Untying the Three Knots in the US Beef Controversy

Untying the Three Knots in the US Beef Controversy
United Daily News editorial (Taipei, Taiwan, ROC)
A Translation
February 4, 2012

Summary: The new cabinet has yet to be inaugurated. But the question of whether to lift the ban on Clenbuteral treated U.S. beef is already looming. The issue has far-reaching consequences. Many conflicting forces are at work. The issues cannot be easily explained. But settling the matter as early as possible is better than letting it drag on indefinitely. Making the right trade-offs with Washington will require negotiating skill. It will also require sound communication within the Sean Chen cabinet.

Full Text Below:

The new cabinet has yet to be inaugurated. But the question of whether to lift the ban on Clenbuteral treated U.S. beef is already looming. The issue has far-reaching consequences. Many conflicting forces are at work. The issues cannot be easily explained. But settling the matter as early as possible is better than letting it drag on indefinitely. Making the right trade-offs with Washington will require negotiating skill. It will also require sound communication within the Sean Chen cabinet.

The general election just ended. Yet the U.S. government is already pressuring our government to permit the import of U.S. beef products. Many people are unhappy. They feel the U.S. is too overbearing, especially since U.S. beef imports were linked to the restart of the US-Taiwan Trade and Investment Framework Agreement (TIFA). This reinforced the impression that the United States was applying undue pressure. The fact is beef imports are a routine trade issue. The issue could not been discussed rationally for two reasons. One. Clenbuterol involves food safety. Two. Last year Taiwan was caught up in election fever, in political rivalry between the ruling and opposition parties. Now that the elections are over, the issue can now be put back on the table.

To effectively address the problem of U.S. beef imports, we must first untie three knots. Only then can the government understand the bottom line and what principles is must adhere to. Only then will the public understand that its interests have not been sacrificed, and the dignity of the nation has not been impugned.

The first knot that must be untied involves trade and foreign relations. If we persist in seeing the ban on U.S. beef imports as diplomatic wrangling, then most people will demand that we boycott US beef to the bitter end, that we make every effort to safeguard our sovereignty and save face. But if we see the ban on U.S. beef imports as trade negotiations, as a bargaining chip in exchange for greater economic and trade benefits, such as the restart of TIFA, or even visa-free entry to the US, then the Clenbuterol controversy need not be seen as some sort of Quixotic battle for "national dignity".

The heart of the problem is U.S. beef. It has nothing to do with any other country's beef. It is a reflection of the special relationship between Taipei and Washington. This relationship includes trade, diplomatic, military and other long-term partnerships. This makes it different from relations with other countries. That said, we need not acquiesce to every US demand. Our government must weigh our larger interests and adhere to the principles of fair trade. It must demand that U.S. meat suppliers provide products whose quality is in line with our requirements. It need not blindly succumb. For example, the government can use domestic opposition as leverage. It can demand that American businesses provide their own meat inspection reports, instead of putting all the pressure on Taiwan.

The second knot to be untied is to distinguish between consumption and production, and to distinguish between beef, pork and other animal products. The domestic agricultural sector is strongly opposed to allowing the import of meats containing Clenbuterol, or with adopting the two-track system used in Japan. The main reason is that the domestic meat industry has successfully banned the use of Clenbuterol. It has an excellent reputation, at home and abroad. US beef imports must not be allowed to undermine that reputation. Therefore U.S. beef imports must not be allowed to negatively affect the domestic pork, poultry, and other meat industries. If our domestic meat industry is affected, then allowing imports would be an unwise move.

The government has decided to deal with the pork and beef issues separately, This is the right approach. Consider another perspective. The reason U.S. beef has a market on Taiwan is that many consumers consider U.S. beef higher in quality and better in taste, Domestic production of beef is limited. U.S. beef imports are unlikely to affect the domestic cattle industry. But they would meet the needs of consumers. From the consumer's perspective, this does not conflict with the interests of the ROC Swine Association.

The third knot that must be untied is whether "national health" would be sacrificed. Clenbuterol is not the same as mad cow disease. This is clear from the scientific research. That is why so many countries have minimum allowable standards. These are all available for reference. Allowing the use of Clenbuterol does not mean sacrificing the health of our citizens. As American Institute in Taiwan official Richard Bush put it. the U.S. would not sell its trading partners unsafe food. Whether the food is safe should be left to food safety experts. The government should allow experts to set standards within an internationally accepted range. Is should keep a close watch for any violations. It should require sellers of beef products to provide labels identifying their origin, enabling consumers to identify then purchase or boycott them. This way any concerns that the "National Health would be sacrificed" will be allayed.

The U.S. beef imports controversy has dragged on for years. Can it be resolved? This may well be an acid test for the Chen cabinet. One fear is that the government may be impatient, It may be tempted to operate under the table. Its decisions may not win public understanding and support, or even invite a backlash. An even greater fear is that officials will be afraid to act. Nothing will be done. They will continue spining their wheels. They will fail to live up to public expectations for the new cabinet. .

解開美牛問題的三個夾纏
【聯合報╱社論】
2012.02.04 01:43 am

新內閣還未正式就任，美牛瘦肉精是否解禁已經迎面而來。這個問題，因牽涉面向甚廣，在不同的力量拉扯下，其間理路就不容易三言兩語說清楚。但無論如何，問題若能早日妥善解決，總比拖在那裡好；至於應如何拿捏取捨，兼顧對外談判與對內溝通，就要看陳?內閣的功力了。

大選方才結束，美國政府即急急催逼我國開放美牛，一定讓許多民眾感到不悅，認為美方太霸道。尤其，美牛議題又一直與美簽的開放以及美台貿易及投資架構協定談判（ＴＩＦＡ）的重啟掛鉤，更加深了民眾對美國施壓的負面觀感。事實上，牛肉進口只是一般性的貿易行政事務，唯因瘦肉精的使用事關食品安全，加上去年整年台灣都處於朝野大選競爭的政治敏感氛圍，使得此一議題幾乎沒有理性討論的空間；也因此，如今選舉結束才又重新端上檯面。

要有效解決美牛問題，必須先釐清其間的三個夾纏，政府才知道什麼底線不可退讓、什麼原則應該堅持；民眾也才知道自己的權益有沒有受到犧牲、國家的尊嚴有沒有遭到傷害。

第一個要釐清的夾纏，是貿易與外交的權衡。如果把美牛解禁看成一次外交角力，那麼，多數國人一定主張杯葛到底，全力維護台灣主權和顏面。但如果將美牛看成一次貿易談判，藉此能換取更大的經貿利益（如重啟ＴＩＦＡ），乃至更早取得免美簽等待遇；那麼，瘦肉精問題就可以有更寬闊的思考，不必上綱為「國格」之爭。

這次的問題焦點是在「美國」「牛肉」，而不是其他任何國家的牛肉，反映的正是台美間的特殊關係，包括貿易、外交、軍事等長期夥伴關係，這不是任何國家可以比擬。但即使如此，我們也沒有必要對美方有求必應；政府可以做的，是權衡台灣的整體利益，堅持公平貿易的基本原則，要求美國肉商提供品質合乎我方要求的產品，而無需一味屈從。例如，政府甚至可以善用國內的反對力量為槓桿，要求美商自行提供肉品的查驗報告，而不必把全部壓力都放在台灣身上。

第二個要釐清的夾纏，是區隔消費和生產兩端，同時區隔牛肉和豬肉及其他畜產品。這次國內農業界強烈反對開放瘦肉精或採用日本的雙軌制，主要是我國畜牧業禁用瘦肉精有成，在國內外素負盛譽，不能因為美牛解禁，反而使我產業倒退。也因此，政府開放美牛，絕不能導致國內豬、雞等畜產受到衝擊；如果會影響國內畜產，那就是下策。

目前，政府已決定將豬、牛問題分開處理，這是正確的方向。再換一個角度看，美牛之所以在台灣有其市場，是許多消費者覺得美牛肉質更佳、更美味；但國內生產肉牛不多，進口美牛不致影響國內牛產業，卻可滿足消費者的需要。從消費觀點看，這與養豬協會的利益並不衝突。

第三個必須釐清的夾纏，是「國民健康」是否會被犧牲？瘦肉精和狂牛症不同，在科學上已有較明確的研究成果，也因此許多國家訂有最低容許標準，可供台灣參考；並非開放瘦肉精，就會犧牲國人健康。正如美國在台協會官員卜睿哲所說，美國不該向貿易夥伴出售不安全的食品，但食品安全與否，應該交由食品衛生專家決定。我政府要做的，就是根據國際間認可的範圍，由專家訂出標準，並在行政上嚴格把關，防杜一切違規。同時，可規定出售牛肉產品的商店應一律標示產地，供消費者辨識、選擇，甚至拒吃。如此一來，國民健康會被「犧牲」的疑慮，就可以在相當程度上化解。

美牛問題糾纏台美兩國多年，能否妥善解決，是陳?內閣的第一個試金石。最怕的是，政府流於躁進，在黑幕中作業，以致決策無法獲取民眾理解和支持，甚至反彈。更怕的是官員畏怯不前，什麼都不解決，把問題留在原地打轉，徒然辜負了社會對新內閣、新作為的期待。