In the absence of anything substantial — and with so many substantial problems to choose from — the political world has moved on to the next helping of a controversy that is contemptible in the way it takes ordinary people for fools and elevates the voices of the foolish.
Joining these disingenuous legislators, councilors and party hacks in their attacks on US beef are a number of interest groups whose contributions to the debate have been uninformed, unintelligent and even deceitful. The main offender is the Consumers’ Foundation, which over the years has launched consumer crusades of dubious priority and zero scientific rigor.
If this organization applied its ferocious strictness on US beef imports to all other health matters affecting consumers, it would extend its campaign to instituting bans on imports and local production of alcohol and tobacco, introduce bans on betel nuts, motorscooters, sports cars, meat with high levels of fat and night market food. This would just be the start.
The fact that the Consumers’ Foundation does not engage in such quixotic behavior points to opportunism and cynicism, not a sense of proportion or respect of the right consumers should enjoy to choose what they wish to consume.
This week the debate has raised the specter of that tactical chestnut of the Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) presidency, the referendum, as a possible new front for opponents of US beef — as if prime rib and sirloin were a fit and proper subject for a plebiscite.
This gratuitous use of the referendum — not as a gauge of popular opinion but as a threat to intimidate governments away from actions within their administrative mandate — is no less cynical and inept than the Democratic Progressive Party’s (DPP) attempts to solve political problems through a mechanism that would override the legislature.
Unfortunately for the DPP, this approach did more damage than harm, prompting boycotts, endless debate over ephemera and general irritation, thus harming the dignity of the process for years to come.
The prospect of a national referendum on beef is about the most absurd suggestion for a referendum topic to date, although the DPP’s suggestion that a referendum be held to assess whether a certain referendum topic be held comes a close second.
This is a health issue, not a political issue, but the way that this situation is developing augurs the overriding of individual choice by interest groups with no health expertise, let alone an understanding of the US beef industry.
In the end the most fascinating question is how the president and his government have been unable to develop a strong and clear message on why lifting the beef ban was correct. There is plenty of scientific evidence to formulate a position, and an added benefit would have been eviscerating opponents who have nothing but mischief to peddle. Now, even that opportunity has been lost.
Unfortunately for this administration, it failed to act in time, and without sufficient preparation and testing of waters, and so the door opened for prominent voices in the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) to oppose the change — for whatever political reason suited them.
On Sept. 3 in Tiananmen Square, the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) and the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) rolled out a parade of new weapons in PLA service that threaten Taiwan — some of that Taiwan is addressing with added and new military investments and some of which it cannot, having to rely on the initiative of allies like the United States. The CCP’s goal of replacing US leadership on the global stage was advanced by the military parade, but also by China hosting in Tianjin an August 31-Sept. 1 summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO), which since 2001 has specialized
In an article published by the Harvard Kennedy School, renowned historian of modern China Rana Mitter used a structured question-and-answer format to deepen the understanding of the relationship between Taiwan and China. Mitter highlights the differences between the repressive and authoritarian People’s Republic of China and the vibrant democracy that exists in Taiwan, saying that Taiwan and China “have had an interconnected relationship that has been both close and contentious at times.” However, his description of the history — before and after 1945 — contains significant flaws. First, he writes that “Taiwan was always broadly regarded by the imperial dynasties of
The Chinese Communist Party (CCP) will stop at nothing to weaken Taiwan’s sovereignty, going as far as to create complete falsehoods. That the People’s Republic of China (PRC) has never ruled Taiwan is an objective fact. To refute this, Beijing has tried to assert “jurisdiction” over Taiwan, pointing to its military exercises around the nation as “proof.” That is an outright lie: If the PRC had jurisdiction over Taiwan, it could simply have issued decrees. Instead, it needs to perform a show of force around the nation to demonstrate its fantasy. Its actions prove the exact opposite of its assertions. A
A large part of the discourse about Taiwan as a sovereign, independent nation has centered on conventions of international law and international agreements between outside powers — such as between the US, UK, Russia, the Republic of China (ROC) and Japan at the end of World War II, and between the US and the People’s Republic of China (PRC) since recognition of the PRC as the sole representative of China at the UN. Internationally, the narrative on the PRC and Taiwan has changed considerably since the days of the first term of former president Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) of the Democratic
RSS