US embassy cable - 05TAIPEI2833

UNCLAS SECTION 01 OF 02 TAIPEI 002833 
 
SIPDIS 
 
DEPARTMENT FOR INR/R/MR, EAP/RSP/TC, EAP/PA, EAP/PD - 
ROBERT PALLADINO 
DEPARTMENT PASS AIT/WASHINGTON, FAS FOR OA, CMP/DA, ITP/AAD, 
CMP/DLP, FAS PASS APHIS/DEHAVEN, IWAMOTO, CAPLEN 
BEIJING FOR APHIS REGIONAL DIRECTOR GREENE 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: OPRC, KMDR, KPAO, TW, Trade 
SUBJECT: MEDIA REACTION: U.S. BEEF 
 
Summary: The major Taipei dailies shifted their focus 
June 29 from the topics of U.S. beef and "Mad Cow 
Disease" to local politics and the recently released 
WTO directory in which the titles of some Taiwan 
officials were revised (in an apparent attempt to 
downgrade Taiwan's status in the trade organization). 
The editorial pages of local newspapers, however, kept 
issues related to U.S. beef imports in the limelight. 
An editorial in the pro-unification "United Daily News" 
criticized President Chen Shui-bian and his 
administration for failing to govern according to law 
when it came to making the decision whether to open the 
Taiwan market to U.S. beef imports.  An editorial in 
the limited-circulation, conservative, pro-unification, 
English-language "China Post" called the Taiwan 
government's defense of its position on U.S. beef 
"unconvincing"; it also said the confirmation of a 
second mad-cow disease-stricken animal shows that the 
U.S. administration's beef-safety system lacked 
transparency.  Another limited-circulation, pro- 
independence, English-language "Taiwan News" editorial, 
however, defended the Taiwan Department of Health's 
earlier decision.  It also, however, urged the Taiwan 
government to demand more from the U.S. government than 
verbal assurances regarding the safety of U.S. beef 
before allowing the resumption of imports.  End 
summary. 
 
A) "Who Made Taiwan Fail to Govern According to Law, 
the U.S., or the Beef?" 
 
The pro-unification "United Daily News" [circulation: 
600,000] editorialized (6/29): 
 
". The U.S. beef issue is putting on trial the Taiwan 
authorities' political manipulation of its governing 
[which should be] based on law.  Some local lawmakers 
have even sued Department of Health officials for 
negligence of their duties and for . endangering the 
public's lives.  Based on the current situation, it may 
be hard for these lawmakers to make their case.  But if 
some day a consumer contracts the BSE disease because 
[he] ate U.S. beef, the policy makers in the current 
administration will have to face legal risks.  It's 
just that when that day arrives, no one will know where 
these officials will be and they may not necessarily be 
punished or penalized.  In the end, it will still be 
the many consumers exposed [because of] hasty 
[government] decisions that will be out of luck!" 
 
B) "Government Defense of Position on U.S. Beef 
Unconvincing" 
 
The conservative, pro-unification, English-language 
"China Post" [circulation: 30,000] commented in an 
editorial (6/29): 
 
"The administration's handling of U.S. beef imports, 
from its hasty decision in April to lift a five-month- 
old ban -- imposed over mad-cow disease concerns -- to 
its persistent refusal since the weekend to respond to 
a public demand that all American beef on sale in the 
local market be removed and destroyed following the 
report of a second case in the United States, raised 
questions that these decisions were based on diplomatic 
considerations at the expense of consumers. . 
 
"But the point is that this new [BSE] case triggered 
many important questions that have aroused concerns 
about U.S. rules and testing skills in checking cattle 
for mad-cow disease.  The second case, discovered in 
November, passed previous tests and it was uncovered 
only two weeks ago by a watchdog of the USDA, using a 
more advanced European testing method. 
 
"The discovery finally had to be sent to Britain to be 
ascertained by a British mad-cow testing laboratory, 
which asked questions about the laboratory technologies 
of the USDA.  An equally important concern, as 
demonstrated in the U.S. administration of the latest 
case, was a lack of transparency.  The public was not 
alerted to the matter until recently. 
 
"The move by Taiwan to reimpose the ban on U.S. beef, 
in a way proved that its April decision to lift the 
import restrictions was hasty and questionable. . 
Taiwan's rush to reopen its market to U.S. beef, banned 
soon after America's first case of mad-cow disease was 
detected in December 2003, now looks even more unusual, 
when compared with neighboring importers.  Both Japan, 
the world's largest importer of U.S. beef, and South 
Korea have kept their bans in place, despite mounting 
pressure from Washington. 
 
"Opposition lawmakers and many consumers likened the 
government's refusal to destroy U.S. beef this week to 
its quick decision to drop the import ban three months 
earlier, both of which were intended to please 
Washington amid strengthened efforts to win greater 
diplomatic support from the U.S. government. . 
 
"But when a government is even willing to yield on 
territorial sovereignty and sacrifice the safety of 
public health just for the sake of securing diplomatic 
backing for its political agenda, that government may 
jeopardize its chances of retaining ruling power." 
 
C) "Think Twice about Beef" 
 
The pro-independence, English-language "Taiwan News" 
[circulation: 20,000] noted in its editorial (6/29): 
 
". The suit filed by Taiwan Solidarity Union lawmakers 
against Department of Health Minister Hou Sheng-mao for 
endangering the lives of the Taiwan people is indeed 
unnecessary and bordering on the farcical. 
 
"Nevertheless, we would encourage Premier Frank Hsieh 
and the Democratic Progressive Party administration to 
take a broader view and adopt a more rigorous stand and 
therefore demand more from the U.S. government than 
verbal assurances of the safety of U.S. beef before 
allowing the resumption of imports. 
 
"In particular, we urge the Taiwan government to 
require the use of `best practice' monitoring methods 
in countries that export beef or other meat or 
potential risk food products to Taiwan. 
 
"For example, in the field of beef, we urge the 
government to retain the ban on U.S. imported beef 
until Washington follows the global `benchmark' 
practice of implementing a mandatory animal tracking 
system.  Such system already exist in the European 
Union and Canada and the U.S. Department of Agriculture 
has actually proposed the adoption of an `animal 
tracking system. .' 
 
"In addition, we believe that any U.S. national animal 
tracking system should be administered by a public 
agency, not by the industry players, as called by the 
National Cattlemen's Beef Association. 
 
"In the meantime, the U.S. government under President 
George W. Bush is adopting what the Washington-based 
Center for Science in the Public Interest termed a 
`faith-based made cow policy. .' 
 
"Whether and when the DPP government should again lift 
the restriction should be conditioned on Washington's 
implementation of a comprehensive tracking system or at 
least assurances on a clear timetable on when the U.S. 
will catch up with its northern neighbor. 
 
"Nevertheless, it should be pointed out that Taiwan 
consumers should be even more concerned about the 
safety of domestic sources of meat, as evidenced by the 
occurrence of foot-and-mouth disease in local pork and 
improve its own tracking systems. ." 
 
PAAL