MEDIA REACTION: U.S. BEEF

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
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