The ruling DPP announced, almost without condition, that construction on the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant
After tempers have subsided, how is the DPP going to reconsider the direction of Taiwan's energy development from a macro perspective? On the one hand, we see the DPP's Lin I-hsiung
This kind of critical voice has basically made the anti-nuclear movement -- a cause that has influenced countless people in Taiwan and awakened broad public awareness -- look like a populist movement, lacking reason and professionalism. As the ruling party sings the praises of the "knowledge economy," this so called anti-intellectual, populist tide could well become an obstacle to the government as it attempts to move in a new policy direction. What's more, this kind of criticism implies that Taiwan must continue to depend on cheap labor and cheap electricity for its industrial output, and therefore cannot afford to "de-nuclearize" in the face of competition from manufacturing economies in East Asia and elsewhere. Similarly, it implies we shouldn't put excessive stress on environmental protection, let alone stress the fact that not one industrialized Asian country has become "non-nuclear."
I strongly disagree with this kind of argument. First of all, the formulation of an inevitable conflict between populism and reason is actually something with which we've been familiar for quite a while. During the era of KMT rule, wasn't the slogan of "reason and professionalism" often used to suppress environmental and anti-nuclear activism? In fact, in observing the development of grassroots and environmental activism over the past 10 years, the environmental and anti-nuclear movements have proven to be the most "intellectual" of the social activist causes. Over the longterm, they have had an extremely high percentage of science and engineering professors in their ranks. In addition, the nurturing effect of the movements, as well as participants' personal stake in the issues, combined to make those involved in anti-nuclear activities the most civic-minded of their kind -- the group most able to rationally question traditional knowledge and authority.
On numerous occasions I have seen televised debates between Kungliao
Second, with regards to the question of structural restrictions on Taiwan in terms of division of labor in the global economy, we know that the international division of labor is something that is relative and historical, not absolute. In the development of the modern world system, many countries have seen their status move up and down in the global economy.
During the 1960s and 1970s, some academics said that Taiwan suffered from structural limitations, and was thus unable to move away from an economy based on light industry and cheap labor. But, with the new opportunities found in the international economy, we were able to achieve a partial economic transformation, though at a considerable social price. Does this mean that even today we still have to use the excuse of structural limitations to suppress the environmental movement? It is precisely the restrictions imposed by this international structure that led to the state of emergency that exists today and that make it necessary for us to overcome this structural limitation -- again.
Today, as we consider different paths of energy development, we cannot afford to let economic development and environmental activism conflict with each other. From the substantial development witnessed in Germany's alternative energy industry and looking at the business opportunities reflected in the research and development done on alternative energy, it is evident that a new energy policy that modifies the direction of economic development -- together with a socially responsible environmental policy -- could complement each other. A year ago, a Texas-based professor, Chen Mo-shing (陳謨星), published an article in Taiwan outlining alternative energy policy considerations and also criticizing the waste and hindrance to economic development associated with nuclear power. Even if construction on the nuclear plant resumes, these are ideas that are worth considering. The problems caused in California by the liberalization of the power industry should not be used as an excuse for Taiwan -- a place very different in terms of the international division of labor -- to embrace nuclear energy. By the same token, when France became a nuclear power it didn't mean that East Asia and Taiwan had to follow its example.
Lastly, the formulation and promotion of new energy policies in the 21st century is no easy affair for Taiwan. In the past, although Taiwan's environmental and anti-nuclear movements were highly intellectual, they still had many faults and needed even more intellectuals and experts to join in. Attracting more professionals to join in the research and development of alternative energy sources while engendering more far-reaching concern in civil society -- and then combining these two to prevent the so-called "populism versus reason" bipolar conflict -- will perhaps be the keystone of the next phase of the environmental knowledge movement. As for the participation of more professionals, the research institutes of Taiwan's universities, the National Science Council (國科會) and Academia Sinica (中研院) all should bear responsibility.
Fu Daiwie is a professor at National Tsinghua University.
Translated by Scudder Smith
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
During the “426 rally” organized by the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party under the slogan “fight green communism, resist dictatorship,” leaders from the two opposition parties framed it as a battle against an allegedly authoritarian administration led by President William Lai (賴清德). While criticism of the government can be a healthy expression of a vibrant, pluralistic society, and protests are quite common in Taiwan, the discourse of the 426 rally nonetheless betrayed troubling signs of collective amnesia. Specifically, the KMT, which imposed 38 years of martial law in Taiwan from 1949 to 1987, has never fully faced its
RSS