Michael Chong asks: "how will the US respond if China invades Taiwan"
JBM: I don't believe that there will be a massive invasion of the main island of Taiwan as the first strike from the PRC. He sees that they could island hop with their military, slowly advancing and fighting in the strait first.
Heather McPherson coins "2D- divest and diversify" strategy for China
JBM responds that we need to think about not only the physical trade but also the intellectual properties.
Justin Massie notes China is frequently stepping in when the domestic investment in mining and mineral infrastructure is missing, and Canada is no exception.
JBM: We need 5-10 year plans for food and energy security between us and our Asian allies. A good point here; a lot of the most important trade relationships need massive infrastructure projects that need to come before we can really have significant trade relationships. We can talk about how we want these relationships to improve, but in order to show we are serious, we should be building infrastructure at home.
JBM notes that China is selling Canadian shale LNG contracts at market prices to other countries in Asia because they can buy Russian LNG at a 30% discount. This is an example of how China can take advantage of the lack of coordination between allies in the pacific.
JBM notes how incredibly difficult it is for Canadians to see ourselves as a Pacific nation. This is a key point that comes up again and again in the conversation around Canada-China relations; we just don't feel like our house is in the neighbourhood, so to speak.
Stéphane Bergeron asks Justin Massie how we should organize ourselves to help defend Taiwan.
First, he notes that we need to think about the SPEED of our response to a potential PRC invasion. He notes we currently don't have the capacity to respond rapidly.
JBM follows up: he notes deterrence is key: Japan is currently not spending more than 1% of GDP on defence, showing many countries in the region are not really taking the deterrence seriously. He then notes that we need to have "contingencies" ready to go with our allies, so were not caught flat-footed should the invasion scenario come to pass.
Judy Sgro asks about semiconductors: Jonathan Berkshire Miller notes that 85% of the energy needs of Japan and Korea come by shipping lanes through Taiwan. Between the energy needs of our allies and the semi-conductor needs of the world, Taiwan is indeed a fulcrum of the region.
Raquel Dancho question: she asks Jonathan Berkshire Miller how are allies think about the Taiwan invasion question. She asks if the Americans would come to the aid of Taiwan, and she notes that the Americans don't seem to see us as part of the Indo-Pacific. She asks if the US sees us as a relevant player in the Indo-Pacific; he notes that we're not on the radar of the US at all in terms of Pacific power.
She continues by asking JBM for a comment on what should we be doing to push back on China: he mentions that we need to find "niches" for us to engage with the region.
Finally, she mentions that a lot of the Indo-Pacific strategy is largely economic so far, and asks JBM what we should be doing besides trade. He says, correctly, that we're talking trade with states who have massive security concerns; we should try to help in that respect.
JBM is a very good witness; prepared and clear in his answers.
Jonathan Berkshire Miller now up for his opening statement.
He begins by pointing out that a One China policy does not mean we ignore Taiwan; we share core values on freedom of speech, open elections and the rule of law.
He points out that Taiwan is dismissed as "politically inconvenient", but we have many ways to engage. He points out that Taiwan is the "spine" of maritime shipping between the East and South China sea, and sits at the fulcrum of the region.
He dispels the idea that there could be a "contained" Taiwan conflict- Taiwan is only 70km from Japanese islands.
He finishes by pointing out that Ottawa is late to seeing the Indo-Pacific as the most important geo-strategic piece of the modern world.
2) what is our level of ambition to defend these interests?
3) what we're prepared to do to defend these interests?
1) we are interested in maintaining a peaceful world, so our interest is in avoiding aggression, and maintaining the de-facto independence of Taiwan.
2) We should look at sectoral decoupling, thwart disinformation, and diversify ties in the Indo-Pacific.
3) he notes that Canada has limited resources, so we need to define our level of ambition for the Indo-Pacific, and ask ourselves what can we do to help Taiwan get their "hedgehog strategy" improving?
He notes that we struggle to get two small frigates through the Taiwan strait.
Judy Sgro is now congratulating herself on her recent visit to Taiwan.
She mentions an MOU between Taiwan and the University of Waterloo related to semiconductors. She believes that "the Taiwanese are very much interested in sharing their knowledge of semiconductors".
She spoke for nearly the entire time given and sends an impossible question over to Tong Lam, who is gracious but struggles to define the parameters of the debate.
Colin Roberston: "the struggle of the modern era is not the struggle between left and right but the struggle between open and closed systems". He's quite good at soundbites.
First panel is wrapped up, we'll take a short break before we continue with Dr. Justin Massie and Jonathan Berkshire Miller.
Tom Kmiec asks how Taiwan shelters Democracy activists from Beijing.
Tong Lam begins by saying that the 1989 student protestors were the first wave to arrive in Taiwan, and the more recent dissidents from Hong Kong protests.
He mentions that there have been large youth movements, including sit-ins within the Taiwan legislatures, and how some of the Hong Kong activists were inspired by Taiwan.
Tom Kmiec mentions how Hong Kong activists tend to prefer the UK to Canada, even Taiwan to Canada. Tong Lam notes that there are economic and social advantages, especially the Overseas British passport. We currently have nothing like that passport to have an easy move from HK to Canada.
Stéphane Bergeron is asking about cyber security now; what can Canada learn from the Taiwanese on this subject?
Colin Robertson references that Canada's energy grids and pipelines have seen digital attacks by Chinese state actors: that is not currently public knowledge, if confirmed would be pretty big news.
This is an interesting idea: what would a Rapid Response team look like for elections in Canada?
it would need to be in 3-5 languages, and across both FB, twitter, and wechat and others. This idea is one of the more interesting to emerge from this committee.
It would be interesting to see who from Canada's digital private sector would be interested in stepping up for a 90 day "rapid response blitz" on this subject.
Rob Oliphant is up next, he is famous for asking the longest questions on planet earth. Here, he questions what Taiwan wants from our China policy.
Colin Robertson: We should work with Australia, Korea, Japan, multilateral engagement.
"In my long experience with China there are always factions, and there are now factions within China who do not agree with the current aggressive posture"
Rob Oliphant pivots to election interference. What tools does Taiwan use to prevent Beijing from interfering in elections?
Tong Lam: proposes a rapid response team under a digital ministry to combat misinformation in elections. Taiwan's system works extremely well, and he suggests that Canada could learn from that.
Michael Chong again: "what should Canada do to prepare for the eventuality of an invasion by the PRC"
Colin Robertson responds with an answer where he says we need to support citizens in Taiwan, have more ministerial visits, and sail more frigates through the Taiwan strait.
Michael Chong has the first question: "many people believe that China will invade Taiwan in the next 3-4 years. What do you believe the reaction will be from Washington?"
Answering is Colin Robertson, a diplomat with deep connections to China.
"if the worst should happen, there is considerable division inside of America on the response"
Thats all from the committee this week, thanks for following! Feedback on this Thread format is welcome: contact@maplekingdom.ca
Michael Chong asks: "how will the US respond if China invades Taiwan"
JBM: I don't believe that there will be a massive invasion of the main island of Taiwan as the first strike from the PRC. He sees that they could island hop with their military, slowly advancing and fighting in the strait first.
Heather McPherson coins "2D- divest and diversify" strategy for China
JBM responds that we need to think about not only the physical trade but also the intellectual properties.
Justin Massie notes China is frequently stepping in when the domestic investment in mining and mineral infrastructure is missing, and Canada is no exception.
JBM: We need 5-10 year plans for food and energy security between us and our Asian allies. A good point here; a lot of the most important trade relationships need massive infrastructure projects that need to come before we can really have significant trade relationships. We can talk about how we want these relationships to improve, but in order to show we are serious, we should be building infrastructure at home.
JBM: "without Taiwanese security, there is no Japanese security, there is no security in the South China Sea"
JBM notes that China is selling Canadian shale LNG contracts at market prices to other countries in Asia because they can buy Russian LNG at a 30% discount. This is an example of how China can take advantage of the lack of coordination between allies in the pacific.
JBM notes how incredibly difficult it is for Canadians to see ourselves as a Pacific nation. This is a key point that comes up again and again in the conversation around Canada-China relations; we just don't feel like our house is in the neighbourhood, so to speak.
Stéphane Bergeron asks Justin Massie how we should organize ourselves to help defend Taiwan.
First, he notes that we need to think about the SPEED of our response to a potential PRC invasion. He notes we currently don't have the capacity to respond rapidly.
JBM follows up: he notes deterrence is key: Japan is currently not spending more than 1% of GDP on defence, showing many countries in the region are not really taking the deterrence seriously. He then notes that we need to have "contingencies" ready to go with our allies, so were not caught flat-footed should the invasion scenario come to pass.
Judy Sgro asks about semiconductors: Jonathan Berkshire Miller notes that 85% of the energy needs of Japan and Korea come by shipping lanes through Taiwan. Between the energy needs of our allies and the semi-conductor needs of the world, Taiwan is indeed a fulcrum of the region.
Raquel Dancho question: she asks Jonathan Berkshire Miller how are allies think about the Taiwan invasion question. She asks if the Americans would come to the aid of Taiwan, and she notes that the Americans don't seem to see us as part of the Indo-Pacific. She asks if the US sees us as a relevant player in the Indo-Pacific; he notes that we're not on the radar of the US at all in terms of Pacific power.
She continues by asking JBM for a comment on what should we be doing to push back on China: he mentions that we need to find "niches" for us to engage with the region.
Finally, she mentions that a lot of the Indo-Pacific strategy is largely economic so far, and asks JBM what we should be doing besides trade. He says, correctly, that we're talking trade with states who have massive security concerns; we should try to help in that respect.
JBM is a very good witness; prepared and clear in his answers.
Jonathan Berkshire Miller now up for his opening statement.
He begins by pointing out that a One China policy does not mean we ignore Taiwan; we share core values on freedom of speech, open elections and the rule of law.
He points out that Taiwan is dismissed as "politically inconvenient", but we have many ways to engage. He points out that Taiwan is the "spine" of maritime shipping between the East and South China sea, and sits at the fulcrum of the region.
He dispels the idea that there could be a "contained" Taiwan conflict- Taiwan is only 70km from Japanese islands.
He finishes by pointing out that Ottawa is late to seeing the Indo-Pacific as the most important geo-strategic piece of the modern world.
Justin Massie on Taiwan:
1) what interests do we have in Taiwan?
2) what is our level of ambition to defend these interests?
3) what we're prepared to do to defend these interests?
1) we are interested in maintaining a peaceful world, so our interest is in avoiding aggression, and maintaining the de-facto independence of Taiwan.
2) We should look at sectoral decoupling, thwart disinformation, and diversify ties in the Indo-Pacific.
3) he notes that Canada has limited resources, so we need to define our level of ambition for the Indo-Pacific, and ask ourselves what can we do to help Taiwan get their "hedgehog strategy" improving?
He notes that we struggle to get two small frigates through the Taiwan strait.
Judy Sgro is now congratulating herself on her recent visit to Taiwan.
She mentions an MOU between Taiwan and the University of Waterloo related to semiconductors. She believes that "the Taiwanese are very much interested in sharing their knowledge of semiconductors".
She spoke for nearly the entire time given and sends an impossible question over to Tong Lam, who is gracious but struggles to define the parameters of the debate.
Colin Roberston: "the struggle of the modern era is not the struggle between left and right but the struggle between open and closed systems". He's quite good at soundbites.
First panel is wrapped up, we'll take a short break before we continue with Dr. Justin Massie and Jonathan Berkshire Miller.
Tom Kmiec asks how Taiwan shelters Democracy activists from Beijing.
Tong Lam begins by saying that the 1989 student protestors were the first wave to arrive in Taiwan, and the more recent dissidents from Hong Kong protests.
He mentions that there have been large youth movements, including sit-ins within the Taiwan legislatures, and how some of the Hong Kong activists were inspired by Taiwan.
Tom Kmiec mentions how Hong Kong activists tend to prefer the UK to Canada, even Taiwan to Canada. Tong Lam notes that there are economic and social advantages, especially the Overseas British passport. We currently have nothing like that passport to have an easy move from HK to Canada.
Stéphane Bergeron is asking about cyber security now; what can Canada learn from the Taiwanese on this subject?
Colin Robertson references that Canada's energy grids and pipelines have seen digital attacks by Chinese state actors: that is not currently public knowledge, if confirmed would be pretty big news.
This is an interesting idea: what would a Rapid Response team look like for elections in Canada?
it would need to be in 3-5 languages, and across both FB, twitter, and wechat and others. This idea is one of the more interesting to emerge from this committee.
It would be interesting to see who from Canada's digital private sector would be interested in stepping up for a 90 day "rapid response blitz" on this subject.
Rob Oliphant is up next, he is famous for asking the longest questions on planet earth. Here, he questions what Taiwan wants from our China policy.
Colin Robertson: We should work with Australia, Korea, Japan, multilateral engagement.
"In my long experience with China there are always factions, and there are now factions within China who do not agree with the current aggressive posture"
Rob Oliphant pivots to election interference. What tools does Taiwan use to prevent Beijing from interfering in elections?
Tong Lam: proposes a rapid response team under a digital ministry to combat misinformation in elections. Taiwan's system works extremely well, and he suggests that Canada could learn from that.
Colin Roberston has an interesting foreign policy podcast, I'll link it here:
https://soundcloud.com/user-609485369/the-global-exchange-canada-a-player-in-the-indo-pacific?utm_source=clipboard&utm_campaign=wtshare&utm_medium=widget&utm_content=https%253A%252F%252Fsoundcloud.com%252Fuser-609485369%252Fthe-global-exchange-canada-a-player-in-the-indo-pacific
Michael Chong again: "what should Canada do to prepare for the eventuality of an invasion by the PRC"
Colin Robertson responds with an answer where he says we need to support citizens in Taiwan, have more ministerial visits, and sail more frigates through the Taiwan strait.
Michael Chong has the first question: "many people believe that China will invade Taiwan in the next 3-4 years. What do you believe the reaction will be from Washington?"
Answering is Colin Robertson, a diplomat with deep connections to China.
"if the worst should happen, there is considerable division inside of America on the response"
We begin with Tong Lam, a history professor with deep knowledge of Taiwan.https://www.utm.utoronto.ca/historical-studies/people/tong-lam