Where’s the beef?
The recent continuing protests by South Koreans over the government’s agreement to resume US beef imports have absolutely nothing to do with beef and everything to do with politics. In this respect, South Korea is no different from other democracies where any hot-button issue is used for political purposes: Protesters are using anti-US phobia as a tool to try to bring down the government of South Korean President Lee Myung-bak.
There are many South Koreans who do not like the US and will take every or any opportunity to protest against the US presence in South Korea. The last time South Koreans took to the streets to protest against the US (because of a traffic accident involving US soldiers), the general response in the US to the demonstrations was: “Why are we there? Let’s just leave and let South Korea fend for itself against the North.” The protests in South Korea died away, and some “normality” returned.
Now, beef is being used by the anti-US, anti-government lobby as an excuse to demonstrate against Lee and the South Korean government. Scientists agree there is no cause for alarm concerning US beef now. But in taking to the streets, the protesters are really saying no to the US — US beef is just a red herring. By saying no to the US, the protesters are, by extension, rejecting the Lee government, which has been somewhat closer to the US compared with previous administrations.
So the question arises again. Why is the US there? There are tens of thousands of troops babysitting South Korea that could be better deployed in Afghanistan or in other places around the world where they are needed for actual combat. Why do we insist on staying put in places where people hate to have us there? If they don’t want our help, we should just say “adios.”
There are those fearful of North Korea invading the South again were the US to leave. It is doubtful, but always a possibility with the unbalanced leadership in the North. But Americans watching tens of thousands of South Koreans — a vocal but tiny group — protesting against US beef, which Americans eat every night, raises ire, to say the least. Do South Koreans believe Americans are stupid and eat mad-cow disease laden meat? Or perhaps they believe the same about Japanese, Canadian, European or people in other areas where US beef is imported and has been declared safe.
One can only wonder what South Koreans would think if all of a sudden all of LG’s and Samsung’s products were pulled off US store shelves, or Americans decided not to buy US$8 billion in autos and auto parts from South Korea. What if for political reasons, a rumor arose that some South Korean IT products use chemical components that could possibly cause cancer.
Sensible people should understand the protests against US beef have almost nothing to do with the actual quality of the beef for the most part. There are some activists who will protest against beef no matter what because they are animal rights activists, and use the beef issue as a way of urging people to eat a vegetarian diet. But it is all politics.
And for the multitudes protesting against US beef, I can only wonder what you want. Do you want the US to withdraw and leave you to the North? Trust me, if most Americans are polled, with candlelight vigils in Seoul every night urging the government to ban US beef based on unsupportable hysteria, the answer will be “adios,” or actually an-nyong-hi kye-ship-sio, and “Keep your Hyundais, Kias, LGs and Samsungs, too. We can buy that stuff from Taiwan and Japan.”
LEE LONG-HWA
New York
The 75th anniversary summit of NATO was held in Washington from Tuesday to Thursday last week. Its main focus was the reinvigoration and revitalization of NATO, along with its expansion. The shadow of domestic electoral politics could not be avoided. The focus was on whether US President Biden would deliver his speech at the NATO summit cogently. Biden’s fitness to run in the next US presidential election in November was under assessment. NATO is acquiring more coherence and teeth. These were perhaps more evident than Biden’s future. The link to the Biden candidacy is critical for NATO. If Biden loses
Shortly after Hu Jintao (胡錦濤) stepped down as general secretary of the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) in 2012, his successor, Xi Jinping (習近平), articulated the “Chinese Dream,” which aims to rejuvenate the nation and restore its historical glory. While defense analysts and media often focus on China’s potential conflict with Taiwan, achieving “rejuvenation” would require Beijing to engage in at least six different conflicts with at least eight countries. These include territories ranging from the South China Sea and East China Sea to Inner Asia, the Himalayas and lands lost to Russia. Conflicts would involve Taiwan, the Philippines, Vietnam, Malaysia,
The Sino-Indian border dispute remains one of the most complex and enduring border issues in the world. Unlike China’s borders with Russia and Vietnam, which have seen conflicts, but eventually led to settled agreements, the border with India, particularly the region of Arunachal Pradesh, remains a point of contention. This op-ed explores the historical and geopolitical nuances that contribute to this unresolved border dispute. The crux of the Sino-Indian border dispute lies in the differing interpretations of historical boundaries. The McMahon Line, established by the 1914 Simla Convention, was accepted by British India and Tibet, but never recognized by China, which
The Constitutional Court on Wednesday last week held a preparatory hearing for an injunction request to halt the enforcement of controversial new amendments to government oversight laws. Constitutional Court oral arguments are scheduled for Aug. 6 on the constitutionality of amendments to the Act Governing the Legislative Yuan’s Power (立法院職權行使法) and the Criminal Code, which were passed on May 28 by Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and Taiwan People’s Party (TPP) lawmakers. The amendments were signed into law on June 24 and promulgated on June 26. However, the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP) legislative caucus, the Executive Yuan, President William Lai (賴清德) and the Control