International and domestic media have devoted a great deal of column space this week to whether Taiwan should write off the debt owed to it by Haiti in the wake of the devastating earthquake that struck its impoverished Caribbean ally on Jan. 12.
Taiwan has already done its fair share, sending rescue teams to search for survivors, donating US$5 million and shipping 70 tonnes of humanitarian supplies to the quake-affected area, while several non-governmental organizations have also announced aid packages and medical missions.
The focus now, however, has switched to whether Taipei will follow the lead of the IMF and a host of countries, which last year canceled large portions of Haiti’s debt. The discussions were spurred by calls this week from the Paris Club for Haiti’s remaining creditors to cancel debts.
Haiti has long been a failed state, with debt problems that stretch back to when the country’s slaves defeated Napoleon’s troops and declared independence from France in 1804. Decades of interference, misrule and plundering of state coffers by a succession of dictators and corrupt rulers have contributed to the failure of Haiti. Last week’s events only served to highlight the shocking state of a nation that has long been ignored, while causing nations around the globe to finally take notice and ponder what can be done to help.
At about US$90 million, Haiti’s debt to Taiwan is not overwhelming. Taiwan can afford to forgive this debt, which would help the ravaged nation get back on its feet.
Whether it would have the desired effect remains to be seen.
President Ma Ying-jeou (馬英九) has already indicated that a total writeoff will not be simple because the money is owed to several banks, not the government. The president added that he has instructed the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to investigate what can be done.
However, domestic critics have argued that forgiving Haiti’s debt would encourage Taiwan’s mostly poor allies to expect the same treatment, something they say the nation can’t afford. Others, however, argue that the sheer scale of the disaster in Haiti and its vacuum of good governance distinguishes it from all of Taiwan’s other allies, making a compelling case for an act of goodwill.
If Taipei is worried about what will happen to its ties with Haiti in the face of a growing Chinese threat to its relations in the region, then it could tie the writeoff to reconstruction contracts and an increase in medical and agricultural assistance.
Speculation is rife that Ma will make an announcement during a rumored meeting that is to take place with his Haitian counterpart Rene Preval during his stop in the Dominican Republic next week.
Ma may see this as an opportunity to gain good publicity, but whatever kind of deal is struck, it should not be made as part of a cheerleading effort for our beleaguered president and should be carried out in as low-key a manner as possible. To do otherwise would be an embarrassment to Taiwan and the ultimate mark of disrespect to victims in Haiti.
“History does not repeat itself, but it rhymes” (attributed to Mark Twain). The USSR was the international bully during the Cold War as it sought to make the world safe for Soviet-style Communism. China is now the global bully as it applies economic power and invests in Mao’s (毛澤東) magic weapons (the People’s Liberation Army [PLA], the United Front Work Department, and the Chinese Communist Party [CCP]) to achieve world domination. Freedom-loving countries must respond to the People’s Republic of China (PRC), especially in the Indo-Pacific (IP), as resolutely as they did against the USSR. In 1954, the US and its allies
A response to my article (“Invite ‘will-bes,’ not has-beens,” Aug. 12, page 8) mischaracterizes my arguments, as well as a speech by former British prime minister Boris Johnson at the Ketagalan Forum in Taipei early last month. Tseng Yueh-ying (曾月英) in the response (“A misreading of Johnson’s speech,” Aug. 24, page 8) does not dispute that Johnson referred repeatedly to Taiwan as “a segment of the Chinese population,” but asserts that the phrase challenged Beijing by questioning whether parts of “the Chinese population” could be “differently Chinese.” This is essentially a confirmation of Beijing’s “one country, two systems” formulation, which says that
Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi arrived in China yesterday, where he is to attend a summit of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization (SCO) with Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) and Russian President Vladimir Putin today. As this coincides with the 50 percent US tariff levied on Indian products, some Western news media have suggested that Modi is moving away from the US, and into the arms of China and Russia. Taiwan-Asia Exchange Foundation fellow Sana Hashmi in a Taipei Times article published yesterday titled “Myths around Modi’s China visit” said that those analyses have misrepresented India’s strategic calculations, and attempted to view
When Chinese President Xi Jinping (習近平) stood in front of the Potala Palace in Lhasa on Thursday last week, flanked by Chinese flags, synchronized schoolchildren and armed Chinese People’s Liberation Army (PLA) troops, he was not just celebrating the 60th anniversary of the establishment of the “Tibet Autonomous Region,” he was making a calculated declaration: Tibet is China. It always has been. Case closed. Except it has not. The case remains wide open — not just in the hearts of Tibetans, but in history records. For decades, Beijing has insisted that Tibet has “always been part of China.” It is a phrase
RSS