An interesting srticle on Taiwan and CCP/PRC aid being sent to Haiti. I do not agree that the CCP/PRC aid comes “with no strings attached”. Perhaps the ‘string’ are not visible now, but I would venture there will be something it it for the CCP/PRC at as later time.
Haiti aid a telling test of China-Taiwan relations
Some interesting comments from the usual academic CCP/PRC apologists.
It has long been interesting to see that Haiti is one of the very very few countries to which China has sent UN peace keeping troops. China, with its huge army and as a permanent veto member of the Security Council, should be far more engaged in UN missions but has seemed reluctant to do so, by and large. Of course, Haiti also happens to be one of the few countries which have given Taiwan diplomatic recognition.
Would be no problem to get them to switch if they wanted to.
From that comment, it sounds like you are in favour of them switching recognition to PRC.
I was just curious to see whether anyone else also finds it odd that China, who wants to be seen as a world player, continually fails to pull its weight (it arguably should be doing as much internationally in times of crisis as the USA military does). Cheap selfish bastards: “we’ll only lift a finger (or take our foot off the neck of the drowning man) when it’s manifestly in our immediate interest, and generally not at all if it would also be of any benefit to others who we have put on our list of bad nations who have insulted the glorious nation-state-fiefdom of China at any time in our more than 5,000 years of glorious history”.
Not at all. I am just pointing out that it would be easy for the PRC to get Haiti to switch recognition. But they don’t seem that interested. It could be because of the US of course.
Haiti is America’s backyard. I don’t think they would appreciate a massif relief effort from the Chinese military out there.
Be fair. China is trying. Though apparently they landed an A300 with no unloading equipment or fuel to get out in a airport with little parking space, no fuel and badly damaged infrastructure , (what there was of it).
The US has taken formally taken over the airport. They are running the show now. Other countries have had their aid flights diverted to the Dominican Republic.
Well, initial donations; Taiwan, $120000; China, $1 million.
According to Reuters, now they’ve figured out they’re in an aid arms race, China has come up with $6 million and Taiwan $5 million. And two dogs.
Tiger Woods: $3 million.
Ho hum.
To be fair those two dogs come with a selection of cute prams to put them in, doggy booties, doggy woolly jumpers and so on.
No. Some of the flights from other countries; some of the other flights from the US have been diverted. This is not about the US “taking over” anything, but given your comment, I would like to hear which nation has a game plan for rebuilding the airport/port. Also, feel free to mention which ones have plans to supply said ports and airports with the needed fuel and other necessities to make return flights possible. Er? Whazzat?
No. Some of the flights from other countries; some of the other flights from the US have been diverted. This is not about the US “taking over” anything, but given your comment, I would like to hear which nation has a game plan for rebuilding the airport/port. Also, feel free to mention which ones have plans to supply said ports and airports with the needed fuel and other necessities to make return flights possible. Er? Whazzat?[/quote]
What’s your point? I believe that the US has indeed formally “taken over” the airport. They are running the show. This is to be expected, Haiti is America’s backyard.
Fred, why so sensitive today?
You made it sound as if the US were somehow diverting aid flights just because they were from “other” countries. Such is not the case.
There have been some mumblings to that effect in the media. France was particularly unhappy.
Well, sorry but there is obviously a total breakdown of logistics in Haiti. If that one French cooperation ministry (what exactly is this?) official is not happy then he should tell us how things should be done differently. So, there is ONE voice on the subject. Do you personally think that the US is turning away aid from other countries deliberately? If so, what would the reason be? To better enable the US to exploit all the valuable resources that Haiti possesses? Or because maybe as we have seen time and time again, it is not the development agencies with their self-important bureaucrats who demand housing, showers and food (remember the amount of space they took up during the tsunami?) but the US military that is best able to guarantee that something gets done and not just talked about albeit it in very ponderous self-important tones needed to justify the next budget of x y or z NGO? Perhaps, that flight from France was filled with 50 self-important bureaucrats flying in… to do what exactly? monitor the situation? report to Paris? convene a meeting to discuss the issue?
I suspect the French were looking for any loot they may have left behind.
HG
Not really. I don’t know much about Haiti. Are you talking to your shadow?
One thing I am curious about Fred. Why do you think that the British Caribbean has generally produced relatively stable and prosperous democracies, whereas the Spanish speaking Caribbean (along with Haiti) have a much worse record in this regard? Could it be that the explanatory variable is the greater scope for US intervention in the latter group of countries?
Mawvellous:
Rule Britannia eh?
I suggest that it was the Spanish legacy that necessitated the US interventions… The British left behind a much better rule of law and constitutional rule that provided for minority parties. Now, Haiti is technically being “intervened” in yet again by the US. Would you like to come out and take an official stance against that intervention? After all, Australia is engaging in “intervention” called stabilization or nation building in the South Pacific that is highly akin to that of the US in Latin America and the Caribbean during the time in question. I think that much if made of US intervention but in reality it was much more benign than it is being painted. Also, Haiti is not the first nation to have to pay reparations. I think that Haiti’s poverty has less to do with what the outside world has done to it and more to its own issues particularly regarding governance.
Of course, if one were to look at excessive US intervention, well then… one would imagine that Puerto Rico should be the poorest, least developed, most exploited, least democratic state in the region which it is not so whoops! So much for that theory eh Mawvellous? Yeah.
Also, these headlines… are deliberately exploiting the perceived rivalry between France and the US just because one official (and a non-important one) shot his mouth off. France and the US continue and have cooperated for a long time very successfully in Haiti. Don’t let the “news” fool you. France has been very effective and helpful. Given the amount of aid the US and France have dumped into Haiti, I would suggest that the “exploitation” suggested by HCG has long been paid back and with interest… if it were really only a matter of money… but it is not and that is why without a change in the people of Haiti, no amount of aid is going to turn things around.
[quote=“fred smith”]Mawvellous:
Rule Britannia eh?
I suggest that it was the Spanish legacy that necessitated the US interventions… The British left behind a much better rule of law and constitutional rule that provided for minority parties. Now, Haiti is technically being “intervened” in yet again by the US. Would you like to come out and take an official stance against that intervention? After all, Australia is engaging in “intervention” called stabilization or nation building in the South Pacific that is highly akin to that of the US in Latin America and the Caribbean during the time in question. I think that much if made of US intervention but in reality it was much more benign than it is being painted. Also, Haiti is not the first nation to have to pay reparations. I think that Haiti’s poverty has less to do with what the outside world has done to it and more to its own issues particularly regarding governance.
Of course, if one were to look at excessive US intervention, well then… one would imagine that Puerto Rico should be the poorest, least developed, most exploited, least democratic state in the region which it is not so whoops! So much for that theory eh Mawvellous? Yeah.
[/quote]
You pick the most successful example. Clearly, the legacy of US intervention in the former Spanish empire has been mixed at best. Sure, you have Puerto Rica, but then you also have the Philippines and Cuba. What is striking is the failure of the US to leave any strong democratic institutional legacy. Why is it so difficult to admit the many failures of US interventions abroad?
Is Haiti a mess due to some kind of defect in the Haitian people? I think this is unlikely. The long record of foreign intervention and exploitation must be at least part of the story.
Cuba and the Philippines? why not Guam or the Virgin Islands? And if you want to compare failures, shall we look at the British record in Zimbabwe? Sudan? Palestine? Guyana? The question is what was the motivation for the US intervention in Haiti, exploitation? ditto for many of the Central American nations, Dominican Republic? really exploitation or to stop their failing states from affecting the area around them. This is exactly what Australia is doing now in Oceania: Fiji, Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea. Want to make your complaint known? to them? No? Why not? As to Cuba, was it the poorest, least developed nation when the US was DIRECTLY and INDIRECTLY more involved or only after it turned to communism? and Cuba would not be the first nation to impoverish itself from foolish redistributionist and populist policies. Also, shall we look at Western Europe as exploited because of US “intervention?” What about East Asia? And where the US has chosen NOT to get involved, is it arguable that the nation becomes poorer and less stable? so is it only US intervention which is to blame? or perhaps that even with US intervention, local factors are far important in determining national development and economic and political stability and success?
As to Haiti, if it were poor because of exploitation and intervention then surely nations like Ireland? Poland? Taiwan? Singapore? Hong Kong? all these nations “pillaged” right? Or then again maybe not…
But I sense that I am getting in the way of your preferred US rant so please do not let me stop you… Come out with it. Britain good. America evil. British smart. Americans stupid. British enlightened rulers. Americans capitalist expoiters. Was that the sort or formula you wanted to establish?
[quote=“fred smith”]Cuba and the Philippines? why not Guam or the Virgin Islands? And if you want to compare failures, shall we look at the British record in Zimbabwe? Sudan? Palestine? Guyana? The question is what was the motivation for the US intervention in Haiti, exploitation? ditto for many of the Central American nations, Dominican Republic? really exploitation or to stop their failing states from affecting the area around them. This is exactly what Australia is doing now in Oceania: Fiji, Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea. Want to make your complaint known? to them? No? Why not? As to Cuba, was it the poorest, least developed nation when the US was DIRECTLY and INDIRECTLY more involved or only after it turned to communism? and Cuba would not be the first nation to impoverish itself from foolish redistributionist and populist policies. Also, shall we look at Western Europe as exploited because of US “intervention?” What about East Asia? And where the US has chosen NOT to get involved, is it arguable that the nation becomes poorer and less stable? so is it only US intervention which is to blame? or perhaps that even with US intervention, local factors are far important in determining national development and economic and political stability and success?
As to Haiti, if it were poor because of exploitation and intervention then surely nations like Ireland? Poland? Taiwan? Singapore? Hong Kong? all these nations “pillaged” right? Or then again maybe not…
But I sense that I am getting in the way of your preferred US rant so please do not let me stop you… Come out with it. Britain good. America evil. British smart. Americans stupid. British enlightened rulers. Americans capitalist expoiters. Was that the sort or formula you wanted to establish?[/quote]
You are getting hysterical now. I only asked a question. Personally, I am not so bothered about defending “my” country.