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.
On June 11, Beijing designated the Taiwan Strait and several areas around Taiwan to be “coastal waters.” For those not familiar with the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), China’s designation constitutes a declaration of authority to control and regulate all maritime activities within those waters. Articles 8 to 11 of the UNCLOS gives coastal nations far more authority over their “internal waters,” that is the waters to the landward side of the geographic baseline that marks the start of the 12 nautical mile (22.2km) limit of their territorial waters. Internal waters include ports, rivers, inland waterways and
I arrived in Taiwan when I was 18, fresh out of high school and trying to navigate university life. Everything felt unfamiliar. My broken Mandarin quickly revealed what I already knew: I was not from here. When I told people I was from Indonesia, many told me that I did not look Indonesian. This caught me off guard, not because it was cruel, but because of how casually it was said. Sometimes it came with curiosity, sometimes surprise, occasionally admiration for my “fair skin.” More often than not, the people asking meant no harm. It is understandable. I look ethnically
Five weeks since US President Donald Trump met with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) in Beijing, his administration now faces two important tests in the Indo-Pacific. The first test is one of the president’s own making. After meeting with Xi, Trump described arms sales to Taiwan as “a very good negotiating chip” and announced that a previously approved sale was now “in abeyance.” The Financial Times later reported that Beijing is holding approval for a visit by Elbridge Colby, the undersecretary of defense for policy, pending the president’s decision on the sale. During Trump’s first term in office, he regularized the arms
Fifteen years ago, when I was still an undergraduate student, a professor teaching international law made a remark that has stayed with me ever since. “If a term is used everywhere, but means something different in every context, then eventually it means nothing at all.” At the time, he was discussing piracy. Of course, the word means something to all of us, and in many contexts, it requires no further explanation. Yet depending on whether one approached the issue from maritime law, intellectual property, software development or business, it could refer to different things. Back then, I did not think
RSS