Post by McGreevy on Sept 8, 2009 14:40:37 GMT 10
In lieu of a debate from ANU mini in which the room I was in had little to no knowledge of the on the ground realities of this country, I thought I would start a discussion about it.
An article by the Australian today about Fiji and its current situation seemed to shed more light on the situation, but still left some questions. They mentioned that police and the army have unregulated power on the ground, and regularly abuse said power. The most blatantly obvious question in response to this is whether or not it is legitimate. Is the military government and situation in Fiji actually that violent?
A curious idea raised in that article related to China. It said that China had, since the current Fijian government came to power during the coup of 2006, increased its funding to the small country. Amnesty international put the task to China then to use that power to bring about a change in the human rights situation in this country.
Would China actually use its power in this way? Whilst it maintains a stance of non-intervention in the affairs of other countries, does its favoured treatment of the Fijian government indicate that it could A) be reducing this rigid policy, and/or B) be able to or willing to use that power for good generally? Would China value a greater hand in global affairs over its longstanding policy?
The article:
www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26039798-16953,00.html
An article by the Australian today about Fiji and its current situation seemed to shed more light on the situation, but still left some questions. They mentioned that police and the army have unregulated power on the ground, and regularly abuse said power. The most blatantly obvious question in response to this is whether or not it is legitimate. Is the military government and situation in Fiji actually that violent?
A curious idea raised in that article related to China. It said that China had, since the current Fijian government came to power during the coup of 2006, increased its funding to the small country. Amnesty international put the task to China then to use that power to bring about a change in the human rights situation in this country.
Would China actually use its power in this way? Whilst it maintains a stance of non-intervention in the affairs of other countries, does its favoured treatment of the Fijian government indicate that it could A) be reducing this rigid policy, and/or B) be able to or willing to use that power for good generally? Would China value a greater hand in global affairs over its longstanding policy?
The article:
www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26039798-16953,00.html