November 22, 1999

by Peter J.M. Orvetti

From Tokyo To Taiwan
Forest Fighters
A Beef With France

From Tokyo To Taiwan

Tokyo Governor Shintaro Ishihara became the highest profile Japanese politician to visit Taiwan since Japan and Taiwan severed diplomatic ties in 1972, AP reported. The trip comes as Taiwan's president, Lee Teng-hui, is increasingly asserting Taiwanese autonomy from mainland China, which claims that Taiwan is a Chinese province under Beijing's rule and that foreign governments should not have ties with the island. Ishihara said his visit should not concern China since he made the trip to advise Taiwanese officials on reconstruction from the earthquake that wracked Taiwan in September.

How should the United States react to the China-Taiwan conflict? In the Cato Policy Analysis "Let Taiwan Defend Itself", Ted Galen Carpenter writes, "Nearly as dangerous [as appeasement] is the policy of all-out support for Taiwan that many American conservatives suggest. A U.S. security guarantee to Taiwan would lack credibility and, given the emotional determination of mainland Chinese to pursue reunification, could easily entangle the United States in a war with a nuclear-armed great power. That is all the more likely because enthusiasm for formal independence is growing in Taiwan, and the United States would be pressured to back that bid. The only solution is for the United States to allow increased arms sales to Taiwan, thus enabling the Taiwanese to build a self-sufficient defense and an effective deterrent to coercion by Beijing. At the same time, U.S. officials must make it clear that Taiwan is not a vital American interest and that under no circumstances will the United States intervene in a war between the island and the mainland."

Carpenter warned in the August commentary "Washington's Incoherent Policy On Taiwan", "U.S. policy toward China is in a dangerous state of disarray. The unsettling reality is that neither the administration nor the hard-line opposition seems capable of articulating a China policy that is simultaneously clear, realistic and prudent. Instead, there is a duel between a muddled and obsolete administration policy and a myopic alternative strategy that regards the PRC as a mortal enemy of the United States. Wise Americans ought to reject both approaches. The United States should seek to maintain decent relations with the PRC, but U.S. officials must stop giving undue deference to Beijing's 'one China' claims. Instead, Washington needs to articulate a new policy that includes the following elements: 1) The United States takes no position on the issue of whether there is one China, two Chinas, or one China-one Taiwan; 2) Whether Taiwan politically rejoins the mainland or maintains a separate political existence is properly a decision for the people of Taiwan to make; 3) The United States will continue to sell Taiwan defensive weapons as outlined in the Taiwan Relations Act; and 4) Under no circumstances will the United States become involved militarily if an armed conflict breaks out between PRC and Taiwanese forces. Such a policy would affirm the right of the Taiwanese people to determine their own political destiny. At the same time, it would put Taipei on notice that, if it rejects the one China principle and proceeds down the path toward separatism and full independence, it must do so at its own risk."

Forest Fighters

United States Forest Service Supervisor Gloria Flora, who is resigning, claims that federal land managers are routinely harassed in rural Nevada, AP reports. "If these instances occurred we need to find out and put an end to it," said Rep. Jim Gibbons (R-Nev.).

But should Washington bureaucrats be roaming the arid land of Nevada in the first place? "The results of more than a century of grazing on public land are testimony to the failure of land-use socialism. By all measures, private grazing on federal lands has been a costly venture," write Karl Hess Jr. and Jerry L. Holechek in the Cato Policy Analysis "Beyond the Grazing Fee: An Agenda for Rangeland Reform". "The environmental condition of public ranges deteriorated in the early 1900s because of overgrazing, and improvement since then has been slow and expensive. Taxpayers have paid for federally supervised and subsidized grazing. Ranchers, the intended beneficiaries, have gained little except debt, insecurity, and mountains of regulations. Environmental quality has withered on the political vine of congressional appropriations and multiple-use management.

"It is time to rethink our use of public lands. New institutions and policies--predicated on deregulation and the end of command and control--are needed. First, ranchers, not taxpayers, should shoulder the fiscal burden of private grazing on public lands. Second, grazing permits should be made marketable to persons other than ranchers and for uses other than livestock. Third, control over federal lands should be decentralized in selected areas on a trial basis. Fourth, range reform should be taken to its limits, extending local control and opening debate on partial or full divestiture of public lands."

A Beef With France

British Agriculture Minister Nick Brown said that the United Kingdom has given formal notice to the European Union's executive commission to start legal proceedings against France for refusing to lift a ban on British beef, AP reported. "It is not the United Kingdom or me who is in the wrong over this. I am the person who is trying to sort this out and I am trying to do it in a measured and rational way," Brown told the BBC.

But as France refuses British beef because of fears of "mad cow" disease, so too did the European Union earlier this year refuse American beef treated with hormones. "On July 29, American consumers and hapless European exporters were punished because the European Union continues to reject imports of U.S. hormone-treated beef. Targeting mainly food and agricultural exports, the United States has slapped a 100 percent tax on annual purchases from Europe worth $116.8 million. Brussels sins, and cheese lovers do penance," Aaron Lukas wrote in the August commentary "Beefing Up Protectionism". "To be sure, both the Clinton administration and the European Union are playing by the rules. The World Trade Organization authorized the tariffs after finding that the EU's ban on imported hormone-treated beef isn't scientifically justified and therefore not allowed. Europe has accepted the WTO decision but would rather face the consequences than change its policy…

"The mounting trade barriers between the United States and its largest trading partner are troubling. The reason for the WTO's existence is, of course, to promote trade liberalization and bring tariffs down. But the beef-hormone and banana cases demonstrate that the dispute settlement process too often leads to higher tariffs and reduced trade. It's not clear whether these latest sanctions will prompt European officials to change their attitude toward American beef, but it is certain that the collateral damage from such games of trade policy chicken is becoming unacceptably high… As trade ministers from around the globe gather in Seattle this year for the WTO's ministerial meeting, they should take a hard look at how the dispute settlement process is working. Perhaps it's time to improve the process so that it more effectively harnesses disagreements; such an improvement would break down barriers rather than raise new ones. Trade sanctions should be authorized only as a last resort; compensating tariff reduction is always preferable."