The controversy over imports of US beef is a typical example of a storm in a tea cup. Thanks to the government’s neglect of public opinion, inability to implement party discipline and persuade the legislature, what was originally one of many items on the US-Taiwan trade talk agenda has created a backlash and prompted a strongly worded US statement warning Taiwan not to break the agreement. US-Taiwan tensions have now developed into a full-blown political storm.
Taiwan still hasn’t made a final decision on the issue, nor has the US decided how to respond, but the administration of President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has made several guesses at what the US measures might be. These include delaying a bilateral trade and investment framework agreement, delaying an arms deal and suspending talks about visa exemptions for Republic of China citizens. The situation has caused the government to fear changes to the Taiwan-US strategic relationship.
Although the legislature is planning to amend the Act Governing Food Sanitation (食品衛生管理法) to ban the importation of US beef innards and ground beef, this only makes up a small part of US beef imports. It will have a minor impact on import volumes and value, but could help improve public acceptance of US beef, which is a lot better than possible boycotts and stagnant sales because of quality concerns and consumer fears. The US government should take a hard look at what is the better alternative for US beef farmers.
Although the legal amendment violates the import protocol, thus causing Taiwan to break it, the US response must follow the principle of proportionality. Business is business, and any repercussions should be strictly related to business. The US must not hurt long-term trade and strategic relations lest it hurt not only the Taiwanese public, but also US business interests in Taiwan.
In a recent report, US-Taiwan Business Council president Rupert Hammond-Chambers criticized the US government for what he called their unclear Taiwan policies and for delaying the approval of arms sales to Taiwan. He also warned that if negotiations on a trade and investment framework agreement are not resumed, Taiwan will be pushed toward China.
Government policy is clearly pro-Chinese, with its diplomatic truce, the push for signing an economic cooperation and framework agreement (ECFA) and attempts to initiate cross-strait political talks. This leaves foreign observers with the impression that Taiwan is throwing itself into China’s embrace, but these are only the tendencies of government policy and lack mainstream support.
The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) did badly in last year’s legislative by-elections and the year-end three-in-one local elections and Ma’s approval ratings remain low at around 30 percent, all clear evidence of a lack of public support for government policy. In addition, many opinion polls show that support for maintaining the “status quo” remains steady at around 70 percent, and even government opinion polls show that opposition to an ECFA is increasing.
All this implies that the public does not approve of such all out pro-China policies. The beef controversy must not be allowed to affect the US-Taiwan alliance and Washington should consider the wisdom of pushing Taiwan, an important strategic bargaining chip for the US, closer toward a China that is about to become a great power.
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