Instapundit has an ongoing theme that Reynolds likes to call "name that party". Basically, whenever a Republican does something bad, the party affiliation is all over the news, but when a Democrat is in the wrong, the party affiliation is somehow unimportant, and often goes unmentioned throughout an entire story. Well, let's play the game shall we? The Sydney Morning Herald reports:
AUSTRALIA and New Zealand were engaging in "nasty accusations" against Fiji and were "acting with a heavy hand" in trying to force elections, the US representative for American Samoa, alleged during a committee hearing with the US Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton. The accusations were made by Eni Faleomavae, a non-voting member of Congress who represents the Pacific territory of American Samoa... "Having just returned from Fiji for discussions with the interim prime minister of Fiji and with other community leaders of Fiji, I submit that the situation in Fiji is more complex than it appears," Mr Faleomavae said. "For too too long … we've permitted Australia and New Zealand to take the lead even when Canberra and Auckland operate with such a heavy hand that they are counterproductive to our shared goals," he said. "I totally disagree with the nasty accusations that the leaders of New Zealand and Australia have made against Fiji … it makes no sense …
Who exactly is Eni Faleomavaega? (note spelling correction) Aside from the obvious (that he's a Democrat), and might be non-voting (as if the journalists want to explain that he really isn't that important in Washington), he's also a member of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs. As his own websites states, this committee has oversight "responsibilities over (amongst other things) relations of the United States with foreign nations; intervention abroad and declarations of war; Diplomatic service." It gets worse. He is also,
Chairman of the Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and the Global Environment. The Foreign Affairs’ Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific and the Global Environment has broad oversight and jurisdiction over U.S. foreign policies affecting Australia, Brunei, Burma, Cambodia, China (including Hong Kong Special Administrative Region and Macau Special Administrative Region), Cook Islands, East Timor, Fiji, Indonesia, Japan, Kazakhstan, Kiribati, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Malaysia, Marshall Islands, Micronesia, Mongolia, Nauru, New Caledonia, New Zealand, Niue, North Korea, Palau, Papua New Guinea, Philippines, Samoa, Singapore, Solomon Islands, South Korea, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Thailand, Tonga, Turkmenistan, Tuvalu, Uzbekistan, Vanuatu, and Vietnam.He is also "Vice Chair of the Congressional Asia Pacific American Caucus. He is also Vice Chair of the Army Reserve Component of the National Guard and Reserve Components Caucus. He is a member of the Congressional Human Rights Caucus, the Congressional Oceans Caucus" and (bizarrely) "the Congressional Native American Caucus." He is a Vietnam veteran, but also has a Master of Law degree from the University of California at Berkeley. I wonder how he feels about Berkeley's treatment of the military?
OK. Let's get started shall we? For someone who is so damned important (not merely a "non-voting member of Congress"), and who is chairman of the congressional foreign affairs oversight committee for pretty much everywhere from Central Asia to the western shore of the US, this man doesn't even know that the capital of New Zealand is not Auckland. Either that, or he was objecting to the foreign policy of the Mayor of Auckland John Banks, but he thinks that the attitude of the rest of New Zealand is OK.
What exactly are Australia and Auckland so upset about? Well, I'm not sure about John Banks, but I know New Zealand described Bainimarama's military coup as an "outrage". Still, I'm sure that New Zealand didn't properly appreciate the complexity of the coup. It would take a Fijian to really explain it properly. I guess that's why the Prime Minister who was overthrown, Laisenia Qarase, said that the army had brought "shame to the country." Still, I'm sure there must be more to it than that. After all, the current Fijian military government hasn't just begun a "crackdown on political dissidence" or placed heavy restrictions on the media, or dissolved the judiciary. The United Nations hasn't called for democracy to be restored, nor has "U.N. Security Council President Claude Heller of Mexico said [that] the crackdown marks a step backward for the island nation." It's more complex than that, and Australia and Auckland are just making "nasty accusations" that "make no sense". After all, Fiji's women's rights movement hasn't recently become "the latest victim of vandal attacks against prominent citizens who have voiced concerns about the country's military regime." Pro-democracy politicians haven't had rocks and stones thrown at them. The military dictator of Fiji hasn't defended his media crackdown saying that he had to prevent "'irritating and dark' reports that could spoil Fiji’s reputation." Of course, all this nasty criticism must be a product of Australian and New Zealand misunderstanding of the complexities of the Pacific. After all Toke Talagi, the Premier of Niue, didn't condemn the military regime nor did he support Australia's claim that Fiji is a military dictatorship. The government of China isn't bankrolling the military dictatorship.
Let's take a look at an example of the "heavy handed nasty accusations".
New Zealand has condemned the Fijian president's decision to abolish the constitution and sack appeal court judges who ruled the military-appointed interim government illegal. Foreign Minister Murray McCully called the move by President Ratu Josefa Iloilo to disband the Court of Appeal after their unfavourable decision "a serious step backwards", although he did not commit to doing anything about it. "The events of the past few days will merely compound the problems faced by ordinary Fijians," Mr McCully said in a statement. "The decision of the Court of Appeal declaring the Interim Government unlawful provided a way out for Commodore Bainimarama and his colleagues. It is a great pity that they did not take the opportunity they were afforded." The move came one day after the country's second-highest court ruled that armed forces chief Commodore Frank Bainimarama's government that took power after a 2006 coup was illegal, effectively creating a power vacuum.
So what is the Obama Administration's take on the statements of fellow Democrat and Chairman of the House Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and the Global Environment?
Mrs Clinton neither supported his criticism nor rejected it.
Let's be clear on this: the Secretary of State (and by definition the President who she represents) has refused to disagree with Eni Faleomavaega's words. She has refused to endorse New Zealand and Australia's criticisms of judicial sackings, military censorship of the media, condemnation of a military coup, calls for immediate resumption of elections, etc. etc. So, what exactly is the Obama administration's position on this military dictatorship? "What we want is to restore democracy." I'll be interested to see how that happens without any "nasty accusations" like those coming out of Australia and New Zealand.
