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.
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
The Executive Yuan recently revised a page of its Web site on ethnic groups in Taiwan, replacing the term “Han” (漢族) with “the rest of the population.” The page, which was updated on March 24, describes the composition of Taiwan’s registered households as indigenous (2.5 percent), foreign origin (1.2 percent) and the rest of the population (96.2 percent). The change was picked up by a social media user and amplified by local media, sparking heated discussion over the weekend. The pan-blue and pro-China camp called it a politically motivated desinicization attempt to obscure the Han Chinese ethnicity of most Taiwanese.
On Wednesday last week, the Rossiyskaya Gazeta published an article by Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) asserting the People’s Republic of China’s (PRC) territorial claim over Taiwan effective 1945, predicated upon instruments such as the 1943 Cairo Declaration and the 1945 Potsdam Proclamation. The article further contended that this de jure and de facto status was subsequently reaffirmed by UN General Assembly Resolution 2758 of 1971. The Ministry of Foreign Affairs promptly issued a statement categorically repudiating these assertions. In addition to the reasons put forward by the ministry, I believe that China’s assertions are open to questions in international
The Legislative Yuan passed an amendment on Friday last week to add four national holidays and make Workers’ Day a national holiday for all sectors — a move referred to as “four plus one.” The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP), who used their combined legislative majority to push the bill through its third reading, claim the holidays were chosen based on their inherent significance and social relevance. However, in passing the amendment, they have stuck to the traditional mindset of taking a holiday just for the sake of it, failing to make good use of
RSS