Tuesday, December 30, 2008
read more | digg story
Friday, December 26, 2008
read more | digg story
Wednesday, December 24, 2008
read more | digg story
read more | digg story
Friday, December 12, 2008
Fiji's Interim Prime Minister, generic response to the Contact Group meeting, as reported by Radio NZ article.
Fiji’s interim Prime Minister says interim government won’t be deterred
Posted at 22:04 on 12 December, 2008 UTC
Fiji’s interim Prime Minister, Commodore Frank Bainimarama says the government won’t be deterred, no matter how cruel travel sanctions might be to the country’s poor, the young and the innocent.
Fiji Live reports Commodore Bainimarama said his Government would continue its agenda to bring peace, durable stability and progress to Fiji.
He says the sanctions have been harsh on Fiji, and have restricted the participation in Government from the pool of competent and non-political, and non-Military, people.
Commodore Bainimarama says as a result, the nation as a whole is suffering and his government’s efforts at service delivery and removal of corruption are being hindered.
New Zealand’s foreign minister Murray McCully and his Australian counterpart Stephen Smith said before this week’s meeting of the Forum Ministerial contact group, that the policies of their respective countries remain.
Undeniably, the pressure may seem to be focused on Fiji; however, the real centroid of pressure is on the shoulders of both Trans-Tasman countries, whose leaders fear being viewed by their foreign counterparts; as pathetic and incompetent for their inability to corral tiny Fiji, in to their watering hole.
Fueled by the stigma of the Peter Principle, Rudd's frustration with Fiji, was buttressed by the disappointing outcome of the much hyped South Pacific Forum, Ministerial Contact Group meeting in Suva.
Rudd tells Fiji - get democratic
SMH-December 12, 2008 - 1:59PM
Further action will be taken as needed to press Fiji to return to democracy, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd says.
Mr Rudd said Australia had taken a hard diplomatic line while Pacific Forum leaders made an unprecedented strong statement condemning Fiji at a meeting in Niue earlier this year.
He said their position had not changed.
"Subject to recent advice from the foreign minister you will see further action from Pacific Island forum countries on this matter in the period ahead," he told reporters.
"This government takes democracy in Pacific island countries seriously. It is not optional. It is what we do on in our part of the world."
Mr Rudd said Australia would not stand idly by.
"We have taken a hard diplomatic line on this. Further action as necessary will be taken," he said.
A delegation of Pacific dignitaries, including Foreign Minister Stephen Smith, on Thursday met Commodore Frank Bainimarama who has ruled Fiji since a bloodless coup in December 2006 that ousted then prime minister Laisenia Qarase.
Bainimarama last year promised to return his country to democratic rule by the end of March 2009.
© 2008 AAP
While Australia's Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, was so eager to talk about democracy in Fiji, as if he or his Government was the sole judge of it in the region. One ageless quote from US President Teddy Roosevelt's 1901 speech comes to mind and the quote also used by 2008 Presidential candidate, John McCain:
“Speak softly and carry a big stick — you will go far.”
What Rudd had failed to comprehend, was that the diplomatic hard line against the Interim Government of Fiji, is analogous to; speaking loudly, whilst carrying a twig.
"This government takes democracy in Pacific island countries seriously. It is not optional. It is what we do on in our part of the world."
It is beyond a doubt, that Rudd has obfuscated the definition of democracy and the Australian Government has repeatedly demonstrated regional hegemony towards Fiji; it will be no surprise that Rudd will face the same disdain in the region like his predecessor, John Howard.
While Rudd, conveniently raised the issue of free media in Fiji, it is rather ironic to learn that Australia is proposing a national Internet filter. It is certainly appearing that, domestic resistance to the Rudd's Government Internet filtering proposal, is building exponentially; and if that trend continues unabated, the concern of Fiji's lethargic path to democracy, will be the very least of Rudd's problems.
Global Voices blogger, John Liebhardht's posting examines the heated reactions to the issue of filtering, in Australia's segment of the blogosphere.
It seems that in both the Internet filtering issue and Fiji's progress to democracy have a common thread, which is the double speak of the Australian PM.
Spiked-Online reviews the debate leading up to the proposal:
To oversimplify it somewhat, the Rudd government’s proposal is so broad that the only way in which it could be deployed would be along the lines of crude keyword/image filters used by countries such as China, Iran and Turkey.
Mandatory Internet Filtering explained on Channel 9 (posted below)
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
The excerpt of FDP aritcle:
US calling for early election
6-Dec-2008 09:49 AM
FIJI has become increasingly isolated from international community and its Pacific neighbours as foreign assistance to vital sectors is in doubt and the economic outlook remains uncertain.
These were the sentiments of US ambassador Steve McGann as Fiji commemorated the second anniversary of the military overthrow in 2006.
According to McGann, the United States Government has repeatedly condemned the military takeover and restated its call for the rapid restoration of a democratically elected government. “The interim Government has had sufficient time to announce an election date and make the appropriate preparations.”
McGann said the United States stands with the Pacific Islands Forum and other international partners calling for a timely return to democracy in Fiji in 2009.
“On the second anniversary of the coup, we call on the Interim Administration to hold elections and return Fiji to democratic governance without further delay,” he said.
McGann was present at the launching of the fund and Movement for Democracy in Fiji (MDF) held at the Fijian Teachers Association Hall yesterday.
What is at question, is the integrity of McGann to comment about human rights issues, being a representative of a state that is presently, abusing International Law.
Fiji Times article also quotes McGann. The excerpt of the FT article:
Democracy a must in protecting human rights
Wednesday, December 10, 2008
Update: 11:52AM The United States Ambassador Steven McGann says democracy is the only form of government capable of securing and protecting human rights and fundamental freedoms over the long term.
Mr McGann was making his address on the 60th Anniversary of the Universal Declaration on Human Rights (UDHR) and International Human Rights Day, today.
He said the human rights and fundamental freedoms enshrined in the UDHR are endowed at birth to all human beings.
"If the great promise of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights is to be fulfilled, the international community and especially the world's democracies, cannot accept that any people in the world are condemned to live without dignity or under tyranny," he said.
"Democracy is a system of government of, by and for the people, based on the principle that human beings have the inherent right to shape their own future.
"But we humans are flawed creatures and therefore there must be built-in correctives and counterweights to democratic government, such as a robust civil society, a vibrant free media, a legislature and judiciary independent of the executive power, and a well established rule of law."
One should be reminded of the disastrous US track record of democracy and the rule of law, in the context of extraordinary rendition.
National Public Radio (NPR) web article describes one interesting case, that will be heard in a Federal Appeals court in New York, outlines the depravity and multitude of offenses carried out by the US Government agencies under the auspice of 'national security'.
The excerpt of the NPR article:
Court Weighs 'Extraordinary Rendition' Case
by Dina Temple-Raston
All Things Considered, December 9, 2008·
A federal appeals court in New York heard arguments Tuesday in the case of Maher Arar, a Canadian citizen who was flown from the U.S. to Syria for interrogation in a case of "extraordinary rendition."
Arar wants to sue the U.S. government for violating his constitutional right to due process — something he has not been permitted to do thus far because the Bush administration has said to do so would imperil national security.
The facts of the case are not in dispute. In 2002, U.S. authorities detained Arar at John F. Kennedy airport in New York. He was suspected of terrorism ties and was sent to Syria for interrogation. Arar spent 10 months there in a cell he called the "grave." He says he was tortured.
Eventually, Arar was allowed to return to Canada and a Canadian commission cleared him of all charges. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice has even said mistakes were made in Arar's case.
National Security Grounds
In court Tuesday, one of the 12 appeals court judges present grilled government attorney Jonathan Cohn on the government's national security contention.
"So the minute the executive raises the specter of foreign policy, national security, it is the government's position that is a license to torture anyone?" Judge Sonia Sotomayor said. "License meaning you can do so without any financial consequence. That's your position?"
"No. That is not our position," Cohn countered. "That is emphatically not our position."
Cohn said he thought the court should wait until Congress acted and found a new way to address these kinds of cases so that they could be tried but still protect national security interests. This was not a normal case, he said, because state secrets were at its root.
So far, two courts have blocked Arar's case from being heard, siding with the Bush administration that it could unintentionally reveal things that would hurt national security. That's why Tuesday's hearing was important and why all 12 judges on the court heard the arguments.
Something Fundamental At Stake
Maria LaHood of the Center for Constitutional Rights argued on behalf of Arar. She said the judges were weighing something fundamental. "What's at stake is whether our courts will uphold the law," LaHood said. "Whether they will say that, 'Yes, we will enforce the laws against torture in this country, we will enforce the laws that permit people to come into court, and we will uphold human rights.'"
While this was Arar's big day in court, he couldn't attend the hearing because he is still on a no-fly list and can't come to the United States.
Arar told NPR's Morning Edition that he was pursuing the case because no U.S. officials had been held to account for violating his human rights. "This needs to stop," he said. "Not only is it destroying the lives of innocent people, but it's not doing any good to the image of the United States."
It is unclear when the judges are expected to rule on his case.
New York Times article
Washington Independent article.
Globe and Mail article
Another shocker of a story covered by Press TV article, reports that an Italian court has suspended the trial of 25 CIA agents, allegedly involved in the act.
The excerpt of the Press TV article:
Italy to delay trial of CIA agents
Wed, 03 Dec 2008 19:26:05 GMT
Central Intelligence Agency headquarters in Langley, Virginia: A total of 25 agency operatives participated in the kidnapping of an Egyptian cleric.
Italy will delay the trial of 25 CIA agents and a US air force colonel involved in the 2003 kidnapping of an Egyptian cleric in Milan.
ASNA news agency reported Wednesday that an Italian judge had ruled for the trial of the kidnapping suspects to be delayed until May 18. Osama Mustafa Hassan, better known as Abu Omar, was snatched from a Milan street on February 17, 2003, in an "extraordinary rendition" operation coordinated between the CIA and Italian military intelligence.
The Egyptian cleric was then flown to his home country and was held in a high-security prison outside Cairo, where he says he was tortured. The case against the 26 Americans would be the first criminal trial in Europe over the secret US "extraordinary rendition".
The Italian government has rejected a request by Milan prosecutors to seek the extradition of the CIA agents and US Air Force Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Romano.
Among the CIA agents awaiting trial are former CIA Milan station chief Robert Seldon Lady and Rome CIA Station chief Jeffery Castelli.
Another shrill for the hybrid democracy in Fiji, whose opinion article which was published in the Fiji Times, had the tone of selective amnesia.
Kotoisuva's article contained some interesting points, that don't' exactly square with the facts brought about by the victims of extraordinary rendition. Among these points are:
- Human rights are international norms generally accepted as inherent in each person by virtue of their humanity. These norms help protect people everywhere from severe political, legal, and social abuses.
- Examples of human rights are the right to freedom of religion, the right to a fair trial, the right not to be tortured and the right to engage in political activity (civil and political rights collectively).
- These principles govern how the State and executive bodies relate to the citizens and how citizens relate to each other. You cannot compromise some rights for the achievement of others. Social, economic and cultural rights cannot exist without civil and political rights.
Sadly, it is now accepted worldwide that these egalitarian nations, who frequently preach about democratic principles are often the greatest abusers. Perhap's McGann's comment was selective to ignore US role in rendition and their subsequent isolation and ridicule for grand hypocrisy.
Kotoisuva's opening sentence:
WE live in a time when rhetoric is confused with action, and political semantics
confused with genuine achievements.
therefore holds true for the criminal actions perpetrated by the US and EU.
Friday, December 05, 2008
Sadly, there have been the usual chorus of displeasure, from the proponents of instant gratification democracy. Among those, is the Fiji Times Editor; whose Editorial of Dec. 5th 2008 had no new ideas to propose, just more of the same whining.
The Fiji Times Editor, Netani Rika was also interviewed by Fiji TV regarding the relationship between Fiji's media and the Interim Government.
Rika, displaying his usual miscreance; downplayed the errors of the media and pointed fingers at the Interim Government's policies, like a person with an axe to grind. Not surprising for a person, awaiting the decision on contempt of court charges.
On the other hand, the Richard Naidu, Fiji Broadcasting Corporation's News Director was more objective and impartial.
The title of Fiji Sun's Editorial of Dec. 5th 2008, was a truculent at worst. At best, it was almost as if the publication was praying for a disaster and those opinions were almost equivalent to the ramblings of the Fiji Times editorial.
Both Editorials appear to echo the sentiments in several blogs, almost word for word.
The excerpt of Fiji Sun editorial:
We look forward to more bad news
Two years ago from today the nation awoke to a military regime. What will we find when we awake on the same day two years from now - December 6, 2010? The answer, unfortunately, seems to be: much the same and possibly even worse. There was a lot of hope on that day two years ago even though there was also widespread apprehension concerning the overthrow at gunpoint of an elected government. Corruption was to end once and for all. It hasn’t and probably never will.
There was finally to be transparency, accountability and good governance in the state of Fiji. There is if anything less of all three than there previously was. No member of the Republic of Fiji Military Forces was to benefit from this coup. They all have or are about to. We will produce incontrovertible evidence of corruption in the Qarase regime and we will produce it next week.
Two years on we are still waiting and probably will be two years from today. We will hold an auction of government vehicles. Where are those vehicles today and what condition are they in? And, of course, we will return the nation to democratic rule through an election no later than March 2009 and the military will accept the outcome no matter what. It is not going to happen.
The list could continue. But as the abandoned pledges mount, the military regime and its puppet cabinet have seen their support level plummet as even ardent coup supporters have turned away. The blatant overspending by the military and its shameless 2009 budget allocation at the expense of the service ministries have left the nation in shock. The draft People’s Charter “consultation” process has been a charade from the start and will not be taken seriously either at home or abroad.
The military and the interim government have made it abundantly clear that they neither need nor fear public opinion. They are in power, they have the guns and they ain’t moving. Their business class travels take them all over the globe in luxury hotels while the people they purport to serve and protect suffer as the national economy stumbles towards crisis.
And only yesterday what is tantamount to an admission of error in the removal of the then chief justice Daniel Fatiaki has cost those same suffering people a cool $275,000 - plus legal fees, of course. This has been a coup quite unlike those before it. The military is here to stay and its People’s Charter confirms that. Increasingly we see the signs of a divided nation - the newspeak of the National Council for Building a Better Fiji notwithstanding.
We have a sullen majority suffering in comparative silence while the overlords and their hangers-on have it all their own way. So, again, what will have changed two years from now? Very little, we fear. Who will ever be able to persuade the military to confront the fact that it has made a woeful mess of running the nation? No-one, we fear.
Will Fiji have even some semblance of an election before December 6, 2010? Not likely, we fear. Those who can are leaving while those who can’t shrug and get on with their lives as best they can. We have come a long way in the wrong direction since those glowing promises of December 6, 2006. In “moving the country forward” we have gone many miles backwards. Fiji did not deserve this.
However, the Pacific Beat's program- On the Mat,
Pacific Beat- On the Mat program, special edition (MP3) also reviewed the 2nd anniversary of Fiji's 2006 coup. Surprisingly, the On the Mat episode, did not paint a broad brush of negativity; which was used liberally by the Editorials of both publications.
Fiji TV news segment also reviewed the 2006 events. Video posted below.
Wednesday, December 03, 2008
The excerpt of the FT article:
Chiefs back boycott
By Sakiasi Nawaikama on Kadavu
Friday, November 28, 2008
THE Bose Vanua (provincial chiefs council) of Kadavu has agreed to support the call by the paramount chief of Burebasaga to boycott the Bose ni Turaga (traditional leaders meeting) convened for next month by the interim Government.
The stand by the Roko Tui Dreketi, Ro Teimumu Kepa, was conveyed to the Kadavu Provincial Council on Wednesday night.
Ro Teimumu said earlier the Bose ni Turaga was unlawful and only a Bose Levu Vakaturaga (Great Council of Chiefs) could be called. The Burebasaga Confederacy recognises the BLV as the lawful and legislated body.
Yesterday, Ro Teimumu declined to comment on Kadavu's support and her call for a boycott.
The Kadavu Bose Vanua was told People's Charter teams that visited were accepted in the traditional manner but were told they stood by the resolve of the province and wouldn't accept the charter.
The meeting was told by a chief 80 per cent accepted the charter and he had no choice but to follow the will of his people. Another chief suggested the province review its stance and support the charter in the hope for a better future.
Tui Tavuki Ratu Narokete Waqanivavalgi, told the meeting that contrary to popular belief promoted by the NCBBF, he did not accept the charter. He said they accommodated NCBBF and government reps and stressed the province did not support the charter. He told the Bose Vanua this was misconstrued when the team returned to Suva.
Former Bose Vanua chairman Ratu Josateki Nawalowalo said on Wednesday the province should unite and support the Government through the charter process.
Bose Vanua chairman Ratu Varani Rayawa said he feared the charter would do more harm than good because it divided the province.
After this series of civil disobedience by the Chiefs, it would appear that a great democratic awakening has occurred among the indigenous populace, considering a recent letter to the editor by Koli Korovulavula, which was published by The Fiji Times.
The excerpt of FT Letter to the Editor:
Chiefs and democracyIn a Fiji Live article, which covered the Naitasiri Chief's demand for an apology; also contained comments from readers, who were profoundly against the chief's righteous indignation; while a few posters demanded their own apologies from the layer of chiefs who supported the 1987, 2000 coups and for the ripples of problems emanating from those events.
There are provinces that will not support the interim Government. Some have gone so far as to forbid individuals from attending the Bose ni Turaga.
What will happen to the people who go anyway? Will these people be ostracised? Can the chiefs throw them out of their own land?
Legally, land is owned by mataqali, not by chiefs. But there is one even more intriguing question: Why is there a need for chiefs to meet about a return to democracy when their very existence goes against the ideals of democracy?
Do we want democracy and peace? Do we want economic progress?
Do we want chiefs, protocols, heritage, traditions, religion or eternity? Do we want multi-racialism, better land use, qoliqoli rights and total land rights?
Past governments tried to achieve co-existence for some or even all the above wants. But we have to start with needs first if we are to move anywhere.
I hope that one day any child of this nation, without fear of being ridiculed for a lack of blue blood, can lay a legitimate claim to our highest office through achievement, loyalty, dignity and merit.
Until then, the Fijian commoner remains a discriminated soul in his or her own land.
Excerpts of comments from the Fiji Live article:
Posted By: david1005143 Posted On: Dec 02 2008
Comment: I think the chiefs should apologise to the people of Fiji for losing focus, sense of direction, corruption, and being counter productive. The monarchy has changed in England, how about you guys?
Posted By: brij Posted On: Dec 03 2008 00:18:40
Comment: People who want to invest in Fiji think twice when chiefs get involved in politics and government. Please let the commander do his job.
Posted By: Ula Nejad Posted On: Dec 03 2008 11:29:41
Comment: I agree that chiefs should apologise to the citizens of Fiji for their lack of integrity. Frank should let the chiefs know that he will explain himself at the meeting. That is as a military man he will stand by his regime as a native son of Fiji he will look to his excellency the President and chief to apologise to the people and chiefs alike when the time is appropriate. Nothing the chiefs can say now will have any effect. It seems they have lost their mana. They have to modernise the chiefly system if they have to stay alive. End of story.
Posted By: rommel Posted On: Dec 03 2008 01:12:00
Comment: This chief has the lunacy to lead their people, who continue to follow the trail of tears; which have left them disenfranchised and perpetually enslaved in poverty. It is without a doubt that most high chiefs (who attempt to keep their relevance in the socio-political arena without the mandate of the multi-racial society) are outdated in this era of high speed internet and 3G cell phones.
If they continue to demand respect without reciprocity, this will be the opening circle of their death spiral. The modern Taukei will move on with the times and will embrace change in technology, social progress and governance; with or without these chiefs. Lead, follow or just get out of the way.
Posted By: Temo Posted On: Dec 03 2008 01:49:54
Comment: Apologise for what? How about the chiefs apologising for the 1987 and 2000 coups ... hypocrisy!
Posted By: Ratu Kulati Posted On: Dec 03 2008 03:21:49
Comment: The days of our chiefly system are over. Would someone please wake up some of our stone aged chiefs from their deep slumber? Ratu Inoke, please join in the discussion or be left behind. It makes no difference to Bainimarama. He will achieve his objective with or without you.
Posted By: Jone Posted On: Dec 03 2008 03:25:06
Comment: Can we move the country forward without some of our disgruntled chiefs? I'm generally thinking what have they contributed to our country? Some have really been good role models to our nation/community. To the honourable chiefs, we as a country needs to move forward. We must make a choice in this 21st century we are living in, and I propose that the traditional chiefly system needs to be reviewed and probably reformed by the IG if they are to be part of the future arm of government. What would be the acceptable role of tradition in modern society?
Posted By: kradoak Posted On: Dec 03 2008 03:32:18
Comment: Fijian chiefs need to choose between democracy and the traditional Fijian autocracy. They cannot have both. Bainimarama does not owe an apology to the chiefs. It is the chiefs who owe apologies to the citizens of Fiji for letting them down.
Another interesting take on Fiji's politics was published in a blog from East-West center forum.
The politics of constitutionalism in Fiji
Author: Scott MacWilliam
While much attention focuses on the legal principles involved in the 2008 High Court decision in Fiji, less public notice is directed at the 1997 Constitution and some of the laws which have flowed from this document. Lawyers in particular have a long history of regarding upholding the rule of law as an almost sacred principle, regardless of whether a law or Constitution is meritorious by other principles, such as whether the law is just or the Constitution democratic.
Nor are those who defend the rule of law always aware that for others, legalism can form the basis for a political strategy in support of unjust and/or undemocratic laws. This strategy is currently being pressed by the former government and its supporters, in Fiji and overseas. People who are anxious to resolve the current impasse in Fiji need to be wary of lending support to a Constitution and associated laws which do not form the basis for a just or democratic settlement.
In the case of the 1997 Fiji Constitution, there is sound reason for arguing that it is undemocratic and that the laws which follow from the Constitution should be subject to more scrutiny and less respect than it and they are sometimes given. The outcome of the Constitution-making process, whatever the intentions of the people who formulated the initial document, is a decidedly undemocratic framework for a modern society such as Fiji.
The basis of this conclusion rests on the following points:
a) Contrary to claims that the Constitution received widespread popular support in Fiji before being adopted, it did not. Little more than ruling elite opinion was ever sought by the Constitution drafters and the final document was a compromise among the parliamentary representatives of this elite.
b) Under the Constitution, the President is not an elected office-bearer but appointed.
c) The Great Council of Chiefs, which at best only claims to represent one part of the national population (ethnic Fijians), is not elected yet wields inordinate power, including in the appointment of the President. The widely-held view, including among many of those whom the GCC purports to represent, is that much of the membership of this body is less than august: one popular description of the GCC is `Great Council of Thieves’.
d) The Senate, or upper house of the Parliament, is not directly elected, but again appointed, consisting mainly of party loyalists chosen with little or no attempt made to gauge if they have any substantial popular support.
e) The lower House of Parliament, where the Government is formed, is elected on an electoral system which is grossly malapportioned toward the rural areas. A vote in some seats is worth many times what a vote is worth in others. That is, whether formed by an ethnic-Fijian led party or an Indo-Fijian led party, the government does not necessarily represent the views of the majority of the people as a result of holding the majority of seats from electorates which conform to anything near the one-vote one-value democratic principle. Fiji general elections are even worse in this respect than Australian Federal elections were until the 1974 reform in this country.
In short, defenders of the 1997 Constitution and laws which flow from it are arguing that a democracy which would not be acceptable to constitutionalists in Australia, New Zealand and elsewhere should be upheld in Fiji. There is more than a slight degree of hypocrisy involved when it is suggested by implication that such `thin’ democracy is good enough for Fijians.
Instead of resorting to legalism as the basis for assessing the High Court decision, a political evaluation is required. The 1997 Constitution must be democratised, to move Fiji beyond being the thinnest of thin democracies Yet neither the ousted Laisenia Qarase-led government nor one led by any other party or party coalition elected on the existing electoral boundaries can be trusted to make the necessary reforms. While the capacity for reform may not lie with the military either, for the moment they hold the most important power and must be negotiated with, not treated as pariahs. It is to be hoped that political change in Australia and New Zealand will stimulate negotiations devoid of the moralistic and patronising preaching which has characterised much of both governments’ positions so far.
How soon political advance along these lines will occur depends to a certain extent, however, on whether the lawyers and some politicians have their way and the High Court decision is appealed. If this is done, it is highly likely that the military government in Fiji will become more and more intractable. It is to be hoped that instead of listening to the devotees of the rule of law principle, that the Australian, New Zealand and other governments recognise what is the central political as well as legal dilemma. How to reform a constitution by unconstitutional, deeply political means is the task which lies in front of all the parties.