The debate over the import of US beef with ractopamine residues has left one stone unturned — is it politically acceptable to protect the nation’s food supplies or must Taiwan bow to outside pressure to allow imports of questionable foodstuffs that will likely drive out better quality, but more expensive, food?
Any nation, especially one that belongs to the WTO, that tries to ban the import of a product that is tainted with some sort of chemical, hormone or plasticizer is labeled a trade protectionist. This is seen as the worst kind of pejorative term in political circles because it implies self-imposed ostracism from the international elite. However, it is simply a perversion of one of the noblest words in the English language, to “protect.”
Aren’t we brought up believing in the need to protect our families, our loved ones, our cherished ideals? Do we fault people who protect their homes, their health and their livelihood?
In this case, it seems that many in the political establishment find fault with protecting one’s health.
Importing beef from the US is a bad idea if there is a healthier alternative. The US meat industry leaves many things to be desired. Cows are slaughtered too fast, producing spills of feces on the meat; the raising of animals is accelerated by a cocktail of hormones and drugs and they are even turned into cannibals against their will, all to fatten them up as quickly as possible.
However, because of the way its cattle are raised, the US produces beef cheaper than other countries, giving it a competitive edge. Given a level playing field, which would result if Taiwan allowed imports of US beef containing ractopamine residues, US beef would eventually drive out its competitors.
However, this is not really fair competition. A similar case is US imports of steel from China. In China, officials suppress wages, ban unions and crack down on protests, while forcing workers to endure long, hard hours working in hot and dirty conditions. On top of this, Beijing has been accused of manipulating its currency to keep it low compared with the US dollar, as well as providing subsidies for the steel sector. All these, taken together, give a huge competitive advantage to Chinese steel in the international market.
If the US were to adopt the same approach for steel imports that it has been advocating for other countries’ imports of its beef, it would allow imports of Chinese steel without a problem, and low-priced Chinese steel would eventually drive out US steel. However, Washington doesn’t do that. It protects its industry with tariffs, anti-dumping measures and subsidies of its own. It seems that when it comes to its own industries, the US is protectionist, but when the situation involves trade of US goods abroad, Washington is all for the open door.
The issue of US beef imports not only affects the livelihood of cattle farmers — admittedly not a large number of people — but also the health of anybody who eats beef. For the most part, people eat what looks good, tastes good and is cheap. US beef fits all these criteria. However, if people knew what weird drugs were inside US beef, they would think twice about eating it. Alas, not all people read newspapers and many don’t heed warnings — once US beef is the only choice, it will be too late to protect Taiwan’s health.
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
The past few months have seen tremendous strides in India’s journey to develop a vibrant semiconductor and electronics ecosystem. The nation’s established prowess in information technology (IT) has earned it much-needed revenue and prestige across the globe. Now, through the convergence of engineering talent, supportive government policies, an expanding market and technologically adaptive entrepreneurship, India is striving to become part of global electronics and semiconductor supply chains. Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s Vision of “Make in India” and “Design in India” has been the guiding force behind the government’s incentive schemes that span skilling, design, fabrication, assembly, testing and packaging, and
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.