Originally Posted by Adrian II:
With all due respect, Waitangi was in 1840 and it wasn't exactly a display of agency, rather a cry for help from the outside. It resulted in British sovereignty over the country. The fact that this treaty is now celebrated is a nice example of what Louis stated: small countries have more difficulty facing their national failures, and if and when they do they are likely to blame the outside world for them.
Not the original paper, the application of that Treaty in the form of the
Treaty of Waitangi Act 1975. Since the mid 1980's NZ has shown a very acute understanding that there was an obligation to the native people of their nation (something Australia a much larger neighbour has had difficulty with). The agency would be showing leadership in indigenous rights and going not just by the letter of the treaty but the spirit. That and even since the Boer War, New Zealand has had Maori troops, politicians and
rugby players. Since NZ national religion is Rugby and the All Blacks uniform is derived from the Maori not the Pakeha uniform.
Whilst on the other hand it took till 1967 to get Australian Aboriginals off the wildlife census onto the human one.
The main thing is that New Zealand although smaller then Aus has been far more fast at seeing its internal problems, taking responsibility for them and fixing the issues. The main point being that not all small nations blame larger ones for their problems or are less able in creating change.
So to blame Finland's moral positioning on its size is the equivalent of blaming a persons moral positioning on their hair colour. No matter their size they should be held accountable and responsible for their actions. The inability to hold a mirror up to past injustices is fairly common in countries of all sizes. Some of the worst would have to be the biggest, not the smallest.
Single Sign On provided by
vBSSO