EDITORIAL: What¡¦s
wrong with self-protection?
The debate over the import of US beef with ractopamine residues has left one
stone unturned ¡X is it politically acceptable to protect the nation¡¦s food
supplies or must Taiwan bow to outside pressure to allow imports of questionable
foodstuffs that will likely drive out better quality, but more expensive, food?
Any nation, especially one that belongs to the WTO, that tries to ban the import
of a product that is tainted with some sort of chemical, hormone or plasticizer
is labeled a trade protectionist. This is seen as the worst kind of pejorative
term in political circles because it implies self-imposed ostracism from the
international elite. However, it is simply a perversion of one of the noblest
words in the English language, to ¡§protect.¡¨
Aren¡¦t we brought up believing in the need to protect our families, our loved
ones, our cherished ideals? Do we fault people who protect their homes, their
health and their livelihood?
In this case, it seems that many in the political establishment find fault with
protecting one¡¦s health.
Importing beef from the US is a bad idea if there is a healthier alternative.
The US meat industry leaves many things to be desired. Cows are slaughtered too
fast, producing spills of feces on the meat; the raising of animals is
accelerated by a cocktail of hormones and drugs and they are even turned into
cannibals against their will, all to fatten them up as quickly as possible.
However, because of the way its cattle are raised, the US produces beef cheaper
than other countries, giving it a competitive edge. Given a level playing field,
which would result if Taiwan allowed imports of US beef containing ractopamine
residues, US beef would eventually drive out its competitors.
However, this is not really fair competition. A similar case is US imports of
steel from China. In China, officials suppress wages, ban unions and crack down
on protests, while forcing workers to endure long, hard hours working in hot and
dirty conditions. On top of this, Beijing has been accused of manipulating its
currency to keep it low compared with the US dollar, as well as providing
subsidies for the steel sector. All these, taken together, give a huge
competitive advantage to Chinese steel in the international market.
If the US were to adopt the same approach for steel imports that it has been
advocating for other countries¡¦ imports of its beef, it would allow imports of
Chinese steel without a problem, and low-priced Chinese steel would eventually
drive out US steel. However, Washington doesn¡¦t do that. It protects its
industry with tariffs, anti-dumping measures and subsidies of its own. It seems
that when it comes to its own industries, the US is protectionist, but when the
situation involves trade of US goods abroad, Washington is all for the open
door.
The issue of US beef imports not only affects the livelihood of cattle farmers ¡X
admittedly not a large number of people ¡X but also the health of anybody who
eats beef. For the most part, people eat what looks good, tastes good and is
cheap. US beef fits all these criteria. However, if people knew what weird drugs
were inside US beef, they would think twice about eating it. Alas, not all
people read newspapers and many don¡¦t heed warnings ¡X once US beef is the only
choice, it will be too late to protect Taiwan¡¦s health.
|