Podcast: Play in new window | Download (Duration: 12:11 — 5.6MB) | Embed
Subscribe: Apple Podcasts | Android | Email | Stitcher | RSS | More
For shits and giggles, let’s say that I, hypothetically of course, lived on a farm, a peach farm to be exact. I’ve picked all of my peaches and counted out the ones that I would need for canning. After I’ve done my counting I have two bushels of peaches left that I do not need. Therefore, I need to complete a trade. My two bushels of peaches for something of equal value. Now, my neighbour down the road grows pluots, a hybrid fruit that is derived from a plum and an apricot. In our world pluots and peaches are worth the same. She says, “Leanne, I’ll give you two bushels of pluots for your two bushels of peaches.” It is a simple trade, but most importantly it is a fair and mutually beneficial trade, which is essential.
Our society relies on mutually beneficial trade. From an exchange between neighbours, corporations, and countries every economic act is an act in trade. Every time we buy something or sell something we are participating in a trade. As Canadians, we are reminded over and over that we are a “trading nation” and that “trade” is essential to our success. Last year, our Canadian Prime Minister was in China scrounging up an agreement to just start the talks on a free trade agreement between China and Canada. Before that, he was in Vietnam restarting the Trans Pacific Partnership. In 2017 alone, trade and investment agreements have been concluded between Canada and the European Union, Guinea, Mongolia, and Ukraine. To put it plainly, Canada is going trade gangbusters and has been for awhile and there is probably one big fat reason why–the United States. Canada is and has always been overly dependent on our neighbours to the south as they count for about 77% of our trade. With Trump in the White House and the renegotiation of NAFTA not going so well, to say the least, Canada is best to diversify and diversity fast.
Now, this mutually beneficial part can get pretty sticky. It’s not just making sure that all countries benefit from a trade deal, but making sure that enough people within those countries benefit to make the deal a good one. It’s the danger of creating trade agreements around the needs of multinational corporations and not around the needs and desires of people. For, if the people don’t benefit then what is the result? Trump? Maybe. Protectionism? Perhaps. War? It’s possible. It’s definitely happened before. Which brings us to this week’s episode: China, Britain, & the Poppy.
When I was a kid I remember watching an episode of Seinfeld with my dad. In the episode, Elaine was invited to go on a work trip to Kenya, but one requirement was that she had to take and pass a drug test. Well, two tests later, Mr. Peterman gave Elaine the news that she had failed both tests, due to traces of opium in her system, and because of the failed tests she not only wouldn’t be allowed to go on the trip, but she would also lose her job. Flummoxed. Elaine sat at the diner, chomping down on a poppyseed muffin, and sharing her exasperation over the situation with the waiter. Only to have a noisy fellow diner bring up the fact that she was eating a poppy seed muffin and pose the question, “Well, you know what opium is made from?” “Poppies!!!” Elaine yells as the light bulb flashes in her brain. At the time I remember thinking, “Jeez Louise, who would have thought they were from the same plant?” Well, I guess certainly not a twelve year old me.
Plants are often multifaceted–they give what we decide to take from it and they are an object to what we decide to impose on it. The poppy can be our nourishment. It can be a remedy to our pain. It can be a tool for our vices and our addictions. It can be a symbol of loss, violence, and remembrance written in song and poetry. In most ways, how we use plants is much more a reflection of us and our own history rather than a reflection of the plant itself.
In China, in the 19th century, the country saw the poppy in much the same way as we do today–through the lense of opium. The Chinese had first banned the drug all the way back in 1729. Alas, as we have learnt throughout the past century it’s much easier to ban a drug then it is to get rid of a drug. Opium made its way to China much the same way it makes it way to markets today–through trade routes and traders. The opium that made its way to China originated in the northern state in India called Uttar Pradesh. In India, opium wasn’t really seen as a bad thing. The reason being is that they ate it or drank it rather than smoked it. And, supposedly, that was the difference between getting a low morphia or getting a high. The East India Company were the ones that owned the trade route and were the ones responsible for shipping the Opium into China. Now, to try to differentiate between the East India Company and the British government can be a bit difficult. The East India Company was owned and run by British citizens, and eventually the British Government itself had a financial stake in the company. Perhaps, the best way to view it is to see the East India Company as an arm of the British Government, who had much riding on the company’s success.
Despite the ban in 1729, Opium continued to make its way into China. As the years went by, the Opium problem got worse. The use spread from the south coast to the north and western parts of China. The Chinese who started consuming Opium the same way the Indian’s did by eating or drinking it, eventually switched to smoking it. The scourge of addiction was felt throughout society, from lowly civil servants to those who lived within the palace grounds. Almost every year, the Chinese government would renew its efforts to rid their society of the drug, and the pressure eventually got to the point that the East India Company had to respond.
As I’ve mentioned before, in order for a trade to be a good one it has to be mutually beneficial. At the time, China was a very insular country almost in an entirely different position to the British, who was a colonial, trading nation. In other words, Britain needed China more than China needed Britain. The British could get teas, rice, cotton, silk, fur, and manufactured articles from China, and although Britain could trade a few items in exchange there was what we call a trade imbalance. And, the only item that could fill that gap just happened to be illegal in China–Opium.
In order to appear that they were abiding by the ban, the East India Company created a work around and instead of dealing directly with Chinese merchants they worked with middle-men, who under direction by the Company would pick up the Opium and deliver it to the Chinese. A few of the middleman, were William Jardine and James Matheson of Scotland, as well as the Dents and Russels. Because the middlemen themselves wanted to ensure that they were staying within the letter of Chinese Law, they devised a plan where they would keep their boats and the Opium on the coast. They would then invite the Chinese Merchants to meet them on the water and complete the trade there. Thus, the Chinese Merchants were actually doing the smuggling and the middlemen and the East India Company could fake ignorance.
When delving into history I am much more aware now than I used to be of who is telling the story, and as I am a pitiful unilingual my one resource for a Chinese perspective was the 1997 Chinese film, “The Opium War.” The movie was released on July 1st, 1997 the same day that the British transferred power of Hong Kong to the People’s Republic of China. This was no coincidence, for sure, for Hong Kong was the prize the British received when they won the first Opium war.
Although a film backed by the Chinese government, most Western commentators believed that the movie was pretty even handed in its historical accuracy. The movie follows Lin Zexu, as he attempts to implement the majesty’s strict ban on Opium in Guangdong. It had been 109 years since the first Opium ban, but this time they weren’t going to fail and they couldn’t. Some believed that the opium problem had become so bad that it threatened China’s sovereignty. Who would defend China against an invader if most everyone in power was an addict? Lin Zexu was given extraordinary powers to implement the ban. Opium and smoking pipes were confiscated, citizens caught using opium or collaborating with the British merchants and smuggling opium in were arrested and executed. The British merchants were caught in a blockade that Lin Zexu had organized, their ships and cargo were taken and they weren’t able to leave their homes and were without sufficient food or water.
The movie suggests that the British were playing a double game. At one hand, the British government was publicly stating that no British merchants should import opium into China, and yet there was no effort to stop the merchants who continued to work within the trade. Eventually, a British emissary forced the merchants to give up their entire opium stocks to the Chinese; however, in exchange the British would guarantee the price of the opium. The Chinese burnt the opium, which was worth around 8 million pounds and was now technically British property. This was the excuse the British needed to start a war. In the movie, Queen Victoria states that if other countries follow China’s example and reject free trade that the British Empire would no longer exist.
China was no match for Britain’s military power. The British won the war and the Treaty of Nanjing was signed on August 29th, 1842. It was the first of what China would call the “unequal treaties.” It changed the terms of the trading relationship to favour Britain. The Chinese had to open four additional trading ports, pay 6 million silver dollars to replace the opium they had burned, 3 million dollars to the middlemen, and 12 million dollars to Britain for war reparations. They also had to give up Hong Kong. Lin Zexu was blamed for the war and exiled. The opium continued to flow into China and was eventually legalized by the Chinese following another loss to the British in the Second Opium War.
It is easy to dismiss the talk of trade. There are people in closed doors, who you or I wouldn’t know, discussing agreements and resolutions that seem so removed from our day to day that it is hard to see the impact. Yet, trade can be a dangerous game. What if that trade between my neighbour and I wasn’t fair? Perhaps, I would decide that it wasn’t worth trading with that person in the future or any of my other neighbours for that matter. This would hurt the whole community. I would be isolated and completely self-reliant and my neighbours would have less choice of who to trade with, which would only lower the price of their own fruit.
There is a good chance that the United States, Canada, and Mexico will not come to an agreement after these latest talks on NAFTA are concluded. There are whispers that Canada and Mexico will stall until, hopefully, a new administration is in power south of our border, but, regardless, the immediate future doesn’t look promising. And, when trade goes wrong, hardship can come quickly and that is when the soil starts to crack.