KGRI Working Papers
No.13

The China Communist Party’s Perception of Nuclear Power Plant
Crises: A Discourse Analysis of the People’s Daily

Version1.0
March 2018

Yuki Arisawa
yuki_arisawa10@yahoo.co.jp

Keio University Global Research Institute© Copyright 2017 Yuki Arisawa
Professor Takahashi Nobuo, Faculty of Law, Keio University

The China Communist Party’s Perception of Nuclear Power Plant
Crises: A Discourse Analysis of the People’s Daily
Yuki ARISAWA

Introduction
In the twenty-first century, China has placed importance on both domestic and global
nuclear power energy policy. China currently has 38 active nuclear power plants with afurther 19 under construction,1 and also started exporting them abroad from 2013.2 As such,
nuclear power stations are a key factor in China’s global strategy.3 It is clear that nuclear
power is considered the most important energy source in China, and warrants significant
diplomacy. Indeed, the country’s strategic use of this resource is significant compared to theglobal trend of reducing the dependency on nuclear power.4 China has evidenced its
confidence in managing the security of nuclear power—including the presentation of General
Xi Jingping, the Secretary of the China Communist Party (CCP), at the Fourth Nuclear
Security Summit, which was held in Washington DC in 2016.5 Therefore, it is imperative tounderstand China’s intention and nuclear power strategy. This necessity is compounded by
the fact that the development of and changes in China’s nuclear power strategy have been
understudied.
This paper takes a slightly different approach in correcting this academic oversight:
identifying cases of nuclear power plant crisis, and analyzing how they were covered by
1 Most of the nuclear power plants in China are the pressurized water reactor type, which is adopted worldwide.

“Country Statistics: People’s Republic of China.” January 30, 2018.
https://www.iaea.org/PRIS/CountryStatistics/CountryDetails.aspx?current=CN, (accessed January 30 2018).
World Nuclear Association provides details of the types on nuclear power plants. http://www.worldnuclear.org/information-library/nuclear-fuel-cycle/nuclear-power-reactors/nuclear-power-reactors.aspx (accessed
January 30, 2018).
2 “国家能源局印发建立服务核电企业科学发展协调工作机制实施方案”中国核电网, 2013 年 4 月 10 日,
http://np.chinapower.com.cn/201304/10/005715.html (accessed January 30th 2018).
3 中 国 核 工 业 建 设 集 团 公 司 党 组 “ 打 造 核 电 ‘ 走 出 去 ’ 的 国 家 名 片 ” 求 实 网 , 2016 年 12 月 31 日 ,http://www.qstheory.cn/dukan/qs/2016-12/31/c_1120211759.htm (accessed January 30th 2018).
4 “International Ministerial Conference ‘Nuclear Power in the 21st Century’ Abu Dhabi, October 30th to November
1st, 2017 Concluding Statement by the President of the Conference” IAEA website.
https://www.iaea.org/sites/default/files/cn-247-president-statement.pdf (accessed January 30th 2018).
5 Xi Jingping stressed that no nuclear power plant accidents have occurred in China. 杜尚泽, 章念生, 谢环驰“习
近平出席第四届核安全峰会并发表重要讲话介绍中国核安全领域新进展宣布中国加强核安全举措”《人民日报》2016 年 4 月 3 日。

1

China’s official news media.6 It focuses on nuclear power plant crises because few studies
have examined such cases. Moreover, this paper draws attention to the recent academic
tendency to overemphasizes China’s aggression in its rise, and which overlook historicalchanges in Chinese policy.
Conducting research on the CCP’s nuclear energy policy and the actual conditions on
the ground has many obstacles due to limited access to the official documents. Despite thischallenging situation, however, some media scholars have succeeded in partially revealing the
CCP’s perception of nuclear energy. Among others, Yongxiang Wang et al. have analyzed
the coverage of nuclear energy by two of the CCP’s official newspapers, the People’s Daily(人民日报) and Guangming Daily (光明日报).7 Wang et al. used a text mining method to
implement a quantitative content analysis of newspaper coverage between 2004 and 2014.
Their research finds that almost all of the articles in official CCP newspapers are
informational and pro-nuclear statements, while little antinuclear sentiment is presented.
Wang et al. suggest that the People’s Daily news coverage follows and repeats the
CCP's nuclear energy strategy. This is hardly surprising considering the sensitivity of thenuclear power energy strategy. However, their article has two weaknesses. First, they provide
no explanation for the why they start their analysis at 2004. Second, Wang et al. fail to
explore policy changes concerning nuclear energy. These analytical gaps may be due to thevulnerability of academics in China, as they may place their position at risk by taking thepolitical factor into consideration. Nonetheless, there were significant member changes in the
CCP’s Politburo in 2003, resulting in several major policy changes—including nuclear power
energy strategy. In order to understand such policy change, it is necessary to trace earlier
news coverage regarding nuclear power policy and situate it within the changing politicalcontext. Moreover, as is often practiced by Chinese specialists, the discourse analysis method

6 This paper does not intend to analyze nuclear weapons strategy. For nuclear weapons strategy, see the following

research: Hisako Iizuka. “China’s ‘Nuclear’: Reconsidering the Success of Atomic Bomb and its ‘Peaceful Use’”in Nobuo Takahashi ed. ‘Nuclear’ and Us in Asia, Tokyo: Keio University Press, pp.97–132.
7 Yongxiang Wang, Nan Li, Jingping Li “Media Coverage and Government Policy of Nuclear Power in the
People's Republic of China”. Progress in Nuclear Energy, No.77, 2014, pp.214–223. In the following section, I
focus on the People’s Daily coverage in order to further Wang’s analysis.

2needs to be applied when dealing with the CCP’s official media and documents.
As such, this paper traces news reports about nuclear power plant crises from allavailable issues of the People’s Daily, an official mouthpiece of the CCP.8 This paper
predominantly focuses on comparing two nuclear power plants incidents: the Chernobyl
disaster of 1986, and the 2011 Fukushima accident.9 In so doing, this paper reveals how thePeople’s Daily covered the two accidents in the unique political context of China.

Chernobyl
The CCP’s perception of nuclear energy before the Chernobyl accident
Since the United Nations held the first global conference on the environment at
Stockholm in 1972, environmental movements have gained momentum.10 At the same time as
this landmark environmental conference, antinuclear movements emerged in Western
Europe.11 Germany, for example, experienced anti nuclear protests in the mid-1970s, when
the government selected Wyhl as a site for a nuclear power plant in February 1975.12 Thisinitiated an opposition campaign, in which local residents occupied the site and conflict withthe police occurred.13 France also experienced antinuclear movements at this time. In May
1975, locals in Flamanville and Port la Nouvelle began demanding that the government
disclose information regarding plans to construct a nuclear power station.14 In 1977, one
person died during an antinuclear power plant protest against Superphoenix, a nuclear power
plant prototype in Creys-Melville.15 Within this era of the emergence of environmental
movements, the Three Miles Island nuclear power plant accident in Pennsylvania occurred in
8 Guoguang Wu “Command Communication: The Politics of Editorial Formulation in the People's Daily.” The

China Quarterly, Volume 137, March 1994, pp. 194–211.
9 The IAEA states that Chernobyl and Fukushima have the highest nuclear power accident scale to date.
“Fukushima Nuclear Accident Update Log” IAEA website. https://www.iaea.org/newscenter/news/fukushimanuclear-accident-update-log-15 (accessed January 30, 2018)
10 The official name of the conference is the “United Nations Conference on Human Environment.” Thisconference is also known as the “Stockholm Conference” due to its venue. For details see Norichika Kanie. An
Introduction to Environmental Politics, Tokyo: Maruzen, 2004, pp.43–46.
Environmental Chronology Editing Committee, An Environmental Chronology: Japan and the World. Tokyo:
Siurensha, 2010, p.527.
12 Ibid., p.527.
13 Ibid., p.527.
14 Environmental Chronology Editing Committee, An Environmental Chronology: Japan and the World. Tokyo:
Siurensha, 2010, p. 522.
15 Ibid., p.522.

3

1979—and remains the most significant disaster in commercial nuclear power plant history in
the US.
China holds a socialist doctrine towards nuclear power plant, which mandates that a
nuclear accident never occur. The socialist doctrine indicates that business companies serve
the people in a socialist country. In contrast, business companies in capitalist countries only
serve their own profits and thus neglect the people. According to this logic, nuclear power
plant accidents would never occur in a socialist country, like they do in a capitalist country.
The CCP evidences this socialist perspective when the Three Miles Island accident
occurred on March 28, 1979.16 The People’s Daily delivered its first direct coverage of theincident on April 5, 1979—one week after it had occurred. The paper titled the story: “Serious
Accident in United States Nuclear Power Plant Arouses Strong Reaction.”17 The People’s
Daily reported the process of the accident, as well as the reactions of government officials andordinary people. However, the main point that it emphasized was that antinuclear power plantmovements were emerging in several cities across the United States—including Rhode Island,
Massachusetts, California, and Ohio. By reporting the antinuclear power plant movements,
the People’s Daily highlighted the growing fear of both government officials and ordinary
citizens in the United States.
The People’s Daily framed the antinuclear power plant movement as a contradiction
between capitalism and socialism. On April 23, 1979, the People’s Daily published an article
entitled: “Nuclear Power Plant Accident in the United States Causes Social Anxiety: Mass
Demonstrations Protest against the Capitalist Class Pursuing Profit despite People’s Lives.”18
As inferred by this title, the People’s Daily reported that the Three Miles Island accident wascaused by the capitalist characteristics of the nuclear power plant company. The People’s
Daily reported that mass meetings and demonstrations opposing the usage of nuclear energy

16 Three Mile power plant is located in Dauphin County, Pennsylvania, United States. As a result of the accident,

the State Governor of Pennsylvania declared a state of emergency and 90 million residents were evacuated.
Antinuclear power plant movements emerged in the United States soon thereafter, and resulted in the cancelationof all planned construction and running of nuclear power plants. Ibid., pp.568–569.
17 “美国核电站严重事故在国内引起强烈反响”《人民日报》1979年4月5日。
18 “美国核电站事故引起社会震动和不安广大群众游行示威抗议垄断资产阶级只顾追求利润不顾人民死活”《人民日报》1979 年 4 月 23 日。

4were occurring in cities across the US, including San Francisco, New York, Baltimore,
Boston, Philadelphia, Washington, and Detroit. It also reported that 90 groups—including
peace, environment, labor, and religious organizations—were planning to march on
Washington DC. The People’s Daily framed all these antinuclear movements as an opposition
between capitalist and socialist classes.
On May 8, 1979, the People’s Daily published a follow-up story covering the protest
meetings, titled: “Citizens in the United States Protest the Usage of Unsafe Nuclear Power
Plant.”19 The newspapers reported that seven million people had gathered for the antinuclear
protest in Washington on May, 6—activists having contacted each other following the Three
Miles Islands accident. The People’s Daily further reported that the protesters had gathered in
front of the White House before marching through Pennsylvania Avenue towards Capitol
Hill, led by 1,500 people who lived near the Three Miles nuclear power plant. The report
ended with the words of the demonstration’s organizer, who noted their intention to increaseawareness regarding the danger of nuclear energy throughout the country. As such, thePeople’s Daily not only reported on the nuclear power accident in the US, but supported theantinuclear movements from a socialist perspective.20
However, there were only five news reports about the Three Miles Island accident in
1979.While this shows that the CCP paid little attention to the nuclear power plant accident at
this time, it also reflects the influence of the socialist doctrine—an influence that became
especially apparent when Chernobyl accident occurred in 1986.

Missing officials?
During the 1980s, antinuclear movements and environmental party politics gained
momentum in Europe and the United States. For example, France experienced their first

19 “美群众示威抗议使用不安全核电站”《人民日报》1979年5月8日。
20 The aggressive attitude of the People’s Daily regarding antinuclear power plant movements is possible because

China had no nuclear power plants at this time. The CCP initiated the construction plan of their first nuclear power
plant at Qinshan, Zhezhang province, in January 1982. 肖关根“秦山核电厂主厂房动工”《人民日报》1982年1
月25日。

5

nuclear power plant accident in Super phoenix on September 1987.21 Meanwhile,
confrontation had already occurred in Germany between protestors and police regarding theconstruction of the Wackersdorf nuclear power plant in1986.22
The Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident occurred on April 26, 1986. Located130km north of Kiev, the capital of Ukraine, the explosion of the Chernobyl nuclear reactor
necessitated the evacuation of 12 million people living within 30km of the power plant toevacuate.23 The area burned and spread radioactivity for more than ten days.24
The People’s Daily delivered the initial coverage on Chernobyl nuclear power plant
accident on April 30, 1986. The attitude of the initial coverage was ambivalent. On one hand,
the People’s Daily supported the attitude of Western countries in blaming the Soviet reaction
to the accident. Indeed, for the several weeks following the accident, the People’s Daily
reproduced the news directly from other West Europe countries, while relying on incomplete
news from the Telegram Agency of Soviet Union (TAAS), the Soviet news agency. The
People’s Daily thus transferred news blaming the Soviet attitude.25 This reflects the CCP’s
dissatisfaction with the Soviet reaction to providing information about the accident.
On the other hand, the People’s Daily supported the Soviet attitude to managing thenuclear power plant accident. The newspaper published the words of Mikhail Gorbachev, theGeneral Secretary of the Communist Party, who blamed Western countries—especially theUnited States. Originally reported by the TAAS, the People’s Daily quoted Gorbachev’s
argument that western “politicians and media are maneuvering an ‘anti-Soviet movement’ on
the accident. The organizers of the campaign are trying to ‘damage the reputation of theSoviet Union and its foreign policy to cancel nuclear testing and nuclear weapons.’”26 This
indicates that while the CCP blamed the Soviet Union for not sharing information, they
supported the protection of Soviet sovereignty. The CCP was also cautious of Western
21 Environmental Chronology Editing Committee, op. cit., p.523.
22 Ibid., p.527.
23 Ibid., p.560.
24 Ibid., p.560.
25 “苏联部长会议发表公告谈核电站事故情况日本将把苏联核事故提到七国首脑会议紧急讨论”《人民日报》1986 年 5 月 2 日。
26 “戈尔巴乔夫首次谈苏联核电站事故建议加强合作建立安全发展核能的国际制度”《人民日报》1986 年 5月 16 日。

6Counties undermining the legitimacy of their socialist regime. In the 1980s, Gorbachev waspromoting the political reform or “Perestroika” of the Soviet Communist Party. China wasalso in the midst of political reform, the CCP promulgating its reform and opening-up policy
since late 1970s, and which was encouraging notions of economic and political freedom
among the urban youth.27 Thus, the CCP was carefully observing how the Soviet managementof the Chernobyl disaster—as Soviet failure would imply a similar destiny for China as asocialist country in the age of reform.
On May 22, 1986, the People’s Daily published the first official statement from theleader of the CCP regarding the incident28 also marking the first time that the Chernobyl
disaster made the front page. However, their coverage on the CCP leadership was fairly
simplistic. The People’s Daily reported that Li Peng, the vice secretary of the CCP, visited theconstruction site of Daya Bay nuclear power plant at Guangdong province on the May 20,
where he reportedly stressed upon the workers that China had learned to make safety andquality their top priorities following the Chernobyl power plant accident. They further
reported that Li Peng had argued that while their technique and equipment were moresophisticated than that used at Chernobyl, they should not be overconfident. As such, thePeople’s Daily tried to show that the CCP leadership was also concerned about the Chernobyl
accident. Framed Li Peng’s remarks as a dialogue between the CCP leaders and nuclear
power plant workers, the People’s Daily excluded the local residents around the Daya Bay
and the people of Guangdong. Indeed, according to Li Peng’s Diary on Nuclear Powerpublished in 2004, Li and his colleagues decided against inviting journalists to the Daya Bay
power plant visit, and provide information regarding the event via a news report instead.29
This shows that the CCP did not have enough confidence in their ability to sweep away the
anxiety of local residents regarding the nuclear power plant.

27 Shigeo Nishimura, Ryosei Kokubun. Party and the State: A Locus of Political Regime, Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten,
2009, pp.167–169.
28 何云华“李鹏视察大亚湾核电站工程时指出国家正采取五项措施确保核电站安全”《人民日报》1986 年 5月 22 日。
29 Peng Li. Start to Development: Li Peng’s Dairy on Nuclear Power Plant. Beijing: Xinhua Publishing, Vol.2,
2004, p.409.

7

In Li Peng’s Diary on Nuclear Power, Li provides an account of his perception of theaccident as follows.30 His first entry about Chernobyl appears on April 29, 1986, when he wasin Yichang City in the Hubei province, in central China, for a conference on the Gezhou-ba
dam project. Li only recorded basic information about the accident in this first entry, having
received the news through the radio news show “Voice of America.” Li noted that “even in
the strong propaganda of western newspapers, the result of radiation leakage is serious.” This
indicates that while Li was somewhat aware of the seriousness, this did not prompt him to
immediate action. Indeed, Li continued his work at the dam project and returned to Beijing.
Yet it would still be several weeks before an official statement was released. This shows that
official statements regarding the Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident by top leaders was
significantly delayed.

Managing the Hong Kong problem
Despite the CCP’s nervous attitude towards the Chernobyl disaster, they had to
manage the anxiety of Hong Kong residents.31 On September 5, 1986, the People’s Daily
delivered news regarding the visit of members from Hong Kong Legislative Council toinspect the construction of a nuclear power plant in mainland China.32 The newspaper
explained that the inspection group submitted a report to the Hong Kong Legislative Council
stating that an accident similar to Chernobyl was unlikely to occur at the Daya Bay power
plant. The People’s Daily noted that the Hong Kong branch of the Xinhua News Agency had
been invited to join the inspection group in meeting authorities from the Daya Bay station in
Beijing on September 18.33 However, the People’s Daily did not originally intend to report on
this inspection group. The CCP had been deciding whether news of the inspection groupwould generate a positive or negative effect in promoting the construction of nuclear power

30 Ibid, pp.405-406.
31 The CCP could not directly control the anxiety of Hong Kong residents because Hong Kong was under British
rule until July 1, 1997.
32 “香港立法局举行内务会议通过立法局议员核电考察团报告书”《人民日报》1986 年 9 月 5 日。
33 The Xinhua News Agency is the first news agency of the CCP since its foundation in 1931. For detailed history,
see the official website: http://203.192.6.89/xhs/static/e11273/11273.htm (accessed January 20, 2018).

8

plants in China.34 After the CCP was sure the report written by the inspection group would
have a positive influence, the People’s Daily was instructed to deliver news on this topic. By
contacting the Hong Kong branch of the Xinhua News Agency, the CCP succeeded innegotiating with the inspection group on the ground. Consequently, on August 21, thePeople’s Daily reported that meeting between Li Peng and the inspection group had been afriendly one.35
Moreover, the People’s Daily did not cover the actions of previous visitors from
Hong Kong in that period. According to Li Peng’s Diary on Nuclear Power, on August 16, agroup named “Meeting for Stopping Daya Bay Nuclear Power Plant Construction” visited
Beijing.36 Li noted that when the members of the meeting visited the nuclear station on
August 19, 1986, they made a speech opposing nuclear energy.37 Li further noted that the vicepresident of the nuclear institute opposed the speech and the leader had to apologize.38
Nevertheless, the People’s Daily did not cover this news, or any news that might harm thelegitimacy of the CCP.
On September 24, 1986, the People’s Daily reported on the meeting between General
Secretary Zhao Ziyang and the managers of a British-French nuclear power plant company
regarding nuclear power plant policy.39 This article was special: not only did it appear on thefront page, it also included statements from both Zhao Ziyang and Li Peng. The reportclaimed that China would continue friendly cooperation with the United Kingdom and France
to develop its national nuclear power plant strategy. This article was also intended as amessage to foreign countries. This article also listed some of the attendees, which included
the president of the Hong Kong branch of the Xinghua News Agency. According to the news

34 Qinshan is the first nuclear power plant in China. Located in the Zhezhang province, it started operating on
December 15, 1991. 唐庆忠, 张军“我国和平利用核能的一项重大成就秦山核电站并网发电”《人民日报》
1991 年 12 月 18 日。Daya Bay nuclear power plant started operating on August 31, 1993. “李鹏电贺大亚湾核
电站一号机组并网发电成功”《人民日报》1993 年 9 月 2 日。
35 “李鹏对香港立法局核电考察团成员访京团说办好大亚湾核电站保证其安全是我们同香港居民的共同愿
望”《人民日报》1986 年 9 月 21 日。
36 Li, op.cit., p.426.
37 Ibid.
38 Ibid.
39 冯秀菊“赵紫阳会见法英公司和银行负责人时指出中国发展核电方针不会改变通力合作是大亚湾核电站
安全可靠的关键”《人民日报》1986 年 9 月 24 日。

9report, Li stated that China would send the manager of the nuclear industry bureau to theupcoming IAEA conference as the leader of Chinese delegation. Similarly, the articles
regarding the Daya Bay nuclear station were not purely for domestic circulation. Rather they
were a message intended to reassure their counterparts about the construction of the Daya Bay
nuclear power plant, as Li was worried that England and France would abandon the loan
agreement for Daya Bay. Li’s anxiety to complete the construction at Daya Bay was largely
due to his career resting on its success.
According to Li Peng’s Diary on Nuclear Power, the CCP had been facing opposition
to Daya Bay construction from the residents of Hong Kong since July 1986.40 Nevertheless,the People’s Daily only published the statement of Deng Xiaoping, the Secretary General of
CCP, stressing the safety of Daya Bay power station and that their plan for nuclear power
plant development would not change.41 The People’s Daily never reported news about theantinuclear movements in Hong Kong. This attitude shows that the CCP did not limit
reporting on antinuclear sentiments abroad, but were reluctant to do so with regard todomestic antinuclear movements. The CCP’s perspective of the antinuclear movement inHong Kong was sensitive.
On September 26, 1986, the People’s Daily concluded the emergency phase of its
initial coverage of the Chernobyl disaster, reproducing news straight from the Xinhua News
Agency regarding the decision of the IAEA president to continue developing nuclear
energy.42 On the same day, the People’s Daily also reported that the Soviets had completed
the initial phase of eliminating the aftermath of the Chernobyl nuclear power plant disaster.
Thereafter, the People’s Daily delivered news about Chernobyl more sporadically—once aweek compared to almost daily reporting on Chernobyl prior to September 26. As such, the
CCP used news regarding the IAEA and Soviet action to draw an end to the initial coverageof the emergency phase.
40 Li, op cit., p.426.
41 顾文, 福丁文 “邓小平会见嘉道理祝贺广东核电站合同正式签字开放政策不会导致资本主义社会主义比重
将始终占优势”《人民日报》1985 年 1 月 20 日。
42 “我代表团团长在国际原子能机构特别会议上发言中国有步骤发展核电是必要的”《人民日报》1986 年 9月 26 日。

10The Decline of Green Politics
After the initial coverage of Chernobyl disaster, the People’s Daily focused on green
party politics in Europe, reporting on antinuclear movements several times. For example, on
November 25, 1986, the newspaper published an article entitled: “Choice of a Non Reusable
Energy Resource: Visiting Western Germany.” According to this article, the Germans attitude
towards nuclear power plant was wavering as a result of the Chernobyl accident, which had
led to an increase in antinuclear power plant movements and strengthened “Green Parties” inthe political arena. The People’s Daily reported that Green Party movements urged further
reflection on nuclear power plant policy.
From June 1989, however, the People’s Daily coverage of green party politics andantinuclear power plant movements decreased. This shift in attitude was due to the
Tiananmen Square incident of June 4, 1986. Following China’s reform and opening-up since,
which had been initiated in 1978, people began absorbing knowledge from the westerncountries. As this reform deepened, economic corruption among government officials becamea serious problem. In particular, students in urban areas started demanding political freedom
from the CCP, which led to confrontation between students and police at Tiananmen Squareon June 4, 1989.43 Consequently, the CCP became increasingly sensitive to politicalmovements—including antinuclear movements and green party politics.

Fukushima
Critical views on nuclear power plants?
The Fukushima nuclear power incident occurred on March 11, 2011, due to a tsunami
following the Tohoku Earthquake. The tsunami caused the nuclear meltdown and release ofradioactive material from Fukushima, necessitating the evacuation of local residents within
30km of the power plant.
The People’s Daily immediately began reporting on the Fukushima incident, and43 Nishimura, Kokubun, op. cit., pp.167–169.

11

compared it to Chernobyl. Meanwhile, the CCP leadership also reacted rapidly. On March 12,
2011, the People’s Daily reported that Prime Minister Wen Jiabao had delivered his
condolences to the Japanese government regarding the earthquake and the tsunami.44 The nextday, the National Nuclear Safety Administration declared that there was no radioactive
pollution in China.45 On 17 March, the newspaper reported that a State Council Executive
Meeting held by Wen Jiabao, had officially stated that China's radiation monitoring stations
had found no abnormalities, and that all of the nuclear power generating units were running
properly.46 That the CCP immediately directed its leader to comment on the nuclear power
plant accident shows that its intentions to reduce fear among China’s citizens. The CCP was
well-aware that such fear had the potential to cause antinuclear sentiment.
Half a year after the Fukushima accident, the People’s Daily shifted their focus
towards the Japan and how its ruling party was handling the aftermath of the incident. Here,the People’s Daily followed the Japanese news media’s narrative. Quoting a survey taken by
Kyodo News, a Japanese news agency,47 the People’s Daily noted that an inquiry showed that
66% of governors and mayors were opposed to the construction of new or additional nuclear
power plants in Japan. It further noted that 88% of the respondents in this inquiry weredissatisfied with the Japanese government's handling of the nuclear leak in the Fukushima
incident. The People’s Daily also addressed questions to the Japanese government’s rulingparty; quoting the Fukushima Nuclear Accident Independent Investigation Commission’sreport, which called the Fukushima nuclear incident a “composite disaster.”48 By framing
nuclear accidents as a human disaster, the CCP could show their citizens that the nuclear
power plant itself was not a problem, and that such incidents will not occur under the correct
management of the CCP. Nonetheless, the People’s Daily coverage of Fukushima reflected
the same critical views towards the ruling party of Japan as the Japanese news media.

44 于青, 崔演“日本发生特大地震海啸温家宝总理致电慰问”《人民日报》2011 年 3 月 12 日。
45 孙秀艳, 刘毅“我国境内未发现任何放射性异常”《人民日报》2011 年 3 月 13 日。
46 “温家宝主持召开国务院常务会议听取应对日本福岛核电站核泄漏有关情况的汇报”《人民日报》3 月日。
47 于青“日本近九成民众对核事故处理不满”《人民日报》2011 年 9 月 12 日。
48 于青“日本反思‘复合灾害’”《人民日报》2012 年 3 月 1 日。

1217

However, the People’s Daily did not publish oppositions to nuclear power plants after
the occurrence of the Fukushima accident. In February 2012, He Zuoxiu, a fellow of theChinese Academy of Sciences, strongly opposed the construction of a new nuclear power
plant in central China, claiming that the promotion of an unsafe nuclear power plant was akinto the political mobilization in the 1950s.49 The People’s Daily coverage of such opposing
voices was incomplete. On March 11, 2012—a year after the Fukushima accident—the
People’s Daily published an article entitled: “Our Nuclear Power Plant will defiantly notfollow the ‘Great Leap Forward’: Emission Standards in Inner China Nuclear Power Plant are
Stricter.”50 In this article, the People’s Daily mentioned the existence of opposition to theconstruction of a new nuclear power plants in inner China, but claimed that this came from“some related bureaus” rather than a fellow of Chinese Academy of Sciences. As such, thePeople’s Daily not only failed to deliver the voices of experts in opposition to nuclear power,
but stressed that all problems relating to nuclear power plants have already been solved.

Reporting on the antinuclear power plant movements
The People’s Daily began focusing on antinuclear movements when the Japanese
government resumed operation of the nuclear power plant. The content of the news was wellbalanced, introducing both positive negative opinions regarding the protests against thenuclear power plant, even though it reported the antinuclear movements more emotively. For
example, on July 17, 2012, the People's Daily delivered a relatively detailed report on an
antinuclear protest the day before, when ten million people gathered in Tokyo Yoyogi Park atnoon for the “Goodbye Nuclear Energy Movement.” According to the People’s Daily, at 2
PM, participants holding placards, shouting slogans, and clapping in rhythm, divided into
three directions. The newspaper even provided information for the next “Antinuclear
Congress Siege” action, which was scheduled for July, 29.
From the perspective of political history, the word “Antinuclear Congress Siege” can49 Iizuka, op. cit., p.127.
50 贺勇, 侯露露, 孟海鹰“我国核电发展绝不会搞‘大跃进’: 内陆核电站排放标准更严格”《人民日报》2012
年 3 月 11 日。

13be perceived as sensitive for the CCP. In 1999, Falun Gong members—a religious group—
surrounded Zhongnanghai, the central headquarters for the CCP and the State Council,
without being noticed.51 Thereafter, the CCP regarded Falun Gong as a threat. Nevertheless,the People’s Daily used the words “Antinuclear Congress Siege” in their coverage, one which
could make readers think of the Falun Gong incident. This indicates that the neither the CCP
nor the People’s Daily perceived the image of the mass surrounding of the political
headquarters as a threat.
However, the newspaper’s choice of photos does reflect the sensitiveness of the CCP
towards mass demonstrations. To date, the People’s Daily has published five photos showing
antinuclear movements,52 each of which show less than 20 demonstrators. For example, while
the People’s Daily reported the occurrence of ten antinuclear demonstrations on July 17,
2012, the photo accompanying the article only shows about 14 people holding their placards
in the demonstration. The size of the photos used in the news reports was also small. Of thephotos showing antinuclear demonstrations, two were a ninth of the paper in size, and theother three were even smaller. Compared to the photos in a Japanese newspaper, the photos in
the People’s Daily are smaller size and quantity. Indeed, the Japanese newspaper publishedphotos of thousands of people gathering in front of the National Diet, while the People’s
Daily has clearly avoided photos depicting people gathering or surrounding the National Diet.
As such, while the People’s Daily did not perceive the image of masses surrounding thepolitical headquarters as a threat, they did perceive a photo of such a mass surrounding as athreat.

Conclusion
More than 30 years have passed since Chernobyl nuclear power plant accident
51 For details of the Falung Gong incident, see Kazuko Mouri, Politics of Contemporary China: Portrait of the
Global Power, Nagoya: Nagoya University Press, 2012, pp.98–99.
52 刘军国“电价飞涨，日本告别‘零核电’”《人民日报》2012 年 6 月 18 日。刘军国“日本民众大游行欲告别核电政府提出将最大限度利用海洋能源”《人民日报》2012 年 7 月 17 日。刘军国, 廉德瑰“参议院选举拉开
帷幕日本执政党欲改变‘扭曲国会’”(国际视点)民众心理矛盾，既渴望稳定政权，又怕修改和平宪法”《人民日报》2013 年 7 月 5 日。刘军国“日本政府必须交代清楚”《人民日报》2014 年 6 月 10 日。田泓“不顾争议，日本又要重启核电站”《人民日报》2014 年 9 月 12 日。

14occurred. Although China still claims itself a socialist country, the CCP do not use thesocialist doctrine to defend its legitimacy in governing nuclear power plants. Rather thanbelieving in socialist doctrine or optimistic myths, the CCP faces greater risk of nuclear
power plant accident than it ever did before.
Despite the Tiananmen Square incident of 1989, the CCP delivers news onenvironmental parties abroad. While the age of environmental party politics in decline, it isunclear whether observers should assume that the CCP will perceive the environmental party
as a threat again. Even when the Fukushima nuclear power plant accident occurred, thePeople’s Daily did not focus on environmental parties frequently.
In contrast, the CCP is sensitive to antinuclear movements. The CCP seems to havelittle restriction on the reporting of antinuclear sentiments abroad in the People’s Daily,
except for in Hong Kong. However, the CCP is sensitive to the usage of photos depicting
such movements. The CCP perceives that photos showing a massive number of demonstrators
gathering in front of political symbols will be linked with the Tiananmen Square incident
from 30 years ago.

References
EnglishGuoguang Wu, “Command Communication: The Politics of Editorial Formulation in
the People’s Daily”, The China Quarterly,Volume 137, March 1994, pp.194–211.
Yongxiang Wang, Nan Li, and Jingping Li, “Media Coverage and Government Policy of
Nuclear Power in the People's Republic of China”, Progress in Nuclear Energy, No. 77, 2014,
pp.214–223.

ChinesePeng Li, Start to Development: Li Peng’s Dairy on Nuclear Power Plant, Beijing: Xinhua
Publishing, Vol.2, 2004. (李鹏《起步到发展: 李鹏核电日记》下册，北京: 新华出版社，

15

2004 年)Japanese
Environmental Chronology Editing Committee, An Environmental Chronology: Japan andthe World, Tokyo: Siurensha, 2010. (環境総合年表編集委員会『環境総合年表: 日本と世界』すいれん舎、2010 年)
Kazuko Mouri, Politics of Contemporary China: Portrait of the Global Power,Nagoya:
Nagoya University Press, 2012. (毛里和子『現在中国政治: グローバルパワーの肖像』
名古屋: 名古屋大学出版会、2012 年)
Norichika Kanie, An Introduction to Environmental Politics: An Approach of Resolving
Global Environmental Problems, Tokyo: Maruzen, 2004. (蟹江憲史『環境政治学入門: 地
球環境問題の国際的解決へのアプローチ』東京: 丸善出版、2004 年)
Shigeo Nishimura and Ryosei Kokubun, Party and the State: A Locus of Political Regime.
Tokyo: Iwanami Shoten, 2009. (西村成雄、国分良成『党と国家: 政治体制の軌跡』東京: 岩波書店、2009 年)
Hisako Iizuka, “China’s ‘Nuclear’: Reconsidering the Success of Atomic Bomb and its‘Peaceful Use’” in Nobuo Takahashi ed., ‘Nuclear’ and Us in Asia, Tokyo: Keio University
Press, 2014. (飯塚央子「中国の『核』: 原爆実験成功と原子力の『平和利用』」東京:
慶應義塾大学出版会、2014 年)

16