The issue of food imports from the Japanese prefectures of Fukushima, Ibaraki, Tochigi, Gunma and Chiba affected by the 2011 Fukushima Dai-ichi nuclear power plant disaster involves a problem between two nations and their populations. It should be approached from the perspective of the WTO and its food hygiene standards.
Import/export trade is a matter of economics, while banning imports is political. The WTO’s aim is to remove, as much as is possible, political interference in economic matters, and the ban on food imports from those prefectures is an example of this kind of interference.
The ban has been a very contentious issue, but ultimately it should be up to the WTO to decide.
There is a set of procedures in place within the international community to deal with sensitive issues such as the prohibition of food imports from areas affected in these circumstances.
Should there be no scientific evidence to prove that the food in question presents a health risk, that a certain country should not export said foodstuffs, or other countries with comparatively stringent food hygiene standards permit the importation of the products in question, then other nations should not ban those imports.
South Korea placed import restrictions on Japanese marine products from the affected areas, and Japan duly responded by initiating proceedings at the WTO, which ruled against South Korea. Should South Korea lose its appeal, it will be forced to drop those restrictions.
This WTO ruling set a precedent that was applicable in disputes brought against Taiwan and China. The latter has already agreed to allow the imports. Where does this leave Taiwan?
Taiwan allows food imports from China, where food hygiene standards are far lower than its own, and yet it prohibits food from the affected areas in Japan, which has far higher standards than Taiwan’s. That does not seem to make a lot of sense.
Then there is the political dimension. Taiwan harbors far less anti-Japanese sentiment than either China or South Korea and, given the complex international circumstances the nation faces, it needs all the assistance it can get from Japan and the US.
There is no need for Taiwan to get into a fight it cannot win.
Import/export trade is an international issue, and needs to comply with international regulations. It is not a matter of individual preference.
If any individual in Taiwan has a problem with Japan, or does not want to eat food imports from the areas affected by the Fukushima Dai-ichi disaster, nobody would force them to buy those products. At that point, the issue could simply be left to the market to decide.
Lin Shiou-jeng is an associate professor in the marketing and logistics management department at Chung Chou University of Science and Technology.
Translated by Paul Cooper
Two sets of economic data released last week by the Directorate-General of Budget, Accounting and Statistics (DGBAS) have drawn mixed reactions from the public: One on the nation’s economic performance in the first quarter of the year and the other on Taiwan’s household wealth distribution in 2021. GDP growth for the first quarter was faster than expected, at 6.51 percent year-on-year, an acceleration from the previous quarter’s 4.93 percent and higher than the agency’s February estimate of 5.92 percent. It was also the highest growth since the second quarter of 2021, when the economy expanded 8.07 percent, DGBAS data showed. The growth
In the intricate ballet of geopolitics, names signify more than mere identification: They embody history, culture and sovereignty. The recent decision by China to refer to Arunachal Pradesh as “Tsang Nan” or South Tibet, and to rename Tibet as “Xizang,” is a strategic move that extends beyond cartography into the realm of diplomatic signaling. This op-ed explores the implications of these actions and India’s potential response. Names are potent symbols in international relations, encapsulating the essence of a nation’s stance on territorial disputes. China’s choice to rename regions within Indian territory is not merely a linguistic exercise, but a symbolic assertion
More than seven months into the armed conflict in Gaza, the International Court of Justice ordered Israel to take “immediate and effective measures” to protect Palestinians in Gaza from the risk of genocide following a case brought by South Africa regarding Israel’s breaches of the 1948 Genocide Convention. The international community, including Amnesty International, called for an immediate ceasefire by all parties to prevent further loss of civilian lives and to ensure access to life-saving aid. Several protests have been organized around the world, including at the University of California Los Angeles (UCLA) and many other universities in the US.
In the 2022 book Danger Zone: The Coming Conflict with China, academics Hal Brands and Michael Beckley warned, against conventional wisdom, that it was not a rising China that the US and its allies had to fear, but a declining China. This is because “peaking powers” — nations at the peak of their relative power and staring over the precipice of decline — are particularly dangerous, as they might believe they only have a narrow window of opportunity to grab what they can before decline sets in, they said. The tailwinds that propelled China’s spectacular economic rise over the past