Your Questions: Ask CBC

Do you see enough evidence of consumer demand amongst the Chinese populace to counteract slowing demand for products in North America?

Anthony Germain: Lawrie,
Western countries (particularly the United States) grapple with massive trade deficits with China. China exports vast quantities of goods creating a situation whereby the sizzling hot Chinese economy is entirely dependent on foreign demand.

The US and Canada (among many others) want to see a rise in Chinese consumption. Yet, for all of the hype about China’s enormous market potential, the reality is most Chinese are very diligent savers. There is an old belief here that it’s better to save what extra money you do have because nothing lasts forever. So, instead of big increases in the purchase of consumer goods, what I see are millions of people socking their money into the domestic stock market (where most people have made a load of money over the past few years) instead of heading to the stores to buy the furniture, clothing, toys, etc. that this country produces in enormous quantities.

However, given the wealth disparity between your average Chinese citizen and say, Jean from Montreal, or Bob in Wisconsin, or Lawrie in Yukon even if everybody in China started shopping like crazy they simply don’t have enough money to offset a steep drop in North American demand. Instead, Beijing has put the emphasis on increasing exports in other markets, most notably the European Union which now buys more products from China than does the United States.

How will the results affect the situation in Tibet?

Anthony Germain: This is an explosive question which pokes into Beijing’s nervousness about the upcoming vote in Taiwan. Tibet and the Xinjiang ‘Autonomous Region’ constantly pose problems to Chinese security forces.

China’s treatment of Tibetans and the muslim minority in Xinjiang is frequently criticized by international human rights organizations. From the central government’s point of view, the notion that any distinct societies within China should have a say about determining their own future is simply unthinkable.

Tibetans will no doubt be watching the results of the Taiwan UN referendum with a great deal of interest and perhaps envy because the island can hold a democratic vote which can’t happen on the mainland. However, given China’s firm control over Tibet, I don’t foresee any substantive changes within Tibet as a result of the Taiwan vote.

I would add though, that one of the reasons the Chinese government adamantly opposes the referendum, is because any Taiwanese expression of a will NOT to be part of China may foment some kind of hope in Tibet and other regions of the country.

I must ask a simple question. Will the United States involve itself in a Chinese military action against Taiwan? The US has always been the defender of democracy and in years gone by had warned that Communist aggression would be answered by the West. These, however, this rhetoric has been silenced and now they warn Taiwan against angering China. When and why have we switched from our anti-communist stance to one of appeasement to the Chinese? To me Taipei and 'Munich' are becoming interchangable. Is this assessment wrong?

Anthony Germain: This is the question people find a little frightening in a part of the world that — prior to Iraq — was considered to be a military flash point.

The Americans’ commitment to defend Taiwan is not quite so cut and dry as it is often portrayed. It would depend on the circumstances and the origins of the conflict. If Taiwan were to start any military action, all bets are off.

I suspect one of the reasons the State Department decided to describe the referendum as “uncecessary provocation” was to shake up Taipei’s plans and maintain a level of ambiguity to keep Taiwan’s politicians — and Beijing — guessing about what course of action Washington would take should events in the Taiwan Strait ever develop a la Cuba 1962.

I think comparisons to Munich are a little premature. While there is a certain amount of appeasement going on because the US and Chinese economies have become so intertwined, the fact remains the United States still sells significant quantities of weapons to Taiwan despite China’s objections.

If I may reduce some of the alarmist tone of this answer, the situation between China and Taiwan has changed since the cold war. True, both sides have missiles aimed at each other like two men holding daggers at their throats.

However, China has many other levers at its disposal to put pressure on Taiwan before it needs to start asking the generals to dust off the invasion plans. Just as China now depends on exporting billions of dollars worth of goods to the United States, so does Taiwan find itself in a situation where its most important customer — for everything from pineapples to semi-conductors — is China.

I’ve met several Taiwanese millionaires who split their time between Taipei and Shanghai. As the island’s business sector reaps tremendous wealth from its investments on the mainland, what scares them more than missiles is the possiblity of Chinese economic retaliation. Many observers believe the Chinese imposition of duties, tariffs — let alone a full-scale embargo — could provoke a devastating crisis to Taiwan’s economy.

I have watched the rise of China's military with trepidation for some time now. As their population grows and their need to keep up with the burgeoning living standards now expected by the populace, at what time do they have to expand aggressively to survive? And if so is this done militarily? The tautingly close Siberian treasure trove of resources must be tempting.

Anthony Germain: The Pentagon agrees with you. China talks about its ‘harmonious development’ without ever explaining why it’s building brand new jet fighters, probably at least one aircraft carrier, and it has shown the world it can knockout a satellite in outer space.

As with other great powers, there is an understanding that in an unstable world China must be prepared to secure the delivery routes of energy and raw materials to feed its economic furnace. This would explain the normal defensive purposes for the substantial hardware the Chinese are buying and building of late. What is unknown (and one of the reasons Washington is trying to strike better defence information sharing agreements) is: what are China’s offensive military goals?

President Hu wants China to have a blue water navy. This usually brings the discussion back to Taiwan, but I suspect the need to upgrade the navy has more to do with the fact China is reliant on gargantuan shipments of resources which are coming from farther and farther away.

As far as Siberian resources go, the Chinese and the Russians are getting along pretty well these days. More interesting (and, personally, what I think is the most significant pattern of global change happening right now) is Africa. China now gets more than 1/3rd of its oil from Africa. Chinese investment on that continent now rivals all of the investment of Europe and the United States combined.

Africa isn’t next door and yet it has become the foundation of China’s energy procurement strategy for the next century. As Chinese reliance (and investments) in Africa grow, so will the need to procure the military assets required to protect those interests.

Does the Government of Canada recognize the people of Taiwan's right to be represented at the UN?

Anthony Germain: No it does not. Canada adheres to the ‘One China Policy.’ When they were in opposition, there were certain Conservative MPs who favoured legislation along the lines of the USA’s ‘The Taiwan Relations Act.’ One MP sponsored a private member’s bill to create a Canadian version of this law which would make it easier to define relations (without estabishing formal diplomatic relations) and to do business with Taiwan.

China was furious when the US did this because it seemed to lend Taiwan a special status. Once in government however, these MPs toned down their friendly views on Taiwan probably because they had to deal with China for real.

In order for a nation to have diplomatic relations with the nation of China, it must first be a signatory to a statement which reads that Taiwan is now, was in the past, and ever shall be in the future a part of China - even though this statement is entirely untrue in that Taiwan has its own currency, its own government, its own passports, its own foriegn policy, its own embassies and trade offices, etc...!

Canada, in order to have diplomatic relations with China, is a signatory to this false statement.

It should be noted, by the way, that nations which do not have diplomatic relations with China - and, therefore, are not living a lie because they are not a signatory to a false statement - still have trade relations with China. In other words, you don't have to lie to do business with China!

And so, my questions are:

Do you think - considering the fact that we allow Quebec to vote to separate whenever it wants to have such a vote - that us being a signatory to the above false statement is hypocritical?

If not, do you think, therefore, that it would be only fair if we made China sign a statement- if China wants to have diplomatic relations with us - which reads that Quebec is now, was in the past, and ever shall be in the future a part of Canada?

Anthony Germain: I love troublemakers. First of all, I wouldn’t be surprised to discover that China would gladly sign a statement saying it recognizes Quebec is and shall ever be part of Canada. In China, all the politicians in the Bloc Quebecois and the Parti Quebecois would be behind bars. Secession, separatism, whatever you want to call it, is viewed as treason. Here it is punishable by lengthy jail sentences, or death.

I don’t think the evolution of the Quebec sovereignty movement necessarily makes the Canadian government hypocritical for adhering to the ‘One China’ principle.

However, I certainly understand how you have reached that conclusion. Diplomacy often comes up with creative language which allows a state such as China and an entity such as Taiwan to co-exist. As contradictory as it all seems, the ‘One China’ policy — and the preservation of the status quo since the late 1940s, has allowed both sides to develop and improve their societies in their own ways without any conflict.

The military rhetoric abounds (from both sides) but overall, both Taiwan and China have evolved with considerable success and my sincere observation of both sides is that neither side wants to really rock the boat. Nonetheless, you are quite correct in your appraisal of Taiwan’s reality: in any other part of the world it would be a country.

Both main political parties in Taiwan are going to have a referendum in the next election to decide whether Taiwan should enter the United Nations. The only difference between them is under which name Taiwan should apply under. What will happen if this vote is split?

Anthony Germain: Hmm, I hadn’t thought of this because the opinion polls (darn them!) have indicated the referendum will pass with a hefty majority. I

If it turns into a Quebec ‘95 kind of 51-49 result, that would be a major setback for the independence-leaning forces in Taiwan. For China it won’t really matter because Beijing won’t recognize the result no matter what it is. Though, privately they’d be doing cartwheels inside the Great Hall of The People.

For the geopolitics involved, Washington would like that result too because it would enable the Americans to ‘save face,’ to use a Chinese expression. There is resentment in Taiwan that the United States — defenders of democracy everywhere else in the world — has come out opposed to the referendum.

While Taiwan doesn’t have a hope of gaining UN membership, a split result would deprive the exercise of the symbolic significance of expressing “the will of the people.” If, on the other hand, 75 to 80 per cent of the voters say they want to join the UN, how the United States will answer the critics will be interesting to observe. Many on the island already point to Kosovo, posing the question: “How come you want Kosovo to be its own country, but you don’t even want Taiwan to be in the UN under any circumstances?”

With the recent Kosovo/Serbia bid for independence,hasn't the U.N. opened itself wide open to a host of other countries wanting the same right?

What is the U.S.'s problem with this when they were one of the first to recognize Kosovo?

Anthony Germain: You have anticipated the potential cries of hypocrisy. I’d say it has to do with the difference between handling Serbia, and handling China. America has a much more intricate and signficiant relationship with China. It simply isn’t in Washington’s interests to get involved in a controversy over Taiwan which could escalate into a crisis.

In Kosovo, after leading the Nato bombing campaign against Serbia, I suspect the Americans figure the risks there are much more acceptable than they would be in Taiwan.

Why would US not support Taiwan in joining the UN ? US has been supporting Taiwan independance for many years now and continue to do so. Is the US goal just to promote instability in China with Taiwan as their sacrificial lamb?

Anthony Germain: This gives us a chance to consider the Chinese point of view in all of this.

Imagine there is an island right off your coast and that one of the world’s great powers is arming it to the teeth with modern weaponry. Further, posit that this island also relies on a military alliance with this great power in the event of trouble. The Chinese say when this situation played out in Cuba — albeit with the potential for much more serious weapons — the Americans determined it was an intolerable situation and blockaded the island.

I’d say most Chinese agree with their government that the Americans have been meddling in Taiwan’s affairs since 1945 and that the United States should not be doing so. Talking to Chinese here on the mainland about Taiwan, it’s unanimous: if it weren’t for the American navy, Taiwan would have already re-joined China. (Sometimes the Chinese use the word ‘liberated’ meaning, I suppose, that Taiwan would have been ‘liberated’ the way Tibet was in the 1950’s.)

I don’t think it’s fair to say the US has supported Taiwan independence for years. In fact, both Republican and Democratic adminstrations have consistantly supported the ‘One China’ policy, while trying to make room for a special relationship with Taiwan.

Hi, there. I just got back from a first trip to Taiwan earlier this year. I was amazed at how much happier and freer Taiwan seemed than China, which I visited last year, but I recall reading an interview in which the head of the KMT opposition party described Taiwan as "no longer an Asian Tiger, now more of a sick cat." What do you think are the primary ways in which this "Asian Tiger" can re-structure its economy and political relations in order to re-emerge as an economic and political leader in Asia?

Anthony Germain: You’re right. Taiwan has an entirely different ‘feel’ than the mainland. The media there is free to report on anything and politicians duke it out (sometimes literally!), and the society there is remarkably open if you’re visiting from China. The KMT (Kuomintang Party) has had success in attacking the DPP (Democratic Progressive Party) on the meat and potato issues: jobs and the economy. The DPP took a beating in recent legislative elections and its Presidential candidate is trailing by 20 percentage points.

However, Taiwan’s economic growth is still well above Canada’s. The problem is that everything is measured against China and there just isn’t any other country that can compare with the intense economic activity in the PRC.

The difficult choice facing the Taiwanese, and here I think the island really is split, is: do you get more integrated with the Chinese economy or less? The business community and investors have shown their preference: they continue to pour millions of dollars into China. I believe Taiwan has invested more than 100 billion US dollars in China since Deng Xiao Ping opened the door in the early ‘80s. Some politicians think Taiwan ought to look at some of the other players in the region (notably India and Vietnam).

The real economic leaders in the region are Japan, China, and India. The challenge for Taiwanese policy makers is going to be to manage the relationship with China, without blowing the possibility that it may serve the island’s interests to diversify where its money is going.

Do you see a parallel between Quebec - Canada and Taiwan - China?? Why was the people in Quebec given a chance to express their voice? But the people in Taiwan have to live under China's constant treat?? Taiwan and China are two different countries, each operates under totally different system. Can't China just leave Taiwan alone?? Thank you for your thoughts on this issue.

Anthony Germain: As a Quebecker, I do see some parallels but they may be a bit different than you might expect.

What I see in Taiwan is a kind of ‘de facto’ sovereignty association (without the sovereignty) whereby the island is a country and isn’t a country. Yes, there are two different systems but the Chinese possess a brilliant talent for merging things which seem incongruous. Hong Kong is a good example. It’s part of China, but it still operates on HK dollars.

There, people can commemorate the Tiananmen Square massacre (as they do every year) and mourn the communist party’s use of tanks against unarmed students. On the mainland, people who try to mark that dark day are thrown in prison. In fact, Beijing often points to Hong Kong when it makes the argument to Taiwan that it is possible to rejoin the mainland.

There are three major reasons why China can’t just leave Taiwan alone:

1: For 300 years during the Qing dynasty China held Taiwan (or at least a small part of it) before losing it in 1895 to the Japanese who ran it as a colony. Although the island was handed to Chiang Kai-shek at the end of the Second World War, China has never relinquished its historic claim that ‘Taiwan is part of the motherland.’

2: As mentioned in an earlier response: leaving Taiwan alone would send dangerous signals to various ethnic groups in China (think of Tibet and Xinjiang) that leaving China is an option. (By the way, when I ask Chinese people this question that is the answer I get. “Why can’t you let Taiwan go?” “If we did that, the entire country would fall apart.”)

3: Location, location, location. For military purposes, the island is situated between the Far East and Southeast Asia and is an excellent base for the entire south China coast. Most of China’s wealthiest cities (from Hong Kong to Shanghai) are within easy striking distance of the island.