Where’s the beef?
The recent continuing protests by South Koreans over the government’s agreement to resume US beef imports have absolutely nothing to do with beef and everything to do with politics. In this respect, South Korea is no different from other democracies where any hot-button issue is used for political purposes: Protesters are using anti-US phobia as a tool to try to bring down the government of South Korean President Lee Myung-bak.
There are many South Koreans who do not like the US and will take every or any opportunity to protest against the US presence in South Korea. The last time South Koreans took to the streets to protest against the US (because of a traffic accident involving US soldiers), the general response in the US to the demonstrations was: “Why are we there? Let’s just leave and let South Korea fend for itself against the North.” The protests in South Korea died away, and some “normality” returned.
Now, beef is being used by the anti-US, anti-government lobby as an excuse to demonstrate against Lee and the South Korean government. Scientists agree there is no cause for alarm concerning US beef now. But in taking to the streets, the protesters are really saying no to the US — US beef is just a red herring. By saying no to the US, the protesters are, by extension, rejecting the Lee government, which has been somewhat closer to the US compared with previous administrations.
So the question arises again. Why is the US there? There are tens of thousands of troops babysitting South Korea that could be better deployed in Afghanistan or in other places around the world where they are needed for actual combat. Why do we insist on staying put in places where people hate to have us there? If they don’t want our help, we should just say “adios.”
There are those fearful of North Korea invading the South again were the US to leave. It is doubtful, but always a possibility with the unbalanced leadership in the North. But Americans watching tens of thousands of South Koreans — a vocal but tiny group — protesting against US beef, which Americans eat every night, raises ire, to say the least. Do South Koreans believe Americans are stupid and eat mad-cow disease laden meat? Or perhaps they believe the same about Japanese, Canadian, European or people in other areas where US beef is imported and has been declared safe.
One can only wonder what South Koreans would think if all of a sudden all of LG’s and Samsung’s products were pulled off US store shelves, or Americans decided not to buy US$8 billion in autos and auto parts from South Korea. What if for political reasons, a rumor arose that some South Korean IT products use chemical components that could possibly cause cancer.
Sensible people should understand the protests against US beef have almost nothing to do with the actual quality of the beef for the most part. There are some activists who will protest against beef no matter what because they are animal rights activists, and use the beef issue as a way of urging people to eat a vegetarian diet. But it is all politics.
And for the multitudes protesting against US beef, I can only wonder what you want. Do you want the US to withdraw and leave you to the North? Trust me, if most Americans are polled, with candlelight vigils in Seoul every night urging the government to ban US beef based on unsupportable hysteria, the answer will be “adios,” or actually an-nyong-hi kye-ship-sio, and “Keep your Hyundais, Kias, LGs and Samsungs, too. We can buy that stuff from Taiwan and Japan.”
LEE LONG-HWA
New York
China has not been a top-tier issue for much of the second Trump administration. Instead, Trump has focused considerable energy on Ukraine, Israel, Iran, and defending America’s borders. At home, Trump has been busy passing an overhaul to America’s tax system, deporting unlawful immigrants, and targeting his political enemies. More recently, he has been consumed by the fallout of a political scandal involving his past relationship with a disgraced sex offender. When the administration has focused on China, there has not been a consistent throughline in its approach or its public statements. This lack of overarching narrative likely reflects a combination
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
US President Donald Trump’s alleged request that Taiwanese President William Lai (賴清德) not stop in New York while traveling to three of Taiwan’s diplomatic allies, after his administration also rescheduled a visit to Washington by the minister of national defense, sets an unwise precedent and risks locking the US into a trajectory of either direct conflict with the People’s Republic of China (PRC) or capitulation to it over Taiwan. Taiwanese authorities have said that no plans to request a stopover in the US had been submitted to Washington, but Trump shared a direct call with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平)
Workers’ rights groups on July 17 called on the Ministry of Labor to protect migrant fishers, days after CNN reported what it described as a “pattern of abuse” in Taiwan’s distant-water fishing industry. The report detailed the harrowing account of Indonesian migrant fisher Silwanus Tangkotta, who crushed his fingers in a metal door last year while aboard a Taiwanese fishing vessel. The captain reportedly refused to return to port for medical treatment, as they “hadn’t caught enough fish to justify the trip.” Tangkotta lost two fingers, and was fired and denied compensation upon returning to land. Another former migrant fisher, Adrian Dogdodo
RSS