The deadly African swine fever virus is spreading like wildfire. It has already ravaged China’s US$128 billion pork industry and has spread to other Asian countries and territories, including Hong Kong, last month.
Although African swine fever is not harmful to humans, given its high mortality rate, it has the potential to wipe out Taiwan’s pork industry and, as a result, destroy not just the livelihoods of farmers and related businesses, but also undermine the nation’s food security and push up prices. Since there is no vaccine or treatment for the disease, the government must do everything in its power to prevent it from spreading to Taiwan.
African swine fever has been with us for a long time: Scientists have traced the virus as far back as 1907, although the first identified outbreak was in Kenya in 1921. The virus remained confined to the African continent until 1957, when it spread to Europe through Portugal into Spain, the two European nations worst hit by the virus. The virus entered China — scientists are still unsure of the route of transmission — with its first confirmed outbreak in Liaoning Province in August last year. Since then, it has spread across many Chinese provinces.
Bloomberg yesterday published an in-depth analysis of the situation in China and the wider Asian region. China is home to 440 million pigs, or half of the world’s hog population. Official figures show that it has culled 1.1 million pigs to stop the spread of the virus, while estimates based on previous outbreaks indicate that this could rise to an astonishing 200 million by end of this year: nearly half of the nation’s pig population.
In Vietnam, health officials have already culled more than 1.7 million pigs. The virus has also spread to Mongolia, North Korea and, most recently, Hong Kong.
Given Taiwan’s geographical proximity to these countries and the high degree of trade and travel between Taiwan, China, Hong Kong and Vietnam, the significant danger to the nation’s pork industry — and its wider economy — should be obvious.
The government is rightly treating African swine fever as a national security threat and the Council of Agriculture has established an emergency operation center to oversee prevention efforts.
Officials are focused on identifying and confiscating banned pork products at the nation’s borders. According to statistics compiled by the Central Epidemic Command Center, from Aug. 27 last year to May 11, a total of 1,463 pork products were tested for the virus, with 57 — 55 from China and two from Vietnam — testing positive.
Despite the government’s efforts to date, there is much more that needs to be done. This could include beefing up fines. Last month, Democratic Progressive Party Legislator Ho Chih-wei (何志偉) proposed that repeat offenders be fined up to NT$3 million (US$95,481). Australia and Japan have introduced prison sentences — up to 10 years and three years respectively — for any traveler failing to declare and caught transporting diseased pork.
Improving education about the virus is also paramount. First, for local pig farmers, so that they know what symptoms to look out for and how to effectively deal with an identified outbreak to prevent the virus from spreading. Second, for businesses and the wider public, so that everyone has up-to-date information on which types of products from which countries are prohibited.
Lastly, the government must incentivize farmers to modernize their operations and introduce strict quarantine and biosecurity measures to ensure that if the virus does enter Taiwan, it can be effectively contained.
In the US’ National Security Strategy (NSS) report released last month, US President Donald Trump offered his interpretation of the Monroe Doctrine. The “Trump Corollary,” presented on page 15, is a distinctly aggressive rebranding of the more than 200-year-old foreign policy position. Beyond reasserting the sovereignty of the western hemisphere against foreign intervention, the document centers on energy and strategic assets, and attempts to redraw the map of the geopolitical landscape more broadly. It is clear that Trump no longer sees the western hemisphere as a peaceful backyard, but rather as the frontier of a new Cold War. In particular,
As the Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) races toward its 2027 modernization goals, most analysts fixate on ship counts, missile ranges and artificial intelligence. Those metrics matter — but they obscure a deeper vulnerability. The true future of the PLA, and by extension Taiwan’s security, might hinge less on hardware than on whether the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) can preserve ideological loyalty inside its own armed forces. Iran’s 1979 revolution demonstrated how even a technologically advanced military can collapse when the social environment surrounding it shifts. That lesson has renewed relevance as fresh unrest shakes Iran today — and it should
When it became clear that the world was entering a new era with a radical change in the US’ global stance in US President Donald Trump’s second term, many in Taiwan were concerned about what this meant for the nation’s defense against China. Instability and disruption are dangerous. Chaos introduces unknowns. There was a sense that the Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) might have a point with its tendency not to trust the US. The world order is certainly changing, but concerns about the implications for Taiwan of this disruption left many blind to how the same forces might also weaken
On today’s page, Masahiro Matsumura, a professor of international politics and national security at St Andrew’s University in Osaka, questions the viability and advisability of the government’s proposed “T-Dome” missile defense system. Matsumura writes that Taiwan’s military budget would be better allocated elsewhere, and cautions against the temptation to allow politics to trump strategic sense. What he does not do is question whether Taiwan needs to increase its defense capabilities. “Given the accelerating pace of Beijing’s military buildup and political coercion ... [Taiwan] cannot afford inaction,” he writes. A rational, robust debate over the specifics, not the scale or the necessity,
RSS