Kudos to Prime Minister of Grenada Dr Keith Mitchell. The region is badly in need of leaders, political and otherwise, who are not afraid to stand up and speak — and to do so forcefully.
Dr Mitchell did just that on Wednesday in response to conduct by the Chinese Ambassador toward that country that at best can only be described as somewhere between undiplomatic and uncouth.
Last Sunday, a number of media outlets reported, that while the country’s Parliamentary Secretary for Information in the Prime Minister’s Office was speaking at a function, he mentioned that his government had been successful in negotiating a 50 per cent reduction in a long-standing debt to the Export Import Bank of Taiwan.
In the audience was China’s ambassador to Grenada Ou Boquan, who walked out at the mention of Taiwan, followed by her assistant, and the two remained outside the hall of the Grenada Trade Centre until the junior minister had completed his speech and returned to his seat.
On Wednesday, making it clear that his country’s sovereignty would not be compromised, Dr Mitchell said: “We have a right to say who gave us debt restructuring, and we cannot apologise for this. If somebody is good enough to give us 30 something million dollars we should say so, and no one has a right to disagree with our right to say so.
“Our sovereignty cannot be compromised for anyone. That must be [said] loud and clear – mutual respect for the sovereignty and independence of this country, and we must not compromise on that.”
So far the ambassador has not sought to explain her action, but China’s policies in relation to Taiwan are clear – and its interaction with Caribbean nations that diplomatically recognise the break away state is anything but warm.
And while we can’t see into the mind of the ambassador and are in no position to conclude that her walkout represented an official Chinese stance, we still consider it to be disrespectful.
Unfortunately, such behaviour seems to be a growing feature of relationships between rich nations and small developing states that benefit from their gifts – and this is not a characteristic peculiar to nations with a political disposition more aligned to the traditional “east”.
Every so often, members of the United States Congress make statements that suggest when they donate something even as basic as a truck or a boat to a developing country, that country becomes duty bound to agree with whatever stance Capitol Hill takes.
Another example of this would be the British-led stance on what position small Commonwealth countries should take in relation to homosexuality if they want to qualify for aid in the future.
Without doubt, especially in the current economically challenged environment, grants, concessionary loans and assistance in kind from developed nations can go a long way in advancing the quality of life of citizens in developing states, but the quid pro quo of surrendering our dignity in terms of our ability to choose our destiny should never be accepted.
In the absence of a plausible explanation, Grenadians should in unison tell the ambassador she was rude and ought to apologise to the entire country.
And perhaps recalling the words of National Hero and late Prime Minister Errol Barrow will put this all in perspective:
“We will not regard any great power as necessarily right in a given dispute unless we are convinced of this, yet at the same time we will not view the great powers with perennial suspicion merely on account of their size, their wealth, or their nuclear potential.
“We will be friends of all, satellites of none.”
