Wednesday, May 24

Madelaine Drohan

Wednesday, May 24, 2000

Ottawa -- It is puzzling that Canada's trade negotiations with China last year raised barely a murmur of dissent in the national media, whereas a similar set of talks between China and the United States have raised a storm of protest south of the border.

For weeks now, U.S. newspapers and television have featured blow-by-blow accounts of the fight between supporters and opponents of a bill before Congress to normalize trade relations with China. Congress votes today on whether to give up its annual review of trade with China. It must do so if China is to gain entry into the World Trade Organization.

Human rights groups and environmental activists in the United States are aghast. Without a yearly reckoning, they say, the Chinese authorities could become more abusive. How could Congress be so short-sighted?

The question being raised in this column is not whether the U.S. Congress should give up this review. Rather, it is why the hue and cry raised by U.S. opponents to normalizing trade with China is so extraordinarily loud and energetic compared with the almost non-existent protest in Canada.

Do Canadians not care as much about human rights and democracy? Probably. But we are missing a few of the key ingredients that have made trade with China such a volatile issue in the United States.

The first is so obvious it risks being overlooked. We are not a superpower and thus do not worry constantly about emerging rivals. Nor do we have all the attendant pressure groups that superpower status attracts. Our relations with China generally take place against a more placid backdrop. They've been buying our wheat for 40 years and we've been eager to sell it.

This is not to say that political questions do not figure in our relationship. But the Canadian government has taken the view that the current regime is benign. Otherwise, why would Ottawa have deported back to China last month 90 of the 590 boat people who washed up on the West Coast last summer in search of a better life?

Second, the prime minister does not see ushering China into the league of trading nations as a legacy issue in quite the same way as U.S. President Bill Clinton. The U.S. Administration has pulled out all the stops trying to get the China bill through Congress. This has provoked opponents to louder protests against the bill.

Third, this is an election year in the United States. Matters that might be ignored or quietly dealt with in other years become major issues when votes hang in the balance. Groups with money have extraordinary clout with candidates hungry for funds to feed their campaign machines.

Organized labour and big business have taken opposite sides on the China trade question and are vying with each other to secure support in Congress. Their attempts to publicize their positions in television and newspaper ads have raised public awareness.

The unions fear increased trade with China will mean lost jobs for their members. They have been courting candidates up for re-election with promises of campaign support. Bilateral trade between the United States and China is currently one-tenth of U.S. bilateral trade with Canada and one-third of bilateral trade with Mexico, but it will grow with more normal trade relations.

Business groups have been pushing hard in the other direction. They have their eye on the Chinese market of 1.2 billion people, some of whom have become increasingly sophisticated consumers as China has begun opening its economy to the world.

Business, too, is using its money to buy Congressional votes. And, in a break from the past, business groups are not fighting a proposed side agreement to the China bill on human rights. If that is what it takes to get the bill through Congress, they are willing to go along.

It's not as if we don't have unions and big business in Canada with roughly the same views. But we don't have an election forcing them to take out their wallets or start promoting their views. And even if we did, they don't have the same clout with candidates here as they would in the United States because of our campaign finance laws.

There is one last point. Canadians can get pretty worked up on the bilateral relationship with the United States because it accounts for more than 80 per cent of our merchandise trade. Trade with China is miniscule by comparison. This helps explain why we are content to let others fight loudly about whether China should be brought back into the trade fold. We might care, but not enough to do anything about it.
Madelaine Drohan's e-mail address is mdrohan@globeandmail.ca