11 Feb Reason #345 to Love New Zealand — and Dislike Australia
Because kiwis would never vote for a Prime Minister stupid enough to say something like this:
Obama said Saturday at his campaign kickoff in Springfield, Ill., that one of the country’s first priorities should be ending the war in Iraq. He has also introduced a bill in the Senate to prevent President Bush from increasing American troop levels in Iraq and to remove U.S. combat forces from the country by March 31, 2008.
Australian Prime Minister John Howard, a staunch Bush ally who has sent troops to Iraq and faces his own re-election bid later this year, said Obama’s proposals would spell disaster for the Middle East.
“I think that will just encourage those who want to completely destabilize and destroy Iraq, and create chaos and a victory for the terrorists to hang on and hope for an Obama victory,” Howard said on Nine Network television.
“If I were running al-Qaida in Iraq, I would put a circle around March 2008 and be praying as many times as possible for a victory, not only for Obama but also for the Democrats.”
Yeah, because the Republicans have done such a good job destroying al-Qaida — after all, they’ve captured bin Laden, made Afghanistan and Pakistan al-Qaida free, etc. Oh, wait…
P.S. I generally like Australians. But it amazes me that they continue to vote for Howard even though they are opposed to the Iraq war and their economy is in shambles.
This post is a perfect example of why international law fails to appeal to most Americans and why some voices in the field cringe when other international law experts speak in public. First, the sarcasm regarding the US success or failure against al-Qaida is simply disgusting. I watched 9/11 from the roof of NYU’s law school. I had friends die that day. I never thought that day would be fodder for the textbook “oh wait” joke. Second, Professor Heller willy-nilly refers to the collective “Australians.” As a collective, Professor Heller can “like” them, he can even be amazed by them. Of course, anyone who would refer to a collective “Arab” or “Islam” and like, or even dislike them, would be rightfully flamed off the board. However, Professor Heller, as is common in this community, can do this vis-a-vis a “Western” nation due to some sense of self-loathing that I simply cannot understand. Rather than post something like this, why not post something about an international law based solution in the West Bank. How about something about Kashmir. Of course, these things are hard, it is easy to bust the “oh wait” joke. Don’t get me wrong, I feel your pain.… Read more »
Although I had to interrupt a very good rant, I think Mr Heller’s comment comes more from his perspective as a native of New Zealand than his position as a lecturer on international law.
While I don’t have any poll numbers handy on the subject, I would venture that Howard is not as popular in the more leftward-leaning New Zealand as he is in his native Australia.
A few minor points. First, I note that neither commenter actually takes issue with the idea that the Republicans have failed to protect Americans from al-Qaida. The reason for that omission is obvious: because they can’t. The Republicans’ record of failure on that score is simply too long.
Second, sarcasm about the Republicans’ record on al-Qaida is not offensive — the record itself is. Anyone who cares about ensuring that the horrors of 9/11 are never repeated, left or right, should be appalled by the fact that the Republicans have consistently sacrificed Americans’ safety on the altar of political expediency, as I have discussed time and again on this blog.
Third, John Howard is now trailing in the polls behind his rival in the Labor Party, Kevin Rudd.
Fourth, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a native of New Zealand. I was born in southern Illinois and grew up in Colorado.
to the person who is thinking of changing his field:
How exactly is this post a perfect example of why international law fails to appeal to most Americans? I don’t see it, but maybe I just have a completely incorrect understanding of my own field…
Sarcasm about the Bush administration’s success in Iraq is not the same as making a joke about 9/11. 9/11 was a very black day for many people around the world, but the actions that have been taken in Afghanistan and Iraq have not brought a solution, despite all the efforts of the soldiers involved. Being sarcastic about actual results of the “solutions”, does not mean denying the gravity of 9/11.
As a final note, here is some information on Australian attitudes to the Iraq War in the run up to their elections
“Australia’s continued support for the US strategy is deeply unpopular, with just 28 per cent of voters in favour of the Government’s handling of the Iraq war: “Just over 60 per cent of voters are against the Government’s handling of the war, including 44per cent who are “strongly against”. (Source: http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au)
Professor Heller, If you would have taken a second to actually read my post rather than jump into another one of you US is evil rants, you would notice that I never claimed a desire to defend anyone. However, I did point out the fact that you simply lack the ability to add anything constructive to the debate over America’s role post-9/11. Of course you don’t, and can’t, address that point. Tell me, what is the great Heller-ian theory … everything America does is wrong? Seriously, please give me the Heller theory for acting in this war. At least, maybe you can find the time to post about one of the many international crimes perpetuated by a non-Western state. Try SW China on for size, work on North Korean human rights, finish off with a story about women’s rights in the Middle East. At this point, I would even take a space war post complete with a star trek joke. You know what … I will make a promise right now. If you can go for one month without posting about the US, I give you my word I will never comment on this board. Otherwise, keep drinking the Haterade.
Thinking About Changing My Field:
Is there aything in Kevin’s posts that you find legally incorrect? Your main argument seems to be that you want Kevin to go pick on someone else besides the US. But that doesn’t actually bring anything substantive to the table. And as for your implication that Kevin only writes about the US, I guess you missed his recent posts on Congo, Morocco, Israel,and Sweden, to name a few. And of course all of his writing on the Saddam trial.
Whether or not you comment here is your choice. But do you have anything substantive to say? Kevin clearly does.
If you think international law should have more to offer, then offer it up yourself. That’s what a comments thread is for.
Although I have no desire to debate “Thinking,” I want to make one point exceptionally clear: I do not believe everything America does is wrong — I believe that (almost) everything the Bush Administration does is wrong. The Bush Administration is not America, as the 2006 elections and every recent poll make inordinately clear. On the contrary, the Bush Administration represents the rejection of every principle — moral and legal — that has made America great. If saying that makes me a drinker of Haterade, I’ll take mine in lemon-lime.
Australia’s jobless rate is at a 30-year low. What would a strong economy in Australia look like?
Unfortunately the rest of the post (and Heller’s comments) aren’t any better.
Chris,
For the sake of clarity, my main argument is this: 1) international law is dominated by individuals like Professor Heller with a very left of center world view; 2) using the tool of international law, they attempt to promote this world view; 3) consequently, they use international law to attack the US and its allies while not using international law to critique other groups with whom they are poltiically associated (take the lack of our field’s reaction to Chavez for example) 4) accrodingly, many outside the field associate international law with an ideology rather than with “law” 5) the association of the left and international law causes a systemic harm to international law because they law is assocaited with a subjective ideology rather than an objective sense of rule by law 6) there are a few people, such as myself, who wish to show that international law need not be a synonym for US bashing, rather it applies to all states not just the left’s target de jour.
What part of this is so hard to understand?
Fourth, I am not now, nor have I ever been, a native of New Zealand. I was born in southern Illinois and grew up in Colorado.
Oops, that’s what I get for jumping to conclusions.
WOW. Suddenly Opinio Juris has become like…every other blog, full of flames.
Thinking of changing your field,
Why don’t you? For the forseeable future, IL will probably be dominated more by people like prof. Heller than by people like prof. Ku, and, if I interpret your seething rage correctly, you. Because my views fall in the Heller camp, I have no problem with this at all, but obviously you do. BIG TIME.
I find your level of anger peculiar. Opinio Juris has to be one the most mild-mannered, academic, tweedy, inoffensive blogs in existence. If you really want to blow a gasket (which can be therapeutic), I suggest stopping by Daily Kos, or, if you have a particualr disdain for lefty lawyers, Talk Left.