Advertisement - Click to support our sponsors.
Editorials
Friday, July 28, 2000Fiji’s armed forces
must crush rebellionFIJI'S army has belatedly moved to restore order by arresting rebel leader George Speight, who had kept the South Pacific island nation in turmoil for months. It's about time Speight, an unsuccessful businessman who exploited discontent among the native Fijians to overthrow the government, was brought to heel. He has done plenty of harm already.The issue: Fijian rebel leader George Speight has been arrested but his supporters have retaliated by briefly seizing two new hostages.
An army commander, Lt. Col. Filipo Tarakinikini, said Speight may be charged with treason. The officer said Speight was arrested for threatening the life of Fiji's new president, Ratu Josefa Iloilo, and refusing to hand in all weapons stolen from the army by his followers. "We are going to the root of the matter," Tarakinikini said. "We are arresting the people who orchestrated the whole campaign of civil unrest in this country."
The army followed up Speight's arrest by storming a rebel stronghold in the capital, Suva, killing one man and wounding 39. More than 300 rebels were arrested. The attack was described as the start of a crackdown that will end the rebellion.
Speight's group stormed the parliament building May 19, taking dozens of legislators and the prime minister hostage and demanding that native Fijians take power at the expense of the Indian minority.
The hostages were released last week after Speight succeeded in having the constitution abrogated and forcing the president and prime minister -- the first of Indian descent -- to resign. Speight had also complained about the composition of the new government, pressing for the inclusion of more of his supporters.
Speight was granted amnesty as part of the deal for the hostage release, but the army said he had breached the agreement to return all weapons used in the coup, thereby forfeiting amnesty.
The rebels retaliated for Speight's arrest by kidnapping two New Zealand pilots at the airport on Vanua Levu, the second largest island, but released them the next day. Air New Zealand canceled flight stopovers in Fiji. In the town of Labasa on Vanua Levu, gunmen briefly held 40 Indians captive until the military negotiated their release. Gunmen were shooting indiscriminately in the streets and looting shops in Labasa.
NOW that the military has moved into action, it's important that it stamp out armed resistance. The rebellion has thrown Fiji into chaos and severely damaged its democratic system. The military has evidently decided that it can no longer put up with the rebels -- particularly after they had agreed to lay down their arms but reneged.
There may be a chance to pick up the pieces of Fiji's shattered democracy. But first the military must restore order.
ADA vs. state rights
GOVERNOR Cayetano has received unfair criticism for the state's decision to side with the state of Alabama in challenging the Americans with Disabilities Act's enforcement against state agencies. Advocates of the disabled regard the Alabama case as an assault on their interests. In joining Alabama, the Hawaii Attorney General's Office recognized that the legal issues extend far beyond the disabled.
For decades, Congress has enacted laws imposing requirements on states as conditions for receiving federal aid. Funding was considered critical in enforcing federal requirements because of the states' constitutional immunity. The 11th Amendment protects states from being sued under federal law.
The ADA goes a controversial step further in prohibiting state agencies that receive federal funds from discriminating against the disabled. Rather than threatening withdrawal of federal funds, the law allows victims of alleged discrimination to sue state agencies in federal court. (As is typical, Congress allows federal agencies to discriminate against the disabled without similar recourse.)
The Alabama case is among a number of cases in which Congress has tried to regulate state conduct in a manner beyond its constitutional authority. In the most recent case, the U.S. Supreme Court held that Congress lacked authority to apply the Age Discrimination in Employment Act to the states. The issues in the ADA case are similar and also should be decided in favor of states' immunity.
Deputy Attorney General Charles F. Fell points out that such a ruling would not leave Hawaii's disabled unprotected. They still would be allowed to sue private companies for ADA violations and would be allowed to bring state agencies to state court.
State laws dealing with real estate, employment, discrimination in public places, social services, public office and public lands would continue to protect the disabled in the absence of ADA authority over state agencies, Fell says.
Advocates of the disabled should appreciate the state's concern about federal control and not interpret its alliance with Alabama as an attack on their goals.
Instead, they should meet with state officials to assure continued state protection of people with disabilities -- but without invoking a federal law that may be unconstitutional.
Published by Liberty Newspapers Limited PartnershipRupert E. Phillips, CEO
John M. Flanagan, Editor & Publisher
David Shapiro, Managing Editor
Diane Yukihiro Chang, Senior Editor & Editorial Page Editor
Frank Bridgewater & Michael Rovner, Assistant Managing Editors
A.A. Smyser, Contributing Editor
