The government has come in for fierce criticism from both sides of the political divide since it was announced last week that restrictions on imports of US bone-in beef and offal would be lifted.
The criticism has mainly focused on the health risks posed by eating beef and beef products possibly contaminated with bovine spongiform encephalopathy (BSE), or mad cow disease.
Although the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) claim to represent public concern in their vociferous protests, for the KMT caucus all of this seems to be nothing more than an excuse to bash the US, while the DPP’s machinations are obviously an attempt to highlight what it sees as the government’s latest display of ineptitude. It can also be assumed that both parties have one eye on December’s elections.
One thing that politicians don’t seem to be taking notice of, however, is the scientific evidence that suggests eating US beef poses no substantial health risk.
The ferocity of politicians would be entirely justified if it were imports of UK beef we were talking about, as the UK was where the BSE epidemic was first identified and where the vast majority of cases of variant Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease (vCJD), the human form of BSE, have been reported. The disease is a mainly British affair and the WHO says many of the cases reported in other countries were people likely exposed to the BSE agent while living in the UK during the height of the epidemic in the late 1980s.
Figures from the UK’s National Creutzfeldt-Jakob Disease Surveillance Unit show that at the end of last month there had been 167 deaths from vCJD in the UK, with the peak (28 cases) occurring in 2000.
In the US, to date there have been just three cases of BSE (one imported) and three deaths from vCJD, but two of these three deaths were likely cases of exposure in the UK, while the other was a recent immigrant.
These figures are the kind of factual information the public should have been presented with before the ban was lifted. This would have given them the chance to make an informed choice on the matter, rather than be fed with misinformation, rumor and the mischief of politicians with ulterior motives.
American Institute in Taiwan Director William Stanton’s indelicate comparison that eating US beef is safer than riding a scooter only served to embolden opponents and allowed them to continue their campaign of baseless accusations.
The Presidential Office and government officials have repeatedly stressed that they followed the “South Korea example” regarding the strictness of controls imposed on the relaxation of US beef imports. That may be the case, but unfortunately the government also followed South Korea’s example by flunking basic public relations before the ban was lifted, allowing opportunist politicians of all hues to prey on ignorance and create fear.
The government’s amateurish handling of the whole episode means it is now putting out an endless series of spot fires in order to prevent a repeat of what happened in South Korea, instead of concentrating on more pressing matters of national interest.
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS