Rhinoceros Horns
November 18, 1992
The ROC government should take the rhinoceros by the horn in the recent controversy. According to the China News, the conservationists claim that Taiwan's speculation on the future extinction of the rhino population has raised the price of rhino products. This higher price, in turn, causes the slaughter of rhinos in Africa. The conservationists go on to claim that this would not occur if Taiwan followed the UN ban on trade in rhino products.
Agriculture Council Chairman Lin Hsiang-neng rejected the charge that the government has not strictly enforced the ban. Unfortunately, Lin did not identify anyone who has been imprisoned or fined for importing rhino horns. He also admitted that horns are stockpiled on the island. However, he claimed that the government has destroyed at least six loads of horns, presumably as punishment to their owners. This does not prove, of course, that the ROC is strictly enforcing the ban. How many loads were not destroyed? How big is a "load?" And was the destruction indeed a punishment to an owner for importing?
In any case, this controversy gives the ROC a great opportunity to let the world know that it takes the its image seriously. Let's assume that Lin is correct about the government's strict enforcement policy. Then the government should conduct a full investigation of the conservationist's charge and invite UN observers to take part. When the results are publicized, the ROC will make it clear that on this issue it deserves to be part of the "family of nations." In addition, it will cause critics to think twice about making insupportable charges in the future.
But perhaps Lin is wrong. Let's assume that the government has indeed followed a lax policy. Then it has two choices that will enhance its reputation in the family of nations. First, it can conduct an investigation with UN advisors but, at the same time, ask for help from the advisors and perhaps even the conservationists in bringing its policy up to international standards. Second, it can act unilaterally to begin strict enforcement. In both cases it should publicize its efforts in order to show the world that it is serious.
The ROC has yet another option. It can defend the principle of national sovereignty. If some African country wishes to protect its rhino population, let it do so at its own expense. Similarly, if the UN wishes to protect the rhinos, let it tax its members. Or, if the conservationists want to protect rhinos, let them pay the price. Why should Taiwan -- a government that is thousands of miles away be interested in the African rhino population? No one in Africa would pay to reduce Taipei's pollution.
The rhino is not like the whale. The whale needs protection because it lives in an unowned ocean. Without cooperative international protection, it may be hunted to extinction. But rhinos live on land. Someone owns the property they inhabit. It is the task of the government of the country in which the Rhinos live to enforce the laws necessary to keep their rhinos alive, just as it is the task of the ROC government to enforce the rights of Taipei citizens to clean air.
Finally, let us not worry about the extinction of the rhino population due to speculation and the high prices of horns. Unlike oil and other fossil fuels, rhinos can be reproduced. It takes quite a bit longer to produce a rhino than it does to produce a chicken. But if the price of rhino horns is high enough, entrepreneurs will find a way to begin to raise rhinos for a profit.
Copyright © 1996 by James Patrick Gunning
Send comments to:
Gunning’s Address
J. Patrick Gunning
Visiting Lecturer
Department of Economics
Bryant University
1150 Douglas Pike
Smithfield, RI 02917
Please send feedback: