While officials now tell us that the feed additive ractopamine contained in some US beef does not pose a health risk, the longstanding controversy over its import into Taiwan could, if mishandled, poison relations between Taipei and Washington.
Fundamentally, the problem lies with special interest groups in Taiwan and the US. In Taiwan, those who oppose lifting the ban on US beef containing ractopamine residue have adopted a policy that seeks to protect the domestic meat industry. Protectionism is every bit as important as health considerations in this dispute — witness the legislators and activists who have made this issue their own, but have nothing to say about the proven nefarious effects of cigarettes, or motor vehicle pollution.
As for the US, its policy on the matter is alimented by a lobby that seeks to maximize the export of meat products. It is also an election year, which tends to make policymakers more receptive to such pressures.
Although the beef controversy should be treated as an isolated trade spat between two countries, there has been a tendency on both sides to politicize the matter by tying it to other elements of the relationship. As a result, if the situation is not handled with political deftness, it could damage relations between Taipei and its most important ally.
In Taiwan, there is an underlying anti--Americanism to the opposition to US beef imports and some of the protesters who took to the streets in protest — including Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislators — do little to hide their feelings. Indeed, one suspects that there are some within the DPP who have taken up this cause more as a means to get even with Washington for its perceived meddling in the Jan. 14 presidential election.
While Taiwanese have every right to decide what does and does not end up on their dinner plates, it would be a mistake to regard US insistence on exporting its beef products, or Taipei’s acquiescence, as a sign of US imperialism.
Equally unpalatable is the attempt by some on the US side to link the US beef issue to other policy initiatives, such as negotiations on the Taiwan-US Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA). The political and economic ramifications of the agreement for Taiwan cannot be emphasized enough, if only because it would provide a key counterbalance to the Economic Cooperation Framework Agreement (ECFA) signed by Taipei and Beijing in June 2010.
Holding TIFA talks hostage until the beef issue is resolved comes close to blackmail, which is not conducive to friendly relations. It is, however, very close to how Beijing approaches negotiations with Taipei.
Both sides must be willing to compromise, while making sure that whatever decision is ultimately made does not undermine other aspects of their bilateral relationship.
Taiwan stands to gain nothing, but could lose a great deal, if the US beef dispute becomes a rallying point for anti-Americanism (for cynical politicians who seek rapprochement with Beijing at the expense of relations with Washington, such an outcome would be like manna from Heaven). Who knows what would happen to US security guarantees or arms sales to Taiwan if things reached such a point.
Cool heads must prevail, particularly as there is already a certain degree of apprehension over the level of US commitment to Taiwan.
While not sacrificing its national interest, vulnerable sectors and yes, public health, Taiwan should not give vacillating US politicians more reasons to treat it like an unwanted side dish.
A few weeks ago in Kaohsiung, tech mogul turned political pundit Robert Tsao (曹興誠) joined Western Washington University professor Chen Shih-fen (陳時奮) for a public forum in support of Taiwan’s recall campaign. Kaohsiung, already the most Taiwanese independence-minded city in Taiwan, was not in need of a recall. So Chen took a different approach: He made the case that unification with China would be too expensive to work. The argument was unusual. Most of the time, we hear that Taiwan should remain free out of respect for democracy and self-determination, but cost? That is not part of the usual script, and
Behind the gloating, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) must be letting out a big sigh of relief. Its powerful party machine saved the day, but it took that much effort just to survive a challenge mounted by a humble group of active citizens, and in areas where the KMT is historically strong. On the other hand, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) must now realize how toxic a brand it has become to many voters. The campaigners’ amateurism is what made them feel valid and authentic, but when the DPP belatedly inserted itself into the campaign, it did more harm than good. The
For nearly eight decades, Taiwan has provided a home for, and shielded and nurtured, the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT). After losing the Chinese Civil War in 1949, the KMT fled to Taiwan, bringing with it hundreds of thousands of soldiers, along with people who would go on to become public servants and educators. The party settled and prospered in Taiwan, and it developed and governed the nation. Taiwan gave the party a second chance. It was Taiwanese who rebuilt order from the ruins of war, through their own sweat and tears. It was Taiwanese who joined forces with democratic activists
Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) Chairman Eric Chu (朱立倫) held a news conference to celebrate his party’s success in surviving Saturday’s mass recall vote, shortly after the final results were confirmed. While the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) would have much preferred a different result, it was not a defeat for the DPP in the same sense that it was a victory for the KMT: Only KMT legislators were facing recalls. That alone should have given Chu cause to reflect, acknowledge any fault, or perhaps even consider apologizing to his party and the nation. However, based on his speech, Chu showed
RSS