The Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) path to a “nuclear-free homeland” has been a long one. The party is now turning a corner, unsure of the road ahead.
The removal of nuclear power from Taiwan’s energy mix has been a part of the DPP’s energy policy right from its first administration, with then-president Chen Shui-bian’s (陳水扁) decision to halt construction of the Fourth Nuclear Power Plant in 2000.
Former president Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) suggested the adoption of the nuclear-free homeland policy in 2011 during her first presidential campaign. Her idea was to allow the completion of the fourth plant, but not enable it to go into commercial operation, and for the other three nuclear power plants to be decommissioned at the end of their operational life by next year, with no extensions.
In 2011, 2025 still seemed far off. Tsai lost that election to then-president Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) and would not initiate the non-nuclear policy until she became president in 2016. There was still just under a decade to go then, but the clock was ticking.
The road ahead looks conspicuously shorter now and the nation’s energy needs are changing with the increased importance of chip manufacturing and the anticipated growth of artificial intelligence, both of which are energy-intensive. Chip manufacturing requires a steady energy supply and any interruption in the manufacturing process has knock-on effects on the international supply chain.
The public was generally on board with the DPP’s non-nuclear policy, especially after the Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant disaster and tsunami in Japan in March 2011.
Just as Japan cannot escape its geological realities, neither can Taiwan, being in an earthquake zone, with people concentrated in densely populated areas near its nuclear power plants. The question is how to balance geological reality, public safety, energy needs and economic policy with the DPP’s nuclear policy, as well as the threat of climate change and the government’s commitment to zero carbon emissions by 2050.
There is a change in the mood on transitioning to a nuclear-free nation, not just among the public, but also among academics and experts, and even within the DPP itself.
President William Lai (賴清德) on Thursday last week convened the first meeting of the National Climate Change Response Committee. He said that the “nuclear-free homeland” was not an ideological stance that the DPP is necessarily wedded to, and that he is willing to take a science-based practical approach to Taiwan’s energy mix needs with regards to the nation’s economy, industry, public interest and national security. Lai also specified that any changes would require social consensus, taking into account nuclear safety and the disposal of nuclear waste.
Lai invited former Academia Sinica president Lee Yuan-tseh (李遠哲) — who agrees with proposals to continue using nuclear energy and that “the potential disasters that it could bring cannot compare with the complete destruction of the human race” — as a consultant and Pegatron Corp chief executive officer Tung Tzu-hsien (童子賢) to serve as deputy convener of the committee. Tung has called for an extension to operations at the Jinshan and Guosheng nuclear power plants in New Taipei City, and having nuclear power supplement the energy mix until renewable energy sources are mature enough to supplant it. He is an example of someone who has changed his position on the nuclear issue, saying that 30 years ago he was also opposed to nuclear power, but now believes, as Lee does, that global warming is the more pressing issue.
There will continue to be disagreements between groups on either side of the nuclear power debate. However, there should also be questions about why this debate is only happening now, so near to 2025.
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