Nuclear Renaissance in Southeast Asia: Energy Sovereignty or Neocolonial Entrapment?

The Strategic Pivot Toward Nuclear Power

Southeast Asia stands at a critical juncture in its energy evolution. As detailed in recent analyses, five nations—Indonesia, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, and Vietnam—responsible for 89% of regional energy consumption are actively reintegrating nuclear power into their national development plans. This represents a dramatic reversal from previous decades when safety concerns, cost considerations, and waste management challenges led these nations to abandon or pause nuclear ambitions.

The region’s electricity demand is projected to grow by 4% annually through 2035, accounting for a quarter of global energy demand growth. This surge necessitates an all-of-the-above approach to energy generation, with countries targeting solar, wind, hydrogen, geothermal, and now nuclear power to meet both development needs and net-zero commitments. The recent COP28 pledge by 20 countries to triple nuclear energy output by 2050 has provided additional momentum to this nuclear renaissance.

Historical Context and Current Developments

The nuclear journey in Southeast Asia has been marked by hesitation and revival. The Philippines completed the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant in 1984 but never operationalized it due to safety concerns. Vietnam abandoned two nuclear plants in 2016 over cost issues, while Thailand removed nuclear from its power development plan in 2018. Malaysia similarly decided to forgo nuclear energy that same year citing risk management concerns.

Today, however, advanced and small modular reactor (SMR) technologies have renewed confidence in nuclear’s viability. Indonesia plans to deploy 10,000 MW of nuclear energy by 2040. Malaysia’s thirteenth national plan revives nuclear as part of its net-zero journey. The Philippines has established the Philippine Atomic Energy Regulatory Authority (PhilATOM) to oversee nuclear activities. Thailand has added 600 MW of SMRs to its draft power development plan, and Vietnam aims for 4,000-6,400 MW by 2053, scaling to 8,000 MW by 2050.

The Geopolitical Dimension: A New Colonial Frontier?

The Supplier Landscape and Strategic Leverage

The nuclear resurgence in Southeast Asia cannot be understood outside its geopolitical context. Major nuclear suppliers—Russia, China, South Korea, France, and the United States—offer distinct technologies, financing models, and political expectations. Russia’s “build-own-operate” package, which includes spent fuel removal, presents an attractive but potentially problematic solution for nations seeking to avoid politically sensitive waste management issues.

What concerns me deeply is how this dynamic recreates colonial-era dependency relationships. When Russia offers to remove spent nuclear fuel, it’s not merely providing a service—it’s establishing a century-long relationship of technological dependency. The stark reality that only Russia and China currently have operational SMRs among 127 global designs under consideration creates an alarming power imbalance.

Western Hypocrisy and Technological Dominance

The United States’ sudden urgency to “reclaim technological and export primacy” after ceding the field to Russia and China reveals the true nature of this competition: it’s not about climate salvation but about maintaining geopolitical dominance. For decades, Western nations imposed stringent safety and non-proliferation standards that effectively blocked developing nations from nuclear advancement while enjoying its benefits themselves. Now that alternative suppliers have emerged, the West suddenly rediscovers the virtues of nuclear energy exports.

This pattern repeats the historical injustice where Global South nations are perpetually kept as technology consumers rather than becoming technology creators and equals. The nuclear supply chain becomes another mechanism for perpetuating technological colonialism under the guise of climate cooperation.

Capacity Building and Sovereignty Challenges

The Human Capital Deficit

The article correctly identifies the critical challenge of rebuilding educational and training pipelines for nuclear expertise. Vietnam’s need to rapidly develop technical, regulatory, and policy experts for plants coming online by 2030 mirrors regional challenges. Many Southeast Asian nations slowed or ceased nuclear training programs during their period of nuclear hesitation, creating a generational knowledge gap.

This expertise deficit creates vulnerability. When foreign suppliers provide not just technology but also training and regulatory frameworks, they effectively shape the recipient nation’s nuclear ecosystem according to their standards and interests. The “100-year relationship” mentioned in the article becomes a century of influence and dependency.

Regulatory Independence and Safety Sovereignty

The establishment of PhilATOM in the Philippines represents a positive step toward regulatory independence. However, the real test will be whether these regulatory bodies can develop genuinely sovereign standards rather than adopting imported frameworks that may not suit local conditions and priorities. Nuclear safety cannot be outsourced without compromising national sovereignty.

Toward a Truly Sovereign Nuclear Future

Regional Cooperation as Counterbalance

The solution lies in South-South cooperation and regional coordination. ASEAN nations should establish joint feasibility studies, shared training centers, and regional safety exercises to spread costs and build collective expertise. By pooling resources and knowledge, Southeast Asian nations can negotiate from strength rather than desperation with external suppliers.

This approach aligns with the civilizational state perspective that recognizes interdependence without subordination. Rather than each nation individually negotiating with nuclear suppliers, a coordinated regional approach could establish better terms and ensure technology transfer that genuinely builds local capacity.

Technology Development and Adaptation

Southeast Asia must invest not just in deploying existing nuclear technology but in adapting and developing technologies suited to its specific needs. The region’s geological diversity, climate challenges, and development requirements demand tailored solutions rather than off-the-shelf imports from northern hemisphere suppliers.

Small modular reactors offer particular promise for distributed energy systems across archipelagic nations like Indonesia and the Philippines. However, these technologies must be mastered rather than merely purchased. The goal should be technological independence, not perpetual licensing.

Geopolitical Neutrality and Strategic Autonomy

In selecting nuclear partners, Southeast Asian nations must prioritize their long-term interests over short-term convenience. Russia’s seizure of Ukraine’s Zaporizhzhia nuclear plant demonstrates the vulnerability of critical energy infrastructure to geopolitical conflict. Aligning with any single nuclear supplier creates strategic vulnerabilities that could be exploited during international tensions.

The ideal path involves diversified technology sourcing, with different components potentially coming from different suppliers to avoid over-dependency. This requires sophisticated negotiation and technological integration capabilities but preserves strategic autonomy.

Conclusion: Energy Sovereignty as Development Imperative

The nuclear renaissance in Southeast Asia represents both tremendous opportunity and grave risk. Done correctly, with emphasis on genuine technology transfer, regional cooperation, and sovereign regulatory frameworks, nuclear energy could provide the baseload power needed for development while meeting climate commitments.

However, if approached as mere technology consumers rather than equal partners in innovation, Southeast Asian nations risk exchanging fossil fuel dependency for nuclear colonialism. The West’s sudden enthusiasm for nuclear exports after decades of restriction should be viewed with healthy skepticism—this isn’t charity but business and geopolitical maneuvering.

As nations of the Global South, we must remember that true development means controlling our energy destiny. Nuclear energy offers the promise of energy sovereignty, but only if we approach it with clear eyes, united purpose, and determination to build rather than buy our future. The alternative is another century of dependency dressed in the clothing of climate cooperation—a outcome unacceptable to any nation with genuine aspiration for dignified development.