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
Because much of what former US president Donald Trump says is unhinged and histrionic, it is tempting to dismiss all of it as bunk. Yet the potential future president has a populist knack for sounding alarums that resonate with the zeitgeist — for example, with growing anxiety about World War III and nuclear Armageddon. “We’re a failing nation,” Trump ranted during his US presidential debate against US Vice President Kamala Harris in one particularly meandering answer (the one that also recycled urban myths about immigrants eating cats). “And what, what’s going on here, you’re going to end up in World War
Earlier this month in Newsweek, President William Lai (賴清德) challenged the People’s Republic of China (PRC) to retake the territories lost to Russia in the 19th century rather than invade Taiwan. He stated: “If it is for the sake of territorial integrity, why doesn’t [the PRC] take back the lands occupied by Russia that were signed over in the treaty of Aigun?” This was a brilliant political move to finally state openly what many Chinese in both China and Taiwan have long been thinking about the lost territories in the Russian far east: The Russian far east should be “theirs.” Granted, Lai issued
On Tuesday, President William Lai (賴清德) met with a delegation from the Hoover Institution, a think tank based at Stanford University in California, to discuss strengthening US-Taiwan relations and enhancing peace and stability in the region. The delegation was led by James Ellis Jr, co-chair of the institution’s Taiwan in the Indo-Pacific Region project and former commander of the US Strategic Command. It also included former Australian minister for foreign affairs Marise Payne, influential US academics and other former policymakers. Think tank diplomacy is an important component of Taiwan’s efforts to maintain high-level dialogue with other nations with which it does
On Sept. 2, Elbridge Colby, former deputy assistant secretary of defense for strategy and force development, wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal called “The US and Taiwan Must Change Course” that defends his position that the US and Taiwan are not doing enough to deter the People’s Republic of China (PRC) from taking Taiwan. Colby is correct, of course: the US and Taiwan need to do a lot more or the PRC will invade Taiwan like Russia did against Ukraine. The US and Taiwan have failed to prepare properly to deter war. The blame must fall on politicians and policymakers