One of the four referendums that are to be put to the vote on Dec. 18 is about opposing imports of pork that contains traces of leanness-enhancing agents. The rationale behind the proposal is that such substances are harmful to human health. At first glance this seems reasonable, but it actually has no medical or scientific basis. The real purpose of the referendum is to lay the groundwork for next year’s local government elections, and the presidential and legislative elections that are to take place in 2024.
The referendum’s proposers think that opposing imports of US pork on the grounds of safeguarding Taiwanese’s health would enable them to win these elections, but at its core, the proposal is all about cozying up to communist China while opposing the US. The proposers think they can only beat the ruling Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), which is on the same team as the US, by teaming up with the Chinese Communist Party (CCP).
If they do not change this kind of pig-headed thinking, voters will dump them in the pigsty and leave them there for good.
When US pork is imported to Taiwan, the government requires importers and downstream vendors to label it with the country of origin, with heavy fines for those who fail to do so.
Consumers who do not want to buy US pork can buy pork that comes from somewhere else, so why worry about US pork imports?
Besides, the Legislative Yuan approved a maximum residue limit for ractopamine in US beef of 0.01 parts per million and agreed for it to be imported as such. Similarly, US pork can only be imported if its leanness enhancer content is below this safety limit.
Taiwanese pork is so competitive that US pork only accounts for 1 percent of the market. The motive for hyping this issue, then, is not a question of food safety, but a political one for the express purpose of opposing the DPP.
Whenever Taiwan asks the US to sell it sophisticated or offensive weapons to meet its national defense requirements, the US complies. No matter whether it does so to help Taiwan or make a profit, the US sells the nation what it needs, and on top of that, has sent Taiwan plenty of COVID-19 vaccines. The US also supports Taiwan’s bid to join UN events. It really does treat the nation as an ally.
If the US wants to sell pork to Taiwan, but Taiwanese oppose it for specious reasons, how can they call themselves friends of the US? How can you call yourself a friend if you always want your friends to do things, but never do what they want?
Common sense tells that Taiwanese who study in the US, as well as Americans themselves, eat US pork year after year, but who among them has turned pig-headed or experienced any other related health problem?
Did late president Chiang Kai-shek’s (蔣介石) wife, Soong Mayling (宋美齡), not eat US pork when she lived there? She lived to the ripe age of 105, so did US pork shorten her life or harm her health? Of course not.
Some of those who have returned to Taiwan after studying in the US have gone on to become presidents, legislators, mayors or county commissioners. Have you heard of any of them suffering health consequences from eating US pork?
Taiwan has been a member of the WTO since 2002. If it banned imports of US pork containing leanness agents, it would seriously contravene the principle of equality and reciprocity in trade. Could it bear the retaliatory trade measures that would be imposed on it?
All this goes to show that the referendum’s proposers are opposing US pork imports for opposition’s sake, without scientific evidence or rational thought. They are selling their souls and betraying their ideals to win a few votes, but they will certainly not win the confidence of intelligent voters. They can only fool the ignorant.
Aside from electoral considerations, they are projecting their nature of siding with the CCP and opposing the US. There is nothing admirable about their reasoning.
This referendum proposal serves no purpose, but to knock Taiwan’s friend — the US — on behalf of the nation’s enemy: the CCP. With parties and legislators like these, what need does Taiwan have of enemies?
Chuang Sheng-rong is a lawyer.
Translated by Julian Clegg
In their recent op-ed “Trump Should Rein In Taiwan” in Foreign Policy magazine, Christopher Chivvis and Stephen Wertheim argued that the US should pressure President William Lai (賴清德) to “tone it down” to de-escalate tensions in the Taiwan Strait — as if Taiwan’s words are more of a threat to peace than Beijing’s actions. It is an old argument dressed up in new concern: that Washington must rein in Taipei to avoid war. However, this narrative gets it backward. Taiwan is not the problem; China is. Calls for a so-called “grand bargain” with Beijing — where the US pressures Taiwan into concessions
The term “assassin’s mace” originates from Chinese folklore, describing a concealed weapon used by a weaker hero to defeat a stronger adversary with an unexpected strike. In more general military parlance, the concept refers to an asymmetric capability that targets a critical vulnerability of an adversary. China has found its modern equivalent of the assassin’s mace with its high-altitude electromagnetic pulse (HEMP) weapons, which are nuclear warheads detonated at a high altitude, emitting intense electromagnetic radiation capable of disabling and destroying electronics. An assassin’s mace weapon possesses two essential characteristics: strategic surprise and the ability to neutralize a core dependency.
Chinese President and Chinese Communist Party (CCP) Chairman Xi Jinping (習近平) said in a politburo speech late last month that his party must protect the “bottom line” to prevent systemic threats. The tone of his address was grave, revealing deep anxieties about China’s current state of affairs. Essentially, what he worries most about is systemic threats to China’s normal development as a country. The US-China trade war has turned white hot: China’s export orders have plummeted, Chinese firms and enterprises are shutting up shop, and local debt risks are mounting daily, causing China’s economy to flag externally and hemorrhage internally. China’s
US President Donald Trump and Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) were born under the sign of Gemini. Geminis are known for their intelligence, creativity, adaptability and flexibility. It is unlikely, then, that the trade conflict between the US and China would escalate into a catastrophic collision. It is more probable that both sides would seek a way to de-escalate, paving the way for a Trump-Xi summit that allows the global economy some breathing room. Practically speaking, China and the US have vulnerabilities, and a prolonged trade war would be damaging for both. In the US, the electoral system means that public opinion
RSS