Many people ask why the National Security Council (NSC) handled the Taiwan-US beef protocol instead of the Department of Health (DOH) or the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. The NSC later said it became involved because it was a matter of national security.
Now that the issue has gained notoriety, the Consumers’ Foundation (消基會) has expressed firm opposition to easing beef restrictions and both pan-blue and pan-green legislators reject the NSC’s and the Presidential Office’s handling of the case.
The US has now issued a strong response. Failure to resolve the issue might have an impact on Taiwan-US trade and economic ties, visa exemptions for Taiwanese and possibly, in some way, more serious concerns such as defense.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) may hold three-quarters of all legislative seats, but the outcome of legislative negotiations has resulted in stronger controls on US beef imports, overturning the original protocol. This is tantamount to rebellion and means the legislature is drawing a line in the sand, while also dealing Su a sucker punch. However, President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) will suffer most — with the situation spinning out of control, his authority as a leader will be dealt a severe blow.
Ma pays a great deal of attention to his image and stresses the importance of communication and compromise, but shows a glaring lack of skill in both. Despite cross-strait communication and compromise, the KMT has a hard time communicating with Democratic Progressive Party Chairperson Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文). Likewise, his close circle of confidantes may be outstanding academics, but they don’t understand social dynamics and they lack political communication skills.
The US beef issue has resulted in a huge political hiccup, but Su’s highhanded manner is causing widespread discontent, even within the blue camp. When the government gave the green light to US beef imports, Minister of Health Yaung Chih-liang (楊志良) almost resigned. The legislature was not informed in advance, was not consulted during negotiations, and after the signing, was required to support the decision. Neither the opposition nor the pan-blue camp was willing to endorse the protocol and once the public protested, they went on the attack.
Had the NSC conducted a comprehensive assessment prior to its decision, it would have produced a report to persuade the public and legislature and allay concerns. The decision to fully relax restrictions on US beef imports was not based on an expert assessment, which highlights the NSC’s incompetence. The controversy is a longstanding one and if Su was not aware of its seriousness, then he was negligent.
When Su was forced to report to the legislature, he talked about national security and national interests. His condescending attitude annoyed and failed to convince legislators. This highlights Su’s ignorance; he should shoulder responsibility for the beef debacle.
The government’s weak response to Typhoon Morakot was a wake-up call for Ma after his presidential election victory, while the KMT setback in recent local elections created a sense of urgency. This is the chance Ma needs to carry out wide-scale party reform. The legislature has moved against the beef protocol and Ma has lost face at home and abroad. The only way for him to turn things around is to learn his lessons. Otherwise, cross-strait talks on an economic pact with China will prove to be another disaster.
Ideas matter. They especially matter in world affairs. And in communist countries, it is communist ideas, not supreme leaders’ personality traits, that matter most. That is the reality in the People’s Republic of China. All Chinese communist leaders — from Mao Zedong (毛澤東) through Deng Xiaoping (鄧小平), from Jiang Zemin (江澤民) and Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) through to Xi Jinping (習近平) — have always held two key ideas to be sacred and self-evident: first, that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is infallible, and second, that the Marxist-Leninist socialist system of governance is superior to every alternative. The ideological consistency by all CCP leaders,
In the past 30 years, globalization has given way to an international division of labor, with developing countries focusing on export manufacturing, while developed countries in Europe and the US concentrate on internationalizing service industries to drive economic growth. The competitive advantages of these countries can readily be seen in the global financial market. For example, Taiwan has attracted a lot of global interest with its technology industry. The US is the home of leading digital service companies, such as Meta Platforms (Facebook), Alphabet (Google) and Microsoft. The country holds a virtual oligopoly of the global market for consumer digital
The US on Friday hosted the second Global COVID-19 Summit, with at least 98 countries, including Taiwan, and regional alliances such as the G7, the G20, the African Union and the Caribbean Community (CARICOM) attending. Washington is also leading a proposal to revise one of the most important documents in global health security — the International Health Regulations (IHR) — which are to be discussed during the 75th World Health Assembly (WHA) that starts on Sunday. These two actions highlight the US’ strategic move to dominate the global health agenda and return to the core of governance, with the WHA
Former vice president Annette Lu (呂秀蓮) on Saturday expounded on her concept of replacing “unification” with China with “integration.” Lu does not she think the idea would be welcomed in its current form; rather, she wants to elicit discussion on a third way to break the current unification/independence impasse, especially given heightened concerns over China attacking Taiwan in the wake of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. She has apparently formulated her ideas around the number “three.” First, she envisions cross-strait relations developing in three stages: having Beijing lay to rest the idea of unification of “one China” (一個中國); next replacing this with
RSS