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
As strategic tensions escalate across the vast Indo-Pacific region, Taiwan has emerged as more than a potential flashpoint. It is the fulcrum upon which the credibility of the evolving American-led strategy of integrated deterrence now rests. How the US and regional powers like Japan respond to Taiwan’s defense, and how credible the deterrent against Chinese aggression proves to be, will profoundly shape the Indo-Pacific security architecture for years to come. A successful defense of Taiwan through strengthened deterrence in the Indo-Pacific would enhance the credibility of the US-led alliance system and underpin America’s global preeminence, while a failure of integrated deterrence would
US President Donald Trump created some consternation in Taiwan last week when he told a news conference that a successful trade deal with China would help with “unification.” Although the People’s Republic of China has never ruled Taiwan, Trump’s language struck a raw nerve in Taiwan given his open siding with Russian President Vladimir Putin’s aggression seeking to “reunify” Ukraine and Russia. On earlier occasions, Trump has criticized Taiwan for “stealing” the US’ chip industry and for relying too much on the US for defense, ominously presaging a weakening of US support for Taiwan. However, further examination of Trump’s remarks in
It is being said every second day: The ongoing recall campaign in Taiwan — where citizens are trying to collect enough signatures to trigger re-elections for a number of Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) legislators — is orchestrated by the Democratic Progressive Party (DPP), or even President William Lai (賴清德) himself. The KMT makes the claim, and foreign media and analysts repeat it. However, they never show any proof — because there is not any. It is alarming how easily academics, journalists and experts toss around claims that amount to accusing a democratic government of conspiracy — without a shred of evidence. These
China on May 23, 1951, imposed the so-called “17-Point Agreement” to formally annex Tibet. In March, China in its 18th White Paper misleadingly said it laid “firm foundations for the region’s human rights cause.” The agreement is invalid in international law, because it was signed under threat. Ngapo Ngawang Jigme, head of the Tibetan delegation sent to China for peace negotiations, was not authorized to sign the agreement on behalf of the Tibetan government and the delegation was made to sign it under duress. After seven decades, Tibet remains intact and there is global outpouring of sympathy for Tibetans. This realization
RSS