Fiji Re-Thought: Hypocrasy has Stayed its Course
December 7th 2006 23:06
ok fine, maybe i spoke too soon, too harshly, and too unquestioningly, myself.
I was frustrated. I study all day long with smart, very smart people. We are all engaged in post-graduate study of International Relations, but we all focus on different areas. The school purports to specialize in the Asia-Pacific region, but what they mean is the Asian region.
I'm all for it, China, Japan, Indonesia, North Korea--they're all important for international relations. But i had the joyous experience of residing in the Pacific a number of times over a number of years. My interest is in these little islands, their inconsequential (though at times extremely important) nature. To hear people who have spent a year discussing China and the implications of a nuclear North Korea go ahead and condemn those in Fiji just sort of got to me. They didn't understand the situation, and immediately went for the standards bandaid of "democracy fixes all" that seems to apply to the Asian countries.
Perhaps it was equally as hasty to dis-avow the powers of democracy, however. There is still something to be said for the rule-of-law. There is still something to be said about being able to recognize that your needs are not reflective of the majority and so, at least temporarily, you'll need to curb your instincts to fulfil your needs. The irony is quite stunning in this case. Here the military commander is disbanding a democratically elected government because they want to give amensty to the coup-planners and makers of 2000. This he says is wrong. Meanwhile, what is one of his three conditions for abandoning his coup? AMNESTY.
I guess hypocrasy is alive and well in Fiji, as it is everywhere.
I was frustrated. I study all day long with smart, very smart people. We are all engaged in post-graduate study of International Relations, but we all focus on different areas. The school purports to specialize in the Asia-Pacific region, but what they mean is the Asian region.
I'm all for it, China, Japan, Indonesia, North Korea--they're all important for international relations. But i had the joyous experience of residing in the Pacific a number of times over a number of years. My interest is in these little islands, their inconsequential (though at times extremely important) nature. To hear people who have spent a year discussing China and the implications of a nuclear North Korea go ahead and condemn those in Fiji just sort of got to me. They didn't understand the situation, and immediately went for the standards bandaid of "democracy fixes all" that seems to apply to the Asian countries.
Perhaps it was equally as hasty to dis-avow the powers of democracy, however. There is still something to be said for the rule-of-law. There is still something to be said about being able to recognize that your needs are not reflective of the majority and so, at least temporarily, you'll need to curb your instincts to fulfil your needs. The irony is quite stunning in this case. Here the military commander is disbanding a democratically elected government because they want to give amensty to the coup-planners and makers of 2000. This he says is wrong. Meanwhile, what is one of his three conditions for abandoning his coup? AMNESTY.
I guess hypocrasy is alive and well in Fiji, as it is everywhere.
| 52 |
| Vote |
Comment by Anonymous
The international society is much more crue then it seems. The reason people doesn't give a rat about Fiji is that it work in nobody's interest.
Fiji is nothing more then a pawn in the international society. Japan and China are the big guys, that is why they give such a dame about it.
Comment by Joanna
The islands have many times been considered inconsequential for IR, but every now and again they speak with a voice much larger than their size implies. They have the ability to guide their region, if they work at it, work together. Epeli Ha'ofa, a pacific scholar, is an advocate for that kind of Pacific re-imagining that means the islands would join a regional federation of sorts to give them the kind of international clout they need to "matter."
Its an interesting idea of his.
Despite its relative insignificance, the international community is well aware that if they don't condemn fiji's apparent abandonment of democracy they are setting themselves up for a precedent that may have more damning effects in "more important" societies. This was the case with the large fuss the USA made towards New Zealand's nuclear free movement. In reality a nuclear free NZ is really not concerning to the USA, but in the cold war context a nuclear free NZ with no harsh words and ramifications from the USA could have given huge motivation and support to a nuclear free europe.
Hypocrasy would be worse if the USA condoned nuclear free NZ and condemned nuclear free europe, so i guess the striaght jump to condemnation of the Fiji coup was one of the less hypocritical things the USA has done recently...
Comment by Anonymous
But unlike the traditional empires, this empire is not been taken by force. Therefore it is important for the US and the regional powers to keep the nations subjecting their loyalty to them, to stay on their side.
This kind of force the international society to do something about Fiji, because everybody are watching, they only did enough to keep everybody happy. In fact, if you look at all the nations that have been getting involve with what happening in Fiji are more powerful nations, that are directing having an influence over them.
I doubt the Asian powers, the US and all the European powers out side the commonwealth, will even want to report this on their news. (I bet they don't even know where Fiji is)
As for whole nuclear thing, the US just want to stay as the leader of the democratic world and they want to make sure they have their full supporter all over the world. At the East Asia for example, the US is looking for all sort of excuse to stop Taiwan developing nuclear weapon and Taiwan is one of the most peaceful, stable and pro democratic nation in the world. US only wants to ensure they have a supporter in the East Asia region and they want to keep Philipin to support them (From what I know, Philipin doesn't like the US, but they are pratically economicly relying on Taiwan).
In exchange for Taiwan to not develop any weapon of mess destruction, the US sends numbers of their warships to work in alliance with the Taiwaness navy, this might seem like an act of friendship, but it is really just to keep everything to work in the US' own advantage. In otherword, maintain their own empire.
Comment by Joanna
it is one part empire one part hegemony i reckon. Afterall, its not by force (all the time) that the USA keeps its strategic and tactical advantage. The American Dream is still alive for some, soft power still reigns supreme (albeit in ever diminishing supply).
but you're mostly right, i agree. The USA with this administration has been far less careful about the ways in which it covers its "single-minded" course for the enhancement of its own abilities, power, and advantage