The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) have recently tried to clarify that their opposition to importing US pork containing ractopamine is not the same as opposing the US, and accused President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) and her administration of linking the two in an attempt to distort their positions.
In late August last year, the Tsai administration announced that it would lift a ban on imports of US pork containing ractopamine and beef from cattle more than 30 months old. Then-US vice president Mike Pence said that Taiwan’s decision opened the door for further economic cooperation and stronger trade ties between the nations. Then-US secretary of state Mike Pompeo echoed Pence, saying that the US welcomed Tsai’s move and that this opened the door to bilateral trade and economic cooperation.
Late last year, the American Institute in Taiwan issued a statement stressing that US exports to Taiwan and other trade partners followed international and domestic US consumer standards, and that they were safe. Politicians spreading disinformation and inciting groundless concerns among Taiwanese consumers is not helpful to anyone.
In late June, Trade and Investment Framework Agreement talks were revived after several years of being moribund, and the office of the US Trade Representative issued a news release after the meeting saying that US and Taiwanese authorities “committed to intensify engagement aimed at addressing outstanding trade concerns, including with regard to market access barriers facing US beef and pork producers.”
Be it former US president Donald Trump or US President Joe Biden, the US thinks that enhancing bilateral trade and cooperation between the countries requires lifting import restrictions on US pork and beef.
The KMT and the TPP are contradicting themselves by being strongly opposed to an issue that the US government is taking for granted and is looking forward to, while at the same time insisting that they are not opposed to the US. Deceiving themselves and others in this way is not conducive to improving Taiwan-US relations.
Huang Wei-ping works in the public service industry.
Translated by Perry Svensson
On May 7, 1971, Henry Kissinger planned his first, ultra-secret mission to China and pondered whether it would be better to meet his Chinese interlocutors “in Pakistan where the Pakistanis would tape the meeting — or in China where the Chinese would do the taping.” After a flicker of thought, he decided to have the Chinese do all the tape recording, translating and transcribing. Fortuitously, historians have several thousand pages of verbatim texts of Dr. Kissinger’s negotiations with his Chinese counterparts. Paradoxically, behind the scenes, Chinese stenographers prepared verbatim English language typescripts faster than they could translate and type them
More than 30 years ago when I immigrated to the US, applied for citizenship and took the 100-question civics test, the one part of the naturalization process that left the deepest impression on me was one question on the N-400 form, which asked: “Have you ever been a member of, involved in or in any way associated with any communist or totalitarian party anywhere in the world?” Answering “yes” could lead to the rejection of your application. Some people might try their luck and lie, but if exposed, the consequences could be much worse — a person could be fined,
Taiwan aims to elevate its strategic position in supply chains by becoming an artificial intelligence (AI) hub for Nvidia Corp, providing everything from advanced chips and components to servers, in an attempt to edge out its closest rival in the region, South Korea. Taiwan’s importance in the AI ecosystem was clearly reflected in three major announcements Nvidia made during this year’s Computex trade show in Taipei. First, the US company’s number of partners in Taiwan would surge to 122 this year, from 34 last year, according to a slide shown during CEO Jensen Huang’s (黃仁勳) keynote speech on Monday last week.
When China passed its “Anti-Secession” Law in 2005, much of the democratic world saw it as yet another sign of Beijing’s authoritarianism, its contempt for international law and its aggressive posture toward Taiwan. Rightly so — on the surface. However, this move, often dismissed as a uniquely Chinese form of legal intimidation, echoes a legal and historical precedent rooted not in authoritarian tradition, but in US constitutional history. The Chinese “Anti-Secession” Law, a domestic statute threatening the use of force should Taiwan formally declare independence, is widely interpreted as an emblem of the Chinese Communist Party’s disregard for international norms. Critics
RSS