The construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant itself is a clear tradeoff between economic goals and environmental protection. The continued supply of cheap electricity demands more generation capacity, which will further damage Taiwan's already weakened ecosystems.
However, there are larger issues at stake. Indeed, the decision looks firmly set to be the first major crisis of Chen Shui-bian's (陳水扁) presidency, putting great strains on the incoming Cabinet before it even takes office. These were dramatically put on display yesterday, in the comments by DPP Chairman Lin I-hsiung (林義雄) and the KMT reactions.
Lin has come out strongly that the DPP party platform line must be followed by a DPP government. So far, so normal: what use is a platform, after all, if it is simply ignored when the party wins?
However, the question is, to what extent is the incoming government a DPP government? The phrase that has been bandied about to describe it is "DPP-led." But what exactly does that mean?
The KMT is arguing that the presence of 15 of its members in the new Cabinet gives the KMT a say in policymaking. The suggestion yesterday by the Central Standing Committee that the party might discipline any of these who violate "party principles" was, in context, a clear threat not to support cancelation of the nuclear project, which the KMT has pushed for years.
It was always unrealistic to suppose the so-called "people's government," or "cross-party government" would ever be anything other than a messy compromise. Now the nuclear issue is going to put the idea to the test from day one.
There has long been speculation about what Taiwan's hybrid, semi-presidential system means in practice. As long as the KMT retained power, such questions were only of academic interest. But now they are out in the open, and the way in which they are settled will have a direct impact, not only on real policies, but on the future of Taiwan's political order.
There are only two stable equilibrium points to which the system could evolve: a presidential model, where the government would be directed by the president, or a parliamentary model, where it would be directed by the majority party in parliament. In the former case, if the president's party does not command a majority in parliament, the government must engage in policy bargaining with the legislature, the success or failure of which then becomes an issue in the next election. In the latter case, if no party has a majority, one must be put together through a coalition agreement typically cemented by allocation of Cabinet seats.
What Chen has tried to do is to square this circle, by appointing Tang Fei (唐飛) as premier, and giving such a generous allotment of seats to non-DPP members. At first, it appeared that his strategy was working. Many hailed the choice of Tang as a masterstroke. Of course, Tang's appointment had other significance -- ensuring military loyalty and reassuring those worrywarts abroad who still believed Chen was going to declare independence on May 20.
It had been widely believed that the Cabinet would serve well enough until the next at least until the next legislative elections. At that time, adjustments could be made depending on whether the DPP's position is strengthened or not.
But now it seems that the domestic side of Chen's equation is in trouble. With Lin coming out clearly for a move toward the presidential pole, and the KMT starting to flex its muscles, the new Cabinet, for all its abilities, might be heading from an early meltdown. That might well be positive, moving Taiwan toward a healthier system of party politics. But it will certainly be messy.
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers