is imminent. Even Lee Teng-hui is wondering, "What will Taiwan's future be?"
  
台獨與核四：兩個說不清楚的議題
【聯合報╱社論】
2013.04.19 03:14 am

李登輝曾主政十二年，在下台前後，走向比民進黨還要台獨的台獨路線；但是，民進黨如今全力倡議停廢核電，李登輝卻迄今未改其支持核電的立場。此中差異，耐人尋味。

李的台獨路線與民進黨同，但李的核電思維卻與民進黨異。李登輝幾度質疑蔡英文的「非核家園」，他說「非核要怎麼非？」，又問「不能維持核電，台灣未來要何去何從？」

何以如此？因為，台獨路線基本上僅是意識形態的操作，亦即只是用來作為綠營內部「權力鬥爭」（台聯及民進黨，蘇貞昌及謝長廷），與藍綠「政權鬥爭」（民進黨與國民黨）的說辭而已，但其實各方皆知不可能在現實世界中實現台獨。所以，李登輝以更台獨的台聯來挾持民進黨，及支持民進黨的蔡英文競選總統，皆無非為一種「權力鬥爭」的操作而已；何況，台獨以冠冕堂皇的「建立台灣主體性」為號召，所以李登輝與民進黨在台獨路線上是同路人。

不過，台獨到了今天畢竟已是一個買空賣空的「假議題」；只是用以在政治上撕裂台灣，爭取選票，卻無可能真正實施；但是，核電存廢卻是一個攸關台灣經濟發展及國安前景的「真議題」，而不像「台獨」那類「空口嚼舌」的「假議題」；一旦真正停廢核電，走上不可回逆的道路，而墜入「電不知從哪裡來」的噩夢，即如李登輝所質疑「台灣的未來將何去何從」？

李登輝心中十分明白，台獨的「假議題」只是一時撕裂社會；但廢核的「真議題」倘若沒有足可補救的能源政策，則將使台灣走上衰竭耗弱不知伊於胡底的下坡路。何況，如果沒有了核電，台灣會不會更加沒有「獨立」的條件？

為什麼李登輝與蔡英文及民進黨?面人物對核電有如此不同的立場？因為，李登輝不參加選舉了，核電對他而言，不是一個「權力鬥爭」議題，而是一個攸關台灣「生存及國安」的問題，李登輝仍希望台灣在務實而正確的能源政策下好好活下去。相對而言，蔡英文等民進黨要角何以主張立即停建核四、走向廢核？因為，他們見到當前的反核民意可供操作，遂將核電也看成了「權力鬥爭」的議題，而故意無視其應為「生存及國安」問題；在他們的算計中，倘能藉反核浪潮贏得選舉即可，至於台灣是否會因停廢核電而走上衰敗，絕非他們此時此刻想要面對的問題。

台獨議題與核四議題皆有極濃的民粹色彩。一句「愛台灣」，就把「台獨」操作得張力十足；言下之意，不主張台獨者就是「不愛台灣」。同樣，一句「我是人，我反核」，也簡單有力；但是，支持使用「安全的核電」者，就「不是人」嗎？能不能問：何以美、俄、日三個曾經發生重大核災的國家如今仍然維持核電政策，難道那不是「人的抉擇」？因此，如今在核電政策上李登輝與蔡英文的立場不同，應當視為「不同人」的差異，而不應說何者「不是人」。蔡英文想的只是要藉反核浪潮而不計後果地攫奪政權，李登輝想的卻是停廢核電後「台灣何去何從」？

在這一波核電爭議中的另一政治奇觀，是馬英九今日面對核四的困境，居然與李登輝當年與台獨的互動有幾分神似。李登輝就任總統之初，與台獨保持距離，因而有《國家統一綱領》；後來，漸漸從「台灣人的悲哀」，滑向了「中華民國已經不存在了」，愈走愈獨。當時的李登輝，顯然陷於國民黨的傳統困境之中，他不知道該如何建立「中華民國」的論述，也不知道該如何駁正「台獨」的論述，以至於不自覺地漸漸滑向台獨的領域，試圖藉此迎合民粹、鞏固政權，最後李登輝自己終於墜入了台獨的淵谷。國民黨的這種論述困境，後來亦反映在民進黨倡議「入聯公投」，國民黨則倡議「返聯公投」之時；皆因國民黨沒有能力說清「中華民國」，也沒有能力駁正「台獨」所致。

如今，馬政府在核電政策上的困境亦甚相似；主要也是因沒有能力說清楚「維持核電」的政策，也沒有能力駁正「廢核非核」所致。因此，首先即贊同蔡英文的「非核家園」（正如以「返聯」回應「入聯」），接著拋出「核四公投」，顯示其已無為核電政策辯證的能力，因此「公投」被視為馬政府準備下車的跡象。

其實，到今天為止，國民黨也未見其為「中華民國」辯護的能力，亦未見其駁正「台獨」的能力（例如，二二八只知道歉，不見真相）；今日，台獨狂浪之所以退潮，主要是因國人受盡台獨操作的傷害所形成的民意醒覺所致；至此，十餘年的台獨作祟，始如一場噩夢般地漸漸醒來。

但是，當前的核電議題卻不一樣；如果要到了幾年後真正走向廢核而至「不知何去何從」之時，民意始知覺醒，那就不只是一場噩夢而已，而是一場不斷下坡的大災難。民進黨尚未能以台獨毀台，卻可能以廢核毀台。

台獨與核四最大的不同在於：台獨不會公投也不敢公投，所以台獨雖撕裂台灣，卻尚不會使台灣致命；但是「停建核四／立即廢核」卻即將訴諸公投，連李登輝都要問：「台灣的未來何去何從」？