The postponement of the visit by US Undersecretary of Commerce for International Trade Francisco Sanchez, originally planned for March 4, has been viewed as a move to apply pressure on Taiwan. This, coupled with the findings of recent tests of US meat products showing traces of leanness-inducing additives has brought the ractopamine problem back into focus. Previously, the debate mostly focused on the scientific question of whether these additives pose a health risk, but the tensions the issue has exposed between the US and Taiwan are more about trade.
A consensus has yet to be reached on international standards for these additives and until one is established, Taiwan naturally retains the right to set its own non-discriminatory standards. In the interests of public health Taiwan has stipulated that meat products should be totally free of these additives, and has refused to allow imports that do not conform to this standard. This is entirely consistent with international trade practice and is sufficient reason to stand up to the US’ demands.
However, in July, the the UN’s Codex Alimentarius Commission (CAC) — a UN/WHO body established to safeguard consumers’ health and ensure fair practices in the international food trade — will meet in Geneva for its 35th session, and the drawing up of international standards on leanness-inducing additives is to be on the agenda. The previous few sessions have concentrated on testing for the additive ractopamine, and if this session creates standards for permissible levels of ractopamine, it will presumably be difficult to avoid having to abide by the new CAC international standards, as Taiwan is a member of the WTO.
According to the WTO’s Agreement on Technical Barriers to Trade, member states should adopt any international standards that already exist or are soon to be adopted. If standards governing the presence of ractopamine are formulated during the July session, all WTO members states will be obliged to observe them. That means that Taiwan, the EU and China will all have to give up the zero tolerance policy on ractopamine. This will apply not only to beef products, but to pork as well, so we will have to drop the import ban on meat with ractopamine residues.
Of course, it is possible for a country to ask for an exception to be made from WTO regulations. However, if Taiwan wants to maintain its zero-tolerance policy, it will cause a stir and recourse to such channels is generally discouraged.
Is this the outcome that the US is looking for? It could easily just wait until July when international standards have been ironed out and then quite openly and justifiably require Taiwan and other countries to open up their markets to its beef and pork products. Why, then, expend all this effort and pull all these strings to put pressure on Taiwan, forcing the government into dropping measures generally supported by the public? This action not only damages US-Taiwan relations, it also gives the public a bad impression of the US.
The reason the CAC has been unable to draw up standards on ractopamine so far is that several countries, led by China, objected to the standards initially proposed. This was mainly due to differences of opinion on how to treat offal. Until these differences can be resolved it will be difficult to come up with an international standard. This also suggests that there are no guarantees an agreement will be reached in the session in July.
The US has always been good at using diplomacy to its advantage in these international organizations. If it wants to resolve this leanness-inducing additive issue once and for all it needs to concentrate its efforts on negotiations with China and the other countries involved, hammering out a consensus on the ractopamine issue, rather than just pressuring Taiwan. After all, Taiwan has no say in how the international standards on ractopamine are drawn up and it is now faced with the prospect of having to accept international standards the formulation of which it did not contribute to.
The one right it does have, that of determining its own national standards on this issue prior to the creation of international standards that will supersede them, will be taken away.
If the US believes that a small amount of ractopamine is not harmful to humans, why does it not persuade the CAC that this is the case, or use its influence to get the international standards that it wants? That is how a major power works, not by using trade and investment framework agreements to intimidate a country like Taiwan, very much at a disadvantage, to surrender to its whims.
Chao Wen-heng is an associate research fellow at the Taiwan Institute of Economic Research.
Translated by Paul Cooper
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
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.
Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine in February 2022, people have been asking if Taiwan is the next Ukraine. At a G7 meeting of national leaders in January, Japanese Prime Minister Fumio Kishida warned that Taiwan “could be the next Ukraine” if Chinese aggression is not checked. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg has said that if Russia is not defeated, then “today, it’s Ukraine, tomorrow it can be Taiwan.” China does not like this rhetoric. Its diplomats ask people to stop saying “Ukraine today, Taiwan tomorrow.” However, the rhetoric and stated ambition of Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) on Taiwan shows strong parallels with