Legislators across party lines have agreed to amend the Act Governing Food Sanitation (食品衛生管理法) and ban imports of cow organs and ground beef from the US by Nov. 17. Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators seem to be competing to prove their opposition to US beef. It is unlikely that government officials expected this when they mulled relaxing the restrictions.
National Security Council Secretary-General Su Chi (蘇起) said the previous administration allowed US boneless beef imports without any negotiation.
“Someone at some agency just made a phone call and it was settled,” Su said.
By contrast, the current government engaged in talks with the US, asserting its authority and proving to the international community that Taiwan was capable of negotiating, he said.
Su seems to think the new government’s negotiations and decision-making process are far superior to its DPP predecessor. But with criticism mounting, the Cabinet has wavered and landed itself in a difficult spot.
It is generally accepted that tight regulations on US beef imports would have to change after Taiwan joined the WTO. The controversy is no longer a matter of food safety or communicating with the public — it is now about nationalist sentiment in the face of WTO negotiations. Japan and South Korea are cases in point.
Banning US beef imports for fear of mad cow disease may have been in the interest of local farmers and did not have to hurt the US-Taiwan relationship. However, as long as these restrictions existed, there was always going to be pressure from Washington. This is the reality of international politics. It is a vexing problem that those in power nevertheless must solve.
The DPP government was well aware of the root cause of the controversy. It gave in to the US government, eliminating any pretense of negotiations and other administrative measures.
The DPP administration ignored public opinion and the conclusion reached by a legislative investigative committee against US beef imports. It felt that with time, the issue would fade from the public memory.
On March 24, 2005, the Department of Health announced that the government would allow imports of US beef with certain conditions. Regardless of the opposition, which came from all quarters, the policy was implemented the following month. The criticism died down. Had it not been for new cases of mad cow disease in the US, the legislature would not have repeatedly protested against the imports.
By contrast, the KMT government, with its supposedly superior decision-making process, is using bureaucratic means to effectively block imports of US ground beef and cow tongues and organs to pacify public opposition.
Since the government cannot offer a 100 percent guarantee that US beef is safe, why did it rush into signing a protocol with the US?
Not only has the public lost confidence in the government, but the US now questions why Taiwan is acting outside the protocol.
The government has said repeatedly that it is impossible to relaunch negotiations with the US. If this is true, it should shoulder responsibility for its decision and stop KMT legislators from amending the law to ban imports of the controversial products.
If the amendment to the food sanitation act is passed, it will no longer be a question of whether domestic law overrides international protocols, but rather a case of reneging on a protocol signed under the WTO framework.
Jan Shou-jung is a former legislative assistant.
TRANSLATED BY TED YANG
Recently, China launched another diplomatic offensive against Taiwan, improperly linking its “one China principle” with UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 to constrain Taiwan’s diplomatic space. After Taiwan’s presidential election on Jan. 13, China persuaded Nauru to sever diplomatic ties with Taiwan. Nauru cited Resolution 2758 in its declaration of the diplomatic break. Subsequently, during the WHO Executive Board meeting that month, Beijing rallied countries including Venezuela, Zimbabwe, Belarus, Egypt, Nicaragua, Sri Lanka, Laos, Russia, Syria and Pakistan to reiterate the “one China principle” in their statements, and assert that “Resolution 2758 has settled the status of Taiwan” to hinder Taiwan’s
Singaporean Prime Minister Lee Hsien Loong’s (李顯龍) decision to step down after 19 years and hand power to his deputy, Lawrence Wong (黃循財), on May 15 was expected — though, perhaps, not so soon. Most political analysts had been eyeing an end-of-year handover, to ensure more time for Wong to study and shadow the role, ahead of general elections that must be called by November next year. Wong — who is currently both deputy prime minister and minister of finance — would need a combination of fresh ideas, wisdom and experience as he writes the nation’s next chapter. The world that
Can US dialogue and cooperation with the communist dictatorship in Beijing help avert a Taiwan Strait crisis? Or is US President Joe Biden playing into Chinese President Xi Jinping’s (習近平) hands? With America preoccupied with the wars in Europe and the Middle East, Biden is seeking better relations with Xi’s regime. The goal is to responsibly manage US-China competition and prevent unintended conflict, thereby hoping to create greater space for the two countries to work together in areas where their interests align. The existing wars have already stretched US military resources thin, and the last thing Biden wants is yet another war.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with