Hillary Clinton's saying taiho, delaying her trip to the Pacific
It's a sign of the importance of the western hemisphere to America, and makes the point that Hillary Clinton's visit to Papua New Guinea, New Zealand and Australia, whilst important, was not urgent... Yes, the horror of the Haiti earthquake has compelled Clinton to postpone her trip to the Pacific.
This has just been released by Foreign Minister Murray McCully's office:
United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has postponed her visit to New Zealand in the wake of the massive earthquake in Haiti, Foreign Minister Murray McCully announced today.
“Secretary Clinton rang me this morning to convey the news. She promised to reschedule the visit as soon as possible,” Mr McCully said.
“Mrs Clinton told me that given the unimaginable scale of tragedy, and the fact that there are no operating institutions left in Haiti, the importance of US leadership in the relief efforts required her to return home immediately.
“The decision to postpone the visit is entirely understandable, given the massive damage and loss of life in Haiti, and the fact that there are a very large number of Americans based there.
“I told Secretary Clinton that New Zealand had specialist skills in a number of emergency relief and recovery areas, and we would be happy to supplement US efforts in any way required. She thanked me for the offer and said she would come back to me with any requests,” Mr McCully said.
I was working on a piece on New Zealand's global relevance and, amongst other things, what Clinton's visit says about that. I'll re-jig it and post tomorrow, but in short it shows that while the US is keen to re-build relations with allies after the hubris and unilateralism of the Bush years, it's backyard will always be more important.
Comments (2)
Where to begin, Tim? Where to begin?
New Zealand has achieved "relevance" in the wider world not by trying to suck-up to it, but by showing the world's peoples a better way.
The men and women who have done this - Pember-Reeves, Tregear, Shepherd, Seddon, Sutch, Savage, Fraser, Kirk, Lange and Clark - have all hailed from the left of the political spectrum.
To expect a right-wing government to do anything other than trail along behind the meanest son-of-a-bitch of the day is, as Key's and McCully's response to the ramming of the "Ady Gil" demonstrates, the purest folly.
The only reason Key put whaling on the agenda for his discussions with Hillary Clinton was because of the rising level of public disgust at his government's weak-kneed response to Japanese aggression on the High Seas.
I could go on: your quip about New Zealand being an "example of colonial oppression", for instance.
I don't know about you, Tim, but I don't think Orakau or Parihaka come anywhere close to Sand Creek or Wounded Knee. If we were an example, I suspect it was for our lack of rigor when dealing with the "savages".
And as for the US being "isolationist" under George W. Bush? Puh-leeze! I suggest you familiarise yourself with the "Bush Doctrine" - with it's emphasis on "pre-emptive war" - and think again.
New Zealand is relevant to the US and China only insofar as its government is willing to open up its markets to their imports and to smooth the way for the wholesale plundering of its resources. Otherwise, it simply does not count at all.
It is only when progressive New Zealanders stand in the way of the powerful that the world notices us - as it did at San Francisco in 1945, and at Mururoa in 1973, and at Oxford in 1985.
But, as I said, they were all lefties. Don't expect the Right to get in anybody powerful's way Tim - it's not what they do.
Chris, mostly agree with your main point, although NZ hasn't had quite the international independence you claim. Still, you can read my full posts on the subject to see whether we agree more than you seem to think.
As for colonisation, was it as bad in NZ as in many other colonies? By and large, no. US? Worse. India? Worse. South Africa? Worse. But was it still colonisation, with both the good and the bad that implies? Certainly. It's not a competitive sport whereby if Maori didn't suffer the same as American Indians, they're out of the running. You dismiss our ethnic history too lightly, old fella.
If Parihaka happened today, I'm sure you'd be leading the charge at the loss of life, the denial of rights and so on. At least, I hope you would.
As for Bush's isolation, you're defining the word narrowly just to be provocative. I'm fully aware of the Bush Doctrine, and unlike you I realise that it involved an unwillingness to go through normal international channels and the principle that America would act alone as and when it saw fit. "You're either with us, or against us", remember? It paid no mind to the opinions of erstwhile allies, and therefore relations with other developed democracies were damaged. Obama has won a Nobel peace prize for doing nothing much more than talking to the world once again. That's what I meant by isolationist.
Post new comment
You must be logged in to post a comment.