Don't leap to judge Fiji coup

Fiji's political scene was featured in a post from Whale Oil.A learned reader pointed me at this article from the Presbyterian Church. It is something which caught me by surprise.  I didn't know the Presbyterian Church could show such good sense.  [quote]However, the actions of the military and the appointment of the interim regime have attracted much criticism from overseas governments. There have been



read more | digg story

Anatomy of Fiji's Event Horizon.

Two different opinions on Fiji diplomatic ties from the same newspaper, NZ Herald. The first article from correspondent Audrey Young.

A new era of diplomacy
Audrey Young:
Page 1 of 3

5:00AM Saturday June 23, 2007


It may be good politics for Opposition leader John Key to praise Helen Clark and Winston Peters for the way they have handled the diplomatic crisis with Fiji, as he has in today's Weekend Herald, but he has good reason to mean what he says.

It is hard to see how Clark and Peters could have handled the immediate crisis better. Having been hit with the bombshell on June 7 that Fiji intended to declare High Commissioner Michael Green persona non grata, they worked hard behind the scenes to prevent it happening.

Clark has taken the hard line the circumstances demanded of a Prime Minister. Peters has been equally as condemning but adapted a "more in sorrow than in anger" tone, reflecting the sentiment many New Zealanders feel about one of their favourite neighbours.

It is inevitable New Zealand will be accused of bullying by those who prescribe only to fair-weather diplomacy in the Pacific. There are times when the "there, there" approach just will not do.

Clark and Peters have pitched their message carefully to take account of both audiences and to try to avoid pushing ordinary Fijians further into the arms of the military commander. They have also sensibly reserved New Zealand's decision on reprisals. A sudden move would have understated the offence.


They wanted to see what response the Fiji cabinet would have to an assessment that an election is possible in March 2009, which is acknowledged to be more important than the diplomatic insult. It was agreed to in principle, the importance of which was lost in the wash of the Green affair.

Also lost in the wash was an extremely conciliatory statement issued by military head and Prime Minister Commander Frank Bainimarama on Thursday, extolling the value of the relationship with New Zealand and pleading the case for limited sanctions.

Fiji's willingness to see off Green quietly by having him not return from holiday suggests his expulsion does seem to be grounded in a personal dislike by Bainimarama. Bainimarama's failure to set out a convincing case for having ordered the expulsion reinforced the personal nature of the decision.


He has accused Green of interfering but offered as evidence only a speech delivered two months ago on the coup culture. It was a strongly critical speech. It was probably more critical than some New Zealand has endured from former US ambassadors over the nuclear policy, but no less critical than New Zealand could expect from the US if the New Zealand Army installed a puppet government.

Bainimarama's behaviour mirrors the coup itself, purported to have been conducted in the name of ousting a (newly elected) "corrupt" Fiji nationalist Government.

The firm view within the New Zealand Government is that Bainimarama was motivated by his desire to avoid probable charges arising from the deaths by beating of four Counter Revolutionary Warfare Unit members after they had killed four loyal soldiers (and almost Bainimarama) in a failed mutiny in November 2000.

New Zealand's short-term response to Green's expulsion will be a package of sanctions foreshadowed by Clark to be "serious and significant". They may not sound as such when they are announced because Clark and Peters are bound to sweeten the sanctions - banning transit for Government and military leaders - with an offer to help prepare for general elections in March 2009.

A replacement for Green is likely to be sent only if and when benchmarks are set in Fiji for the general election such as dates for the electorates and rolls to be finalised.

There are also high-level back-channels of communication open with Fiji which, by their very nature, are not broadcast to the world. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they are not there. As importantly, Clark and Peters have also maintained contact with Pacific Island Forum countries.


New Zealand's short and medium term priorities for Fiji appear to be helping it back to democracy which can put it back on path to economic development and independence. How to maintain that longer term is harder in a country with a coup culture that destabilises the whole region whenever one happens.

Constitutional reform hasn't worked on its own. Perhaps the only way to get rid of military coups is to reduce the power of the military.

No serious thought has yet been given to Australia and New Zealand recruiting large numbers of Fiji soldiers, in the way the British Army does, to boost their own ranks.

But it is an emerging idea in Australian think-tanks that may get a little more traction as officials and politicians on both sides of the Tasman start grappling with the need for a serious rethink on how they handle Fiji.

Despite expressing outrage at the situation, Clark and Peters have not delved too deeply into the politics of the coup. It is an unpredictable country led by an unpredictable man and they do not want to inflame the situation.

The racial politics of Fiji makes all coups complicated, this one more complicated that the last.

Although it was led by an indigenous Fijian military leader, it is seen widely seen as an Indo-Fijian coup. As well as the possible personal motivation for the coup, Bainimarama politically objected to measures that disadvantaged Indo-Fijians.

The coup has been embraced by many Indo-Fijians - with whom the commander has close personal relations - on the basis that "my enemy's enemy is my friend".

The fact that the Fiji Labour leader Mahendra Chaudhry signed up to be Bainimarama's finance minister was a bitter blow for New Zealand Labour and others who had supported him after he was deposed as Prime Minister in the 2000 coup. It may explain the disgust in Helen Clark's tone.

Her hard line has been seized upon by economic victims and apologists of the coup.

In this paper and other media, tourist operators have blamed the New Zealand Government travel warnings - which are relatively mild - for their own economic plight.

Clark expressed concerns again this week, with a hint of moral persuasion - hardly surprising from someone who comes from a tradition of taking moral stands against immoral situations in other people's countries.

Former All Black and Fiji resort owner Brad Johnstone would be familiar enough with that having toured South Africa in 1976 and captained Auckland against the Springboks in the 1981 tour.

New Zealand's style in the Pacific is changing. Kava diplomacy is gone. It may have carved out a more independent foreign policy under Clark's leadership in most parts of the world. But in the Pacific it has worked more closely with Australia, and along the way acquired some of its style.

The appointment of someone as senior as Green to Fiji in 2004 - he was a deputy secretary - was a sign New Zealand was taking the Pacific more seriously than it had.

It is a change of style and emphasis that is set to continue into the future, whether it is under John Key or Helen Clark.

The second perspective from the New Zealand Herald Editorial had a different take on the behavior of NZ Prime Minister, comparing her reactions to the expulsion of NZ High Commissioner to Clark's meeting with the Delai Lama.

Editorial: Fiji needs a diplomatic touch like the one we show to China
Page 1 of 2
View as a single page
5:00AM Sunday June 24, 2007



Zoologists call it displacement activity: an animal in a state of stress, frustration or uncertainty will perform an irrelevant action. A bird confronted by an opponent may peck at the grass. Humans respond to nervousness or confusion by scratching their heads. And that very odd creature called a politician will, when faced with an challenge she does not know how to deal with, start throwing her weight around somewhere where she counts.

How else to explain the startling contrast between the Iron Lady stance adopted by Prime Minister Helen Clark towards the military regime in Fiji and the meek and compliant nature of the snub she and her administration delivered to the Dalai Lama when he visited this week? Clark's meeting with the spiritual leader of the world's Buddhists and the Tibetan leader-in-exile since the Chinese occupation and annexation of his country in 1959, in an airport departure lounge in Brisbane, was carefully planned but intended to look serendipitous. The reason was plain: we are in the midst of negotiating a free-trade agreement (FTA) with the Chinese, who take a very dim view of any government recognising the Dalai Lama as the leader of a would-be independent Tibet. Meanwhile, the Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters did not meet His Holiness, but NZ First leader Winston Peters did.

Taken together with the Government's apparent connivance in March when New Zealand-based Chinese journalist Nick Wang was denied entry to a photo opportunity between Michael Cullen and Chinese Vice-Premier Zeng Peiyan, and with previous occasions when protesters have been hustled out of sight of visiting Chinese dignitaries, it adds up to a pretty craven look.

Critics of the Government's tiptoeing, such as Green MP Keith Locke, occupy an impeccable moral position when they demand that our representatives ignore the pressure - implicit and very probably explicit - brought to bear by the Chinese. But the People's Republic is the dragon of the world economy and this country would be foolhardy to ignore its sensitivities in matters of international relations.

Others have compared our position unfavourably with that of the Lange administration, which defied the nuclear hegemony in the 1980s. But the matters are not equivalent. The US in the mid-1980s had much less power over our trade fortunes than China does now. A better comparison is with the Lange Government's decision to release the Rainbow Warrior bombers, Mafart and Prieur, to what everyone knew would be brief internment on a Pacific atoll. Lange's attempt to paint the climbdown as a diplomatic victory fooled no one. And Clark's pas de deux with the Chinese is equally transparent. It would have been better for her to admit, in terms as vague and diplomatic as she chooses, that she was acting pragmatically, in this country's best interests.

Better, too, for her to practice a bit more of the diplomatic soft-shoe shuffle with the Fijians. The expulsion of our High Commissioner, Michael Green, is the sign of a Government under pressure, but no one should take comfort from that. It's hard to back down when your back is against the wall and Clark's thundering approach is the wrong one for a Pacific nation leader who needs to show leadership.

On his return, Green stopped well short of endorsing Clark's security warning to intending travellers. The PM would do well to work quietly behind the scenes to resolve the Fiji crisis, rather than coming out with guns blazing, causing collateral damage to Fiji's tourism industry. She may think she is diverting attention from the cringing attitude to China - but she is fooling nobody.

Seed Newsvine









Club Em Designs

The 7 Sins of NLTB.

In a follow up to a S.i.F.M posting on Natadola, an article published by Fiji Sun reveals the gross malpractice in the negotiation phase of the project. Other investigations, as reported by a Fiji Village article-that FNPF was investigating the allegations of the loan being unsecured.

Recent report by Radio NZ of a whistle-blower from Fiji National Provident Fund outlining the alleged malpractices in Natadola, sent to the office of APRIL's Chief Executive Keni Dakuidreketi. Ironically, it was the same Dakuidreketi who was heavily involved in securing the native land in question, by virtue of being a board member of Native Lands Trust Board. This issue has ignited heated dicussions in online forums like Fiji Exiles and My Fiji Friends.

APRIL's foreign investor license cancelled
Friday June 01, 2007

The foreign investor license for Asia Pacific Resorts International Limited (APRIL), the sacked project managers of the multi-million dollar Natadola project, and two other related companies has been cancelled.

Interim Commerce Minister Taito Waradi confirmed that the licenses have been cancelled by the Fiji Islands Trade and Investment Bureau. It is understood that the FTIB had initially issued a notice of cancellation of licences for APRIL, the Natadola Land Holdings Ltd and a related company Hotel Property Pacific Limited (HPPL) early last month.

The companies were given 15 days to reply. The licenses were cancelled two weeks ago.
Waradi says if the companies wanted to appeal the decision, they have to appeal to the ministry. "And it hasn't come yet. So I don't know whether they are going to appeal or not," [Waradi] said.

A principal of APRIL, Keni Dakuidreketi says he does not wish to comment on this "because there is a legal process involved".

No comments could be obtained from FTIB on why the licenses were cancelled. Both FTIB chief executive officer Lailun Khan and board chairman Jim Ah Koy are out of the country. Ah Koy said he has been in New Zealand for three weeks and could not make a comment.

APRIL has been in the spotlight since the newly appointed Fiji National Provident Fund board axed the company along with contractors COTEBA in March claiming the Natadola project was 26 weeks late and only 10 per cent of the work had been carried out after about $60 million was pumped into it.

Felix Anthony, the chairman of Natadola Bay Resort Ltd (NBRL) also claimed that Interpol reports show that the promoter of the Natadola project Gerard Saliot had a criminal record, which he did not disclose when obtaining a work permit.

APRIL and its chief executive officer Saliot are the founders of the Natadola project. Anthony went on to reveal details of Saliot's past and cancelled APRIL's contact as project managers.

In 2004, the NBRL had hired APRIL to be project managers for this development. Saliot is the principal of the three companies.

Fijilive

APRIL subsequently had their Foreign Investor License revoked as reported by Fiji Live article; the decision of which, is currently being appealed by APRIL according to a Fiji Village article.

The following is an excerpt from a Fiji Sun article:

Natadola has no proper documentation
Fiji Sun.
Last updated 6/21/2007 8:28:02 AM

The ousted project manager of the Natadola Development Project did not provide proper documentation on the project, the Fiji National Provident Fund claims in its report to Cabinet. The FNPF also alleged that with the native defects it has, the Natadola investment does not have valid security.

Defects that are sufficient to void the native land lease include;

• No survey carried out over the native land as requirement of the Native Land Trust Board


• De-reservation of native land not completed on the date of sale on July 2, 2004


• De-reservation of native land for the new lease not completed


• No evidence exist that section nine of Native Land Trust act was satisfied objectively prior to the issuing of the lease of the land sold to NLH


• Dissatisfaction by landowners manifested in Civil action 33 of 2007


• Conflict of Interest that exist at all times between NMRL and NLTB on the issue of common directorship

The report also stated that the value attributed to the land and the concept contributed by APRIL, $20million, was greater than valuations of land prepared by Jones Lang LaSalle and Colliers, which was $5.5million.

• APRIL was entitled to a 15 per cent ‘special dividend’ on gross land sales


• APRIL secured fees from Management Works, was paid a monthly fee of . The whole Natadola project is unknown and it is not prudent investment procedure to have such an investment


• APRIL gained from contributing a defective land lease and not cash to finance the project


• Management services appear to have been given to APRIL to undertake because of its existing involvement in the project. The basis of APRIL’s dollar value of monthly fees is unclear and there appears to be no tender process in this regard


• Feasibility Studies were done by Euro-Asia Management which is an donkey of APRIL and thus independence is questionable


• NBRL continues to pay outstanding invoices to contractors who were contracted by APRIL since August 2006


• Due diligence and analysis originated from APRIL and not from FNPF or FIL


• Increases in total budgeted costs by $73.1 million from $270 million in 2003 to $343 in 2005.

Fiji Times article, quotes the Interim Fijian Affairs Board Minister who commented on the unsecured lease of the land occupied by the Natadola project. Undoubtedly, this very aspect of unsecured lease of native land, raises serious questions on the integrity of NLTB and quality control mechanisms into their entire portfolio of hotel projects in Fiji.

Lease hinders resort: Minister

Saturday, June 16, 2007


THE issue of the unsecured native land lease title at Natadola Resorts could have been ironed out had there been a clear line of communication between all the parties involved and the Native Land Trust Board, interim Fijian Affairs Minister Ratu Epeli Ganilau says.

He said while the Fiji National Provident Fund required a properly secured lease to release the funds, the NLTB said a provisional or temporary licence was enough for the developers to begin work and even use this provisional title to solicit funds for development purposes.

However, yesterday landowner representative Ratu Osea Gavidi said landowners would now take their land back and would not allow Fiji National Provident Fund Investment Limited to continue development in the area.

Ratu Osea said landowners had been neglected in the ordeal and they were now doing what was best for them. [Gavidi] said they would consult the NLTB regarding their options and if the NLTB did not act in their best interests, they would seek legal redress.

Ratu Epeli said the NLTB's stand was that after issuing the provisional title developers could then secure the permanent title while development continued.

A subsequent article by Fiji Times in light of these discrepancies in Natadola, forced the Interim Minister to offer equity of the Hotel project as a good will gesture to the landowning units, after being manipulated by officials employed by NLTB.

Shares offer for landowners

Saturday, June 23, 2007

LANDOWNERS at Natadola have been offered equity shares in the multi-million dollar hotel project being developed on their land.

This was revealed by interim Minister for Fijian Affairs Ratu Epeli Ganilau at his first meeting with the landowners of the vanua Nasoqo, at Sanasana Village, in Nadroga, on Thursday.

[Ganilau] said the meeting was prompted by a visit initiated by landowners of Nasoqo, who raised several concerns about the Natadola project. He told the villagers they would have to clarify with the FNPF the company they would invest in and how much shares would be offered.

"This was the first vanua delegation to have visited me in my capacity as interim Minister for Fijians Affairs and Provincial Development," [Ganilau] said. Ratu Epeli said at the meeting it was clear to him the issues they wanted to him to look into, which was why he wanted to update them on progress made since then.

The delegation requested: The continuation of development at Natadola; that another meeting be held between the Fiji National Provident Fund and the landowners before they make a decision on APRIL, the original land developers; that the trickle effect of development on the land not be reserved to the lease premium or royalty but equity shares be offered by the FNPF so they could have ownership of the overall development.

Ratu Epeli said the FNPF had decided APRIL no longer held the licence to develop the area. He warned landowners to be vigilant of rumour monger."I urge you, the landowners, to be firm and to love one another in this matter," he said.

What is concerning is that, why weren't these project shares part of the original negotiations by NLTB?
Reviewing the reports into Natadola, it is now apparent that officials within the NLTB had undercut the landowners for their own financial gain. What irks most landowners and the greater public is that, Why didn't these transactions raise any red flags in the entire system of Fiji's land tenure?
What happened to accountability, checks and balances?

A Fiji Live article covers the preliminary investigations in Native Lands Trust Board and their involvement with Hotel developments in Fiji.

NLTB investigation report ready
Thursday June 21, 2007

A report on the investigation into Fiji’s Native Land Trust Board will be submitted to the Interim minister for Fijian Affairs tomorrow. The report will be submitted by the Independent Investigating Team into Institutions Fijian (IITIF), which was set up by the interim Government to investigate all Fijian institutions.

“A report will be handed over to Ratu Epeli and interim Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama for their scrutiny and also if the need arises than the Fiji Independent Commission against Corruption (FICAC) will be involved,” said board member Ponipate Lesavua.

“Altogether 68 cases of corruption, illegal land sales, misuse of funds and secret dealings between certain chiefs and hotel developers are contained in the report,” he said.

He also said contained in the report are investigations regarding Fiji-born millionaire, Ballu Khan concerning his involvement with NLTB. “Although the NLTB board has carried out its own investigations into Khan, our team have come out with a different matter altogether.”

“Credit should be given to KPMG after auditing NLTB and this has also made our work much easier.”He said certain discrepancies have been labeled against Khan which is contained in the report.“This will not be revealed until it has been scrutinized by Ratu Epeli.”

A prominent chief is also under investigations for allegedly swindling thousands of dollars out of landowners and making dubious deals with hotel developers in the Coral Coast.“The case regarding the chief has been classified as a criminal case and we will surely involve police in this matter.”

IITIF have wrapped up investigations on the Native Land Trust Board and will be moving to the Ministry of Fijian Affairs soon before a ‘clean up’ at the Great Council of Chiefs begins.

The team comprises Colonel Apakuki Kurusiga as chairman and Ratu Luke Yavaca as deputy chairperson. Other members are former Senator and police inspector Ponipate Lesavua, Kalaveti Batibasaga, a consultant on indigenous affairs and Alifereti Roko, the senior auditor at the Ministry of Finance.

Other Fijian institutions subject to scrutiny by the team include the Fijian Affairs Board, Native Land Commission and all other interdependent institutions like the Fijian Scholarship Unit and Provincial Councils.

Fijilive

Club Em Designs

Blogging Ethics.

NZ Journalist, Micheal Field's new article post-deportation points to the postings from the blog: Why Fiji Is Crying that openly advocates violence.

Seriously, this blog has certainly made its mark in irresponsibility and should not be a reflection of all other Fiji bloggers. Speaking of which, S.i.F.M welcomes the two new blogs on Fiji: Blog in Fiji and Fiji Rugby Blog.

Club Em Designs

Diplomatic Straits.

Interesting article appearing on blog titled "The Briefing Room" which was also referenced on a NZ blog: Whale Oil Beef Hooked, which had a thought provoking posting regarding the expulsion of Micheal Green and deportation of Micheal Field. A seemingly opposite perspective was seen in the harangue by No Right Turn.

Fiji Problem

This in from a correspondent of ours:

Thought you might be interested in this, which I've sent to the PM, Winston, Mikky Cullen, Ron Mark, Leighton Smith, Rodney Hide Gerry Brownlee and Bill English

Methinks 'tis time for a modicum of good old-fashioned honesty, credibility, and integrity. This was sent to me by Thakur Ranjit Singh, a migrant from Fiji who is concerned about the way New Zealand is trying to undermine the progress of the return to a non corrupt government. It has been claimed that the "democratically elected government" was not above some dodgy dealings involving the Fiji Holdings Limited, no doubt more information will be forthcoming in due course. Jim Sowry, Warkworth

Michael Green and Field cannot blame others for their Fiji expulsion

Thakur Ranjit Singh, Auckland, New Zealand

If NZ Government claims that the expulsion of Michael Green came as a surprise then it is a white lie. This is because the NZ government was warned about Michael Green's behaviour some four months earlier by members of Fiji community in Auckland.

NZ Labour Party had been concerned with its falling ratings and intelligence that Fiji's migrant community had been unhappy with its uncompromising and insulting attitude towards Fiji. To gauge the feeling, it commissioned a meeting with Fiji's community leaders in Auckland at Ministry of Internal Affairs office where I was in attendance. The meeting was attended by a NZ Labour Party Minister, a listed Member of Parliament and leaders of Fiji community.

The meeting was told about Michael Green's behaviour towards the military regime as well as people of Fiji seeking services from NZ High Commission. It was reported that Michael Green was very close to Qarase regime and could not fathom the fact that he would no longer be in the cocktail circuit after Qarase's removal in December last year.

Subsequent to that it was recently revealed to me by an Auckland taxi driver where one of his Kiwi passengers reportedly told him that Michael Green was cross with the military because his brother had been involved in some investment in Fiji under SDL regime, and that was on hold at the moment. This I have not been able to confirm, and perhaps is a job involving some investigative journalism. Therefore it has yet to be revealed whether Green's wrath with the military was professional or personal.

We need to see how Fiji citizens got treated by Michael Green's regime at NZ High Commission in the Reserve Bank Building where the Commission is based. Before the coup, anybody seeking services could go up to their offices but after December, people were herded outside the building where you had to queue like herd of Kiwi sheep to seek services, in sun rain and storm.

While Australian High Commission could issue visitors visa in just ten days, NZ High commission took at least 30 days. An aunt of mine who is mother of two leading journalists in Fiji has applied for her visa to visit Auckland so see her sick brother in early April, 2007 but has only got her visa in June, only when the sponsor from Auckland had to call NZ High Commission.

New Zealand professes itself as a country leading in productivity, yet the time it takes them to process visas in Fiji after December shames them when compared to Australians or any other Embassy in the world. Perhaps it would be interesting to know how many unprocessed visa applications are held by NZ High Commission in Fiji today. It would run into thousands, and perhaps the reason why Air Pacific had to cut back on flights, as increasingly larger numbers of Fiji people are visiting New Zealand now.

Every man and his dog either applying for a NZ visa or already on NZ work permit were made to fill forms declaring that they were not related anyway to Frank Bainimarama. Under Michael Green's regime, you were your brother's keeper. Joe Rokocoko's fiancée, daughter of former military spokesperson had her work permit not renewed because she accidentally happened to be daughter of her father, while her cousin, bearing the same surname was denied a NZ scholarship because of accident of birth.

While Helen Clark and Winston Peters are political animals, Michael Green is not. He is supposed to be a respected career diplomat, but he revealed little evidence of this. Merely dancing to tunes of political leaders, who come and go, is not a very good habit for any astute civil servant. As the Commander recently said, we cannot argue about the legality of the events. We must be pragmatic and understand that Military was governing the country with the mandate of the President.

He failed to appreciate the reality of the situation and has now paid a heavy price for it.

The other Michael also came into prominence. The supposedly expert in Pacific affairs, Michael Field was detained at Nadi on the eve of marching orders to Michael Green and deported the following morning to New Zealand.

On 20th December, some two weeks after the removal of Qarase regime, Coalition for Democracy in Fiji held a panel discussion on Fiji affairs in Auckland. Apart from Suliana Siwatibau and N Z MP Keith Locke, I was also one of the speakers. Michael Field also attended this forum. In my presentation which was reported in Fiji as well as NZ papers, I revealed the ills of Qarase regime. The theme of my presentation was that: democracies that are devoid of or lacking in granting freedom, rights and equality to all its citizens and those without social justice are not worth defending. Qarase's regime that Bainimarama removed was an epitome of such a democracy. Michael Field did not report any part of my presentation. I am not cross that he did not report me but he displayed acute case of dereliction of media ethics in not telling Kiwis what they deserved to know.

Michael Field works for a very influential NZ mainstream media which shuns migrants as its journalists. When you look around at the paternalistic NZ mainstream media, they profess to be experts in Pacific affairs but hardly employ any sizable Fiji or Pacific journalists, as they rely on Kiwi parachute journalist to cover Pacific issues, and hence New Zealand's jaundiced views on Pacific.

While Michael Field had a strategic position to inform ignorant Kiwis on the actual Fijian politics, he missed this opportunity and abused his position in joining the bandwagon in calling the military thugs from day one and failed to reveal the shortcomings of Qarase to NZ. It is surprising that I as a migrant to New Zealand was made to reveal the actual truth about atrocities under Qarase's regime. I have difficulty in getting articles to mainstream media in NZ because the perception here is that migrants cannot write.

If Michael Field was indeed the veteran journalist then he should not have abused his position and status in keeping Kiwis ignorant about what was really happening in Fiji. My experience shows that like NZ Labour Party, New Zealanders generally are still ignorant about Fiji and this had to do with a journalist like Michael Field who while occupying an influential position indulge in news selling reporting rather than informative reporting.

Therefore the two Kiwi Michaels, both Green and Field had it coming. It is not only Bainimarama who needs to learn the art of Diplomacy, but on his return to NZ, Green needs to attend a course on diplomacy himself. Michael Green needs to be pragmatic about the situation as the interim administration was governing the country and decides what it does. As a diplomat, he was not a politician and hence should have respected Fiji's sovereignty.

And it is so important for New Zealand mainstream media to have Pacific or Fijian journalists reporting on Fiji issues and informing the ignorant Kiwis on local politics, so that they get the correct picture.

But unfortunately, the mainstream media in New Zealand is in no hurry to use Fiji journalist who have migrated to New Zealand, and will depend on jaundiced views from parachute journalists from New Zealand. Unfortunately, such views appear to get copied as New Zealand's foreign policy in the Pacific.

E-Mail: thakurji@xtra.co.nz

(About the Author: Thakur Ranjit Singh is Fiji migrant to NZ, commentator on Fiji issues and is human rights activist and advocate of good governance.)
Download winmail.dat

Another intriguing view of the expulsion of New Zealand's High Commissioner was a blog posting from Micheal Tarry's blog titled Magnus Frater Spectat Te.

This is an excerpt:

Fiji: It's an independent country now.

Sovereignty is a difficult and complex thing. Philosophers in several countries, in several centuries, in several notable tomes, have considered the concept. Thinkers from Aristotle to Bodin to Mill to Schmitt and others have thought and pondered, and each has a different position. Each has dismissed their predecessor, and each in turn was dismissed by their successor.

It would seem that the nature of sovereignty presents conundrums without answers at all; indeed, asking the political theorist to define sovereignty is akin to asking the theologian to define God, or the metaphysicist to define love.

Similarly, asking the theorist to determine who may exercise sovereignty and what rights and prerogatives such a sovereign might have would be like asking our theologian, having defined God, to tell us why we ought to believe in Him and not some other deity, or of our metaphysicist, who once setting out what constitutes love, is then called upon to tell us why, as the case might be, love is limited to relations between people and not animals.

The problem of sovereignty has been brought to the attention of this part of the world by the expulsion of the ambassador of New Zealand to Fiji by that country's current leader. The New Zealand High Commissioner, Michael Green, was ordered to leave Fiji by it's military ruler, Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama because the latter had believed Green was interfering in Fijian domestic political matters.

Consequently, and understandably, governments across the Pacific have vented their collective spleen upon Bainimarama. One simply cannot go about expelling diplomats left and right. New Zealand and Australia talked of upping the ante with more sanctions, and our Prime Minister declared that Cabinet (which met this morning) would "weigh up it's options." Such is well and good, and Helen Clark is welcome to consider her position all day and well into the night.

In doing so, she would merely be exercising her right to make whatever decisions she likes as the leader of a sovereign and utterly independent country. New Zealand is it's own master: we have cocked snooks before at the United States, and the United Nations, and Australia, and China, and anyone whom we don't particularly wish to kowtow before on such-and-such an issue.

We lose all semblance of having anything approaching the moral high-ground when it is realised that Fiji, like New Zealand, is a sovereign state. Bainimarama's government can expel whomever it pleases, whenever it pleases, entirely upon whim. Clark could do precisely the same for such is what sovereignty allows.

Crawford (in 1979) wrote "Sovereignty does not mean actual equality of rights or competences: the actual competence of a state may be restricted by its constitution, or by treaty or custom. The term sovereignty accurately refers not to the totality of powers which all states have, but to the totality of powers which states may, under international law, have." It doesn't matter whether we approve of Fiji's sovereign actions - we don't need to. We didn't approve of the coup - we didn't need to.

We condemned it, certainly, and we can heap opprobrium and sanctions upon Fiji for the reminder of eternity but it will not diminish in the least the existence of Fijian sovereignty and concordantly the prerogative of Fiji to do whatever it damn well wants within it's own borders. If they want coups galore, so be it: there's nary a thing we can or should do to prevent it. If they want to expel our ambassadors and ignore our entreaties, so be it: we have ignored their demands before.

If New Zealand does succeed in getting it's own way, then we will have proved only one thing. We will have shown that we are merely bullies of the sort we usually disapprove of. We will have refuted the principle that "sovereignty is the ultimate territorial organ which knows no superior." We will have trumped Bodin and his fellows, and will have added our own name to the list of philosophers-of-sovereignty who simply beg to be rebutted.

Interesting enough, the issue of sovereignty was raised last year as reported by Island Business article that, accused Australia of breaching it. Along with ignoring the moral dimensions raised by Journalist Graham Davis in his article.



Club Em Designs

Flight of the Intruder.

In a follow up to a S.i.F.M posting regarding the Australian Black Hawk helicopter crash location. Today video footage was released showing the actual crash, which broke the tail rotor off and footage of the wreckage in deep waters within Fiji.

Club Em Designs

The Question of Growth.

In a Fiji Live article, Sri Lanka's Central Bank Governor raised an important case study of his own nation in the midst of decades old civil war. The remarks would seem to contradict widely held convictions regarding stability and macroeconomics recently voiced by a USP financial expert in a Fiji Times article.

Fiji can grow despite coup
Tuesday June 19, 2007

A small country like Fiji can achieve positive growth irrespective of internal strife or external pressures, says Sri Lanka’s Central Bank Governor Ajith Cabraal.

Cabraal made this comment during the Fiji Institute of Accountants annual Congress three days ago saying Fiji had the potential to succeed despite the coup.

He said while coups can not be prevented, “the less you think about it and the more you think about economic activity, when it (coups) happens again you would still be able to move forward”.

Cabraal based that comment after drawing reference to ongoing conflict between the Sri Lankan government and a separatist militant group known as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam (LTTE or the Tamil Tigers) in the northeastern parts of the country.

He said in the beginning, LTTE’s “terrorist attacks” had paralysed Sri Lanka, halting economic activity, every time one occurred.

“However, over time we began to look at the attacks as an irritant which has to be dealt with and at the same time did not allowed it to paralyse the nation.”

Cabraal said the economy of Sri Lanka progressed when its people made this transition that the “irritant” would not affect their lives.

Sri Lanka recorded an unprecedented 7.4 per cent growth of its economy last year, a feat Cabraal said many Sri Lankans had brushed off as unattainable.

Cabraal said a lot of people in Sri Lanka still “give the excuse that Sri Lanka has a terrorist problem or an ethnic conflict or a political problem” and therefore cannot attempt “serious economic development or growth”.

“We Sri Lankans had consistently used the terrorist problem as the convenient scapegoat when explaining why we are not able to do many things.”

Cabraal said governments could take some proven steps in stimulating their economies.

“The political leadership in the country should be committed to a long term economic vision and strategy that promoted strong growth,” he said.

“Growth does not happen by accident.

“It has to be thought through carefully and painstakingly. Lessons of past experiences, good and bad, should be evaluated.”

Cabraal said the leadership should have the courage and capacity to go through with strategies “even in the face of serious challenges”.

He said the leadership could also encourage patriotism in the people and the work force, which enhances productivity.

“There should also be a can-do national attitude amongst the people,” Cabraal said.

“We have to take bold steps and build confidence to overcome the ‘some-one-else’ syndrome, where very often, many of us are content to watch and criticise while expecting others to do.”

Cabraal said Sri Lanka’s economic growth can be duplicated in Fiji but only of its people and leadership have the determination and “positive attitude” to do so.

Fijilive

On the performance of Fiji's overall economy, reports from Fiji Live article points out an 10% increase in Fiji's exports.

Fiji exports up 10%: Chaudhry
Monday June 18, 2007

Finance Minister Mahendra Chaudhry
Fiji's exports have increased by 10 per cent in the first four months of 2007, says interim Finance Minister Mahendra Chaudhry.

He said it could have been better if Fiji was able to take advantage of with its mahogany resources that is "still untapped".

Chaudhry said Fiji's foreign reserves are stable "at the moment" and imports are down.

"But we would like to see other resources like mahogany and fisheries to also to play a part in enhancing our export levels."

Chaudhry said compared with the same period last year, Fiji's "agricultural sector has preformed well".

"Our agricultural, wood exports are up by 10 per cent compared to the 2006 exports for the same period from January to April," he said.

Chaudhry said Fiji has also been able export an extra 55,000 tonnes of sugar to the European Union that is "over and above our usual sugar quota and this should fetch us a good price".

"While this increase in sugar revenue will assist our exports, we have also got to work extra hard and enhance other exports and that is very critical to our balance of payments."

Chaudhry expressed concerned with "the fact that mahogany is still lying untapped".

"This huge resource should enter the economy and we are now giving it priority," he said.

Chaudhry said the priority is to "sort out the disputes that exist in this particular area between the landowners and the Fiji Hardwood Cooperation Limited".

The former Prime Minister of the Peoples Coalition Government of 1999 knows very well the disputes in the mahogany industry, which was a contentious issue between his deposed government and the mahogany landowners during his one-year term in office.

In fact George Speight who led the uprising on May 2000 and took Chaudhry and his government hostage for 56 days was the former director of the Fiji Hardwood Cooperation.

This time Chaudhry said he will sort out the disputes before moving on to the "next stage", which is getting "strategic partners into the industry to downstream processing of this huge resource which will not only befit our exports and the national economy but more particularly the indigenous resource owners".

Fijilive

Club Em Designs

Singing the Blues.

New Zealand Prime Minister, Helen Clark, has alot of things in Fiji not go her way, which probably sums up her latest vitriolic outbursts regarding Fiji's diplomatic re-shuffling.

Understandably, even the NZ media have found in Clark, an outstanding profile to lampoon; since the disappointing opinion poll found Clark's rival National Party slam dunk over her own popularity. A podcast analyzes the political forecast in NZ. Perhaps, there's nothing like positioning Fiji as a convenient whipping post to perk up Clark's poll rating or the issue could force her to an early retirement.








Club Em Designs

Latitudes of the Truth.

Two different takes on the sentiments regarding the comments of former Fiji Vice President Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi's opinion(PDF) on the post- 2006 coup events, appeared in the Fiji Times Letters to the Editor including a paper by the former CEO for Prime Minister's office, Jioji Kotobalavu, both of whom were invitees to the Australian National University workshop.

One must be appraised with palatial leanings of the participants to the ANU workshop in order to honestly analyse the multitude of opinions from the various players and prudently arrive at a unbiased, impartial and truthful conclusion.

The following are excerpts to the Letters to the Fiji Times Editor:

Wake up

I'm asking the Prime Minister of this country and his fellow ministers to please wake up.

Since December 5 last year, the nation has sat back and watched you parade the "clean-up" slogan.

It's been six months now and we are seeing otherwise; Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi eloquently described the latter in his paper that was presented at the Australian National University.

Yet he was being labelled a racist and an opportunist who is using the plight of the indigenous people.

For your information, Ratu Joni's presentation is actually the echo of the minds of the majority of this country.

The silent query about the real motives of December 5 last year.

Why are we now witnessing court cases that appear to be personal vendettas?

Why is the famous father (puppeteer) and son (puppet)' part of this regime?

Why do we feel that this is now becoming an ethnic issue as evident in the appointments of key positions?

Why do we feel that there is a new cloud of religious domination at the national level, as evident in the key positions in the judiciary, the HRC and elsewhere?

I'm just merely echoing the silent query of the many.

The silence is bound to break, usually via explosions.

Please, let's learn from the mistakes of past leaders. Your actions are speaking louder than your press releases. Wake up!

Sereana Raisili
Nasinu


Old adage

I think it's the Chinese who have a saying: A reputation takes many years to build but only seconds to destroy.

In my opinion Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi finds himself in this tragic situation.

His image for multi-racialism has suffered a severe setback with the comments he made in Australia.

No amount of defending his reputation now will restore the damage.

A person in his position should not have staked his credibility on mere perceptions' as he calls them, knowing full well that they were not true.

Was he trying to be smart at the expense of truth?

Kavita Singh
Nasinu

Club Em Designs

Ethnonationalism & Spin Doctoring in Fiji.

Fiji's former Vice-President has some objections to the forward momentum of the nation, reflected in his impartial statements published in a Fiji Times article. The following is an excerpt:

Ratu Joni: Coup weakened law

Sunday, June 10, 2007

THE military commander Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama and his close advisers saw the military as the ultimate guarantor of the peace as echoed in their public statements and private discussions, says ousted Vice-President Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi.

Speaking last week at the workshop on the Fiji Coup six months on, organised by the Australian National University Ratu Joni said with the military arrogating for itself the role of guardian and protector, the Police Force had increasingly demoralised.

He said the reformed and rebuilding of morale implemented by former Police Commissioner Andrew Hughes had dissipated gradually since his departure last year.

"The military has blurred the boundaries between policing and security roles at the cost of police independence and autonomy," Ratu Joni said.

Ratu Joni said paradoxically, the business community was quick to embrace the expanded reach of the military.

"They welcomed the presence of checkpoints and the involvement of the military in policing as having a salutary effect on crime and while such tunnel vision was understandable it was shortsighted.

"There has been a real undermining of the rule of law by the military's acts and while crime has not diminished, it has simply relocated elsewhere."

Ratu Joni said breaches in human rights had been on a wide scale culminating in the deaths of Nimilote Verebasaga, 41, and Sakiusa Rabaka, 19.

He said there were two related objectives for human rights abuses.

"The first was to intimidate and frighten opponents of the military where skills acquired in soldiering abroad have been deployed for such ends.

"The second was to consolidate their position by assuming policing functions in the months after the coup," Ratu Joni said

Ratu Joni said the military readily attended to inappropriate calls for intervention from many Indians, and citizens frustrated or dissatisfied with the level of police investigations on their behalf. He said the helplessness of the ordinary citizen was heightened by the inexplicable stance assumed by the Fiji Human Rights Commission in (FHRC) favour of the military.

Ratu Joni said a majority of the minority communities felt marginalised and deprived by the previous SDL government including the Catholic Church hierarchy, a significant section of civil society, elements in the judiciary as well as some in the private sector.

He said the interim Government formed by Commodore Bainimarama, in January was revealing.

"While multi ethnic in character, it has limited Fijian support.

"The Fijian politicians in the interim Cabinet were unsuccessful candidates at the last general election with the exception of one member of the SDL represented by default," Ratu Joni said.

He said the interim Government was perceived by Fijians as the handmaiden of Mahendra Chaudhry. [Madraiwiwi] said Fijians were convinced this was an Indian coup.

Irrefutably, the comments by the Madraiwiwi, reflects a pitiful attempt to stoke the flames of ethnic divisions in Fiji, which he as a chieftain has exploited. The broad brush used by the former Vice-President in painting the 2006 coup as, predominantly favoured by one ethnic race is among the greatest manipulations of the facts. Madraiwiwi's assertion on the issue of racial perceptions to the 2006 coup, lacks empirical evidence and should be considered as pure speculation designed to incite any remnants of ethnonationalistic fear mongering.

There is an overwhelmingly number of indigenous Fijians, exceedingly happy with this clean up campaign, which has injected "checks and balances" over these native institutions and exposed the mega scams in Native Lands Trust Boars like the Pacific Connex MySap debacle, the underhand dealings in Natadola, the scams in Fiji Sports Council and a host of other wiful and wholesale malfeasance.

Where was the moral virture of Madraiwiwi, when these misappropriations were repeatedly raised in the media and blogs?

This pandemic of corrupted chiefs and politicians are much more of threat to the rule of law in Fiji, than the concerns raised by Madraiwiwi. Clearly, the actions of the former Vice-President speaks louder than his comments.

The rule of law in Fiji had been despotically maligned by these native institutions which Madraiwiwi himself, is a benefactor of. This stains his integrity in being honest observer of Fiji's socio-political landscape. If anything, Madraiwiwi's mandate in speaking on behalf of all indigenous Fijians, is highly questionable with respect to the issue of equality under the law.

A similar styled misrepresentation was reflected in a recent Fiji Daily Post Editorial.

Misrepresenting the Dangers of Ethnonationalism.


The editorial by the Fiji Daily Post titled “Ethnonationalism, Yes. Ethnocentrism, No” published on 28th May, 2007 leaves an unpleasant reflection of fair and balanced coverage; as well as revealing the Editorial's selective use of the word: Ethnonationalism.

The following paragraph is an excerpt of the definition of ethnonationalism, used by the Fiji Daily Post:

“Ethnonationalism is a respectable idea. In it, one takes pride in one’s ethnos (i.e. people-group) and in the social organisation of that people-group into a modern nation. No human alive should be unhappy about one’s ethnos per se, and ethnonationalism is a healthy pride to have. It is the sentiment which has kept all of the world’s rainbow plurality of ethnic people-groups alive and surviving. If we lose our sense of ethnonationalism, we may as well cease to exist. We may as well give up our borders, our resources and our beloved ones to the invasion of alien peoples and cultures or to the majorities in which we may find ourselves. Ethnic pride is a condition of survival; it is a survival instinct.”

Ethnic pride can be safely demarcated from the questions of nationhood. Ethnic pride also means taking the time to re-examine the ethos of ethnic pride, with the fundamentals of moral values. It means questioning the inherent dichotomy of ethnonationalism and seeking accountability for the abuse of native institutions in Fiji. Confusing survival with ethnonationalism is among the chief motivations of the Fiji Daily Post and all those who pander to the same divisive ideology.

At this juncture of Fiji's political turmoils, the issue of ethnonationalism is a loaded subject many readers are familiar with. Although, the Daily Post suggests that Ethnonationalism is akin to taking pride in one's ethos; it is factually incorrect to extend that definition to the political sphere. Every person is proud of their own culture, as much as the next person, but aligning ethnicity with nationalism, demeans any rational and impartial objectives of multiculturalism.

The Editorial further fabricates the dangers of the border security incursions, in the absence of ethnonationalism. Claiming with questionable authority that:

“ If we lose our sense of ethnonationalism, we may as well cease to exist. We may as well give up our borders”.

It begs the question, what does surrendering Fiji's international borders have to do with domestic ethnonationalism? Fallaciously, the Daily Post attempted to tie the fears of self-existence, along with the concept of multiculturalism.

It is these similar threats that were used extensively in Fiji, that resulted in the 1987 and 2000 coups. Fortunately, the 2007 Interim Government has the diligence and knowledge to separate the issues of border security and ethnic incitement, as well as isolating those individuals who use these fears for political mileage. The constant referrals to ethnocentrism by the Fiji Daily Post Editorial is a convenient veneer, obfuscating the true meaning of ethnonationalism and racism in Fiji:

"Ethnocentrism is the unhealthy psychological attitude that one’s people-group is all that matters. That one’s culture ought to be the measuring stick of the value of all others. Ethnocentrism therefore promotes racism."

It is also a myopic view which the abusers of Fijian culture have maintained, at the expense of cohesive social empowerment. For one thing, ethnonationalism is the exact opposite of multiculturalism.The Editorial contradicts itself, by equating multiculturalism with ethnonationalism in this particular reference:

“Ethnonationalism is at the heart of what governments call ‘multiculturalism’. That is, multiculturalism, at its most fundamental premiss, is a policy which allows and encourages people-groups to celebrate themselves, to be proud of their roots and identity, and to maintain the dignity of their history.”(sic)

Unashamedly, the Editorial continues to create self fulfilling prophesies with a litany of falsehoods. It is sad reflection of the biased stance taken by the Daily Post, which tailored its verbatim with inconsistent uses of the truth. Similarly, the following paragraph from the Editorial alludes that multiculturalism promotes ethnonationalism; without referencing any independent sources proving that the statement is factual correct.

“Multiculturalism rejects the notion that the modern nation must require the submergence of historical identity and culture for the sake of another identity or culture. Multiculturalism promotes ethnonationalism because it sees it as a building block of ethnic or racial stability. Without ethnonationalism, self-hatred easily steps into the vacuum and fills a people-group with unhelpful psychological desires and expectations.”

The Daily Post Editor's professional capacity must be seriously questioned for this hasty, unsupported and unsubstantiated conclusion stating that: ethnonationalism in Fiji is inversely proportional to self hatred. Notwithstanding, the recent mistake of the Daily Post, erroneously publishing the results of the International Rugby Board's Sevens Grand Prix.

An inconvenient truth that bears testimony to the evils of ethnonationalism in Fiji, is convincingly demonstrated in post-2000 coup events. Particularly so, when the Great Council of Chiefs rallied their support behind the illegal takeover of Chaudary's Government. In fact, the 1987 and 2000 coups in Fiji underscored that, ethnonationalism threatens multiculturalism.

Undoubtedly, these very native institutions benefited from the seditious acts, by abusing the parallel structure of the chiefly hierarchy. Ironically, after the suspension of the GCC, several members sought legal address and questioned the authority of the Interim Government; without realizing the immense hypocritical position of their logic.

Neither GCC or its members questioned the authority of the Interim Governments that emerged from the 1987 or 2000 coups and their belated objections on the 2006 coup, is a fallacy of the highest order.

Legally, the GCC is in a tenuous position by challenging the State's authority over them and by extension of this question of authority, somewhat undermines the very sovereignty of state power; which the institution of courts derive their authority from. It is interesting to point out that the GCC had also advocated a separate Fijian court to specifically cater for cases within the native dominions. Realistically, it was clear headed thinking that pointed out the dual tracks of law, arising from such an arrangement.

Ethnonationalism is wrong then, as it is now. It is also equally wrong and morally irresponsible for the Daily Post to downplay the failures and dangers of ethnonationalism in Fiji.

Club Em Designs

The Urgency of Clean Elections in Fiji.

The report by the joint Fiji-Pacific forum quoted by ABC news article pointing out the possibility of Fiji conducting the national elections earlier than anticipated.

This is the excerpt of the ABC article:

Bainimarama silent on election report

By Pacific correspondent Campbell Cooney

The interim Prime Minister of Fiji has refused to comment on a new joint Fiji-Pacific Forum report that indicates elections can be held in the nation within two years.

Commodore Frank Bainimarama and his ministers have repeatedly said Fiji will not be ready for elections before 2010.

But the review team's report says elections can be held before the end of 2008 if Fiji gets assistance in assessing population figures.

Even without that help it says elections are possible in Fiji before April 2009.

That is nine months earlier than the deadline set by the European Union as a condition for continuing million-dollar aid funding and sugar subsidies.

In March, Australia and New Zealand pledged to help Fiji with the electoral process if it committed to elections before the end of 2009.

Both those governments have welcomed the new report.

It must be pointed out that, the final decision will be made from within Fiji, after the report is studied thoroughly by the Interim administration, as a Fiji Village article reports. It is also highly unlikely that, the Interim Government would be in any position to subscribe to the democratic pimping by these Pacific egalitarians; simply because of their condescending and inaccurate view of Fiji's socio-political landscape.

One factor which could influence Fiji's elections is the issue of election fundraising, which according to a Fiji Live article, which reiterated the need for the Fiji Election Commission to fully use its powers to monitor this load bearing pillar of democracy.

Understandably, Fiji's legislation on political fundraising is not as comprehensive as other nations. This explains how corporate donations is such a force multiplier in the US elections; which a Washington Post article illustrates, using the example of ENRON donations to the campaign of disgraced Republican from Texas, Tom Delay.

This particular loop hole in Fiji's current legislations that allow situations like the donation made by Fiji TV to the SDL party in 2005, which was defended by the current CEO of Fiji TV in a Fiji Times article. Undoubtedly, in Fiji's context of lax legislation these corporate donations are made with some subtle expectations, known as buying favours.

This is the excerpt of the FT article:

Nawari defends TV payment for SDL

Saturday, June 09, 2007

FIJI Television Limited yesterday denied any wrongdoing in paying $1000 for a fundraising dinner organised by the Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua Party in April 2005.

Fiji TV Group chief executive Mesake Nawari said the payment advice in question was removed without his approval and it clearly showed that it had been approved by the company's manager finance and administration.

"The approval was not given by the CEO," he said

"Such an approval was within Mr (Arvind) Datt's limit given his position on the company and, therefore, he had the authority to approve, which is in accordance with the finance policy," he said.

Mr Nawari said business enterprises made decisions to attend such functions regularly and in this instance the decision would have been a reflection of an interest in support of the political process and similar decisions would be made relative to any major political party.

"Fiji TV would see this evening dinner in much the same light as we might for the Fiji Media Council Fame Awards Dinner, a Red Cross Dinner or a FASANOC fundraising dinner," he said.

He said the company was not favouring one political party and it did not gain anything from the dinner, nor was anything expected.

Mr Nawari said they had just introduced its direct to home satellite service in the beginning of April, 2005 Sky Pacific to Fiji and the Pacific region.

"The dinner offered us the opportunity to brief the newly-appointed Minster, the late Dr Ahmed Ali, on the project just as we would with any government minister with a portfolio that required knowledge of activity in the area with which he would be so directly involved," he said.

Citizens Constitutional Forum has a somewhat antipodal view regarding the issue of timing, quoted in Radio NZ article.

This is an excerpt of the Radio NZ article:

CCF says holding general elections in Fiji soon should not be a priority

Posted at 21:37 on 08 June, 2007 UTC

The Citizens Constitutional Forum says holding general elections in Fiji in the shortest possible time should not be the priority.

An independent assessment commissioned by the Joint Forum - Fiji Working Group says elections could be held as early as November next year and the deposed prime minister, Laisenia Qarase, wants them held even earlier.

But the CCF’s executive director, the Rev Akuila Yabaki, says it is far more important that the preparations for the elections are adequate and the process is free and fair overall and that they are held in the shortest possible time.

Radio Legend quotes the Rev Yabaki as saying an inflexible time frame may not be advisable if it ignores current realities such as the political climate.

He says if the recommended time frame is to be adhered to, it should not be an excuse for inadequate election preparations as was the case when early elections were called last year.

Club Em Designs

The Gordian Knot.

The issue of published legal thesis on Fiji was addressed by a Fiji Island Business article and covers the Interim Attorney General of Fiji and portrays his Master's Thesis from University of Hong Kong's Law faculty, published in 2002.

It seems that more enlightened minds are now re-evaluating the legal underpinnings of native institutions in Fiji. Another published paper titled: "The Fijian Understanding of the Deed of Cession Treaty of 1874" written by an indigenous lawyer even questioned the role of NLTB and native land, which inextricably unravelled a Gordian Knot of sorts.

This is the excerpt of the Fiji Island Business article:

AG’s thesis casts doubts on chiefs’ body, Fijian loyalty

Samisoni Pareti





(Image right)Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum with Nailatikau


Fijian institutions like the Bose Levu Vakaturaga (Great Council of Chiefs) and the Fijian Affairs Board should have evolved or be dissolved over time if they were to keep abreast with the changing needs of indigenous Fijians, a key member of Commodore Frank Bainimarama's regime had suggested.

The perpetual existence of these creatures of British rule could only put such Fijian institutions in a 'time warp' and give rise to the consolidation of power to and "self-preservation" of an elite few.

Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum when writing his thesis for a masters in law degree at the University of Hong Kong in 2002, had also raised the possibility of these institutions operating independently of the state.

This, he wrote, would not only weaken the state but also throw into question the allegiance of Fijians to the nation-state.

Observations Khaiyum made in his thesis titled 'Cultural Autonomy-Its Implications for the Nation-State' has become much more relevant in light of recent pronouncements and actions of the interim government of which he is the attorney-general.

Not only has the interim regime suspended the operations of the Bose Levu Vakaturaga (BLV) after the chiefs rejected its nomination for a vice-president in April, the interim government has also announced its intention to review and most probably change the membership of the chiefly body.

BLV review will continue

Work on this, however, is in doubt after the European Council-following its meeting with three senior ministers of Bainimarama's regime in Brussels last month (that included Khaiyum)-issued a strong statement calling for, among other demands, the preservation of the "substantial independence and functioning of the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC)".

FIJI ISLANDS BUSINESS has learnt however that the legal advice given to the interim regime has given it the thumbs up to continue with the proposed review and changes to the membership of the BLV, saying it is proper under the law.

The council was not created by the 1997 constitution like other constitutional offices, but set up through an act of parliament.

As such, the minister responsible, in this case Ratu Epeli Ganilau as Fijian Affairs minister, is perfectly well within his rights to be doing what he has proposed to do, and this, according to the legal opinion, would not be in breach of the European Commission's demand.

Since the December 5 coup last year, Bainimarama had also on several occasions spoken publicly of his desire to introduce common roll into Fiji's voting system. This was another key point of Khaiyum's thesis.

Calls for common roll not new

In fact he argued that the two issues of common roll and the dismantling of the Fijian institutions like the Bose Levu Vakaturaga shared a common historical link.

Khaiyum wrote that when Sir Everard im Thurn, who became governor of Fiji in 1905, introduced his policy of 'galala', or greater freedom to indigenous Fijians, "some European members of the Legislative Council wanted indigenous Fijians to be made "free men" by ridding them of separate administration, which they also viewed as being financially mismanaged.

"Yet the European settler representatives in the Legislative Council made an about-turn in their individualisation mission when the girmitiyas started agitating for the right to vote and common franchise based on a common roll."

In appointing Khaiyum into his cabinet in January, it is not clear whether Bainimarama had known about the young lawyer's strong views about the Fijian administration and the very detailed research and analysis he had given it in his thesis.

'Chiefly system must go'

"Cultural autonomy must have a sunset clause," Khaiyum wrote in his conclusion.

"Its prolonged continuation will place a stranglehold on the very members it seeks to protect and it will concomitantly disallow the critical cultural space in which a just, vibrant and coherent nation-state can flourish while embracing diversity."

That observation was preceded by a quote from the late Siddiq Koya, then a young, fiery National Federation Party orator in Fiji's pre-independent Legislative Council.

"Why should there be poverty in the village? The place is your own, yet you are imprisoned.

"We are telling you to wake up! We want to give you the right that God gave you.

"Think for yourself who you are-you are a man!

"We want to give you the honour and dignity due to you.

"You are a man, you are an individual, and I respect you.

"But for goodness sake, your old chiefly system must go!

"It is not helping you, it is not helping this island, it is not helping us. So let's change and move forward!"

'Cartel of leaders'

Khaiyum's research showed that calls for the abolishment of Fijian institutions like the BLV were nothing new, tracing it back to the administration of colonial governors like im Thurn.

He cited numerous reports compiled during the 1950s that spoke of the need to inject changes into the Fijian administration, and the resistance to such calls by people with vested interests like Ratu Sir Lala Sukuna.

"The Spate's comprehensive report of April 1959 which examined the 'economic problems and prospects of the Fijian people' brought to the fore that separate administration was no longer useful.

"He noted Sukuna's interpretation of culture and his solution through a (re) structured separate administration 'were biased by his half conscious vested interest in a society in which chiefs were chiefs.'"

Later, Khaiyum went onto observe: "European contact in Fiji was primarily in the East/North which consequently led to the confirmation of a new chiefly elite from those regions.

"This led to the establishment of a cartel of hereditary leadership families and their cliental network.

"Madraiwiwi (Sukuna's father), Sukuna, Cakobau, Mara, Ganilau and lately Qarase have all been beneficiaries of this bias forged through the perpetuation of the separate administration.

"On the other hand, those such as Bavadra and Gavidi, westerners were not accepted and were outsiders-did not represent indigenous Fijian culture-since they encroached upon the territory of the establishment clique."

Allegiance to state

That separate and autonomous bodies like the BLV could work against the state, Khaiyum said, was evident in the coups of 1987 and 2000. Such a state of affairs should be worrying as it could also throw into question the loyalty of Fijians to the state.

"The manner in which the separate institutions reacted to and were utilised following the election of the Labour coalition governments and their subsequent overthrow in 1987 and 2000 demonstrated that separate institutions (Fijian Affairs Board, Bose Levu Vakaturaga, Bose ni Yasana, Bose ni Tikina, Bose ni Koro) were perceived to be and indeed viewed themselves to be independent of the institutions of the state.

"Autonomy or more appropriately the institutions of autonomy can become completely independent at the expense of superseding the institutions of the state-coming into direct conflict with the state and creating and perpetuating the ethos of the particular race and difference.

"This ultimately creates not only a very weak state but also stunts the growth of nationhood". In other words, cultural autonomy could provide benefits to minority groups, however culture-based institutions could get caught in a time warp and subsequently not responsive to the changes and needs of the group which has autonomy."

Indeed one of the effects of creating culturally autonomous institutions which invariably is in relation to the 'other' is the homogenising of the identified group.

"This process increases the propensity to relegate and ignore intra group inequalities and injustices such as socio-economic and gender issues. At the same time, by placing too much emphasis on culturally autonomous institutions, individuals and groups could have the tendency to not only become insular but also have negligible levels of allegiance to the nation-state."

Military ineptitude

The role of the Fiji military was hardly mentioned in the in the interim attorney-general's thesis. All it got was one or two paragraphs in the preface of his paper.

"Mahendra Chaudhry's reign as Prime Minister lasted only a year. He and members of his cabinet were taken hostage by a George Speight and seven armed 'gunmen' on 19 May 2000.

"One would have thought that given the few number of kidnappers a rescue of the Prime Minister and cabinet in particular by the Fiji Military Forces, which prides itself in its military prowess, was obvious and a relatively easy task. However this was not to be.

"The ineptitude, inertia and reluctance displayed by the military and other law enforcement agencies in the first few weeks of the crisis allowed the kidnappers a free hand in mustering support at the parliamentary grounds for their 'cause,' holding the Prime Minister and his Cabinet in captivity for 56 days."

Club Em Designs

The Collective Good.

In a follow up to the S.i.F.M post: The Squeakiest Wheel, aFiji Times article quotes NZ lawyer, Janet Mason who commented on the issue of incitement, made by the GCC lawyer.

This is an excerpt of that article:

NZ lawyer queries military over Dr Sahu Khan comments

1447 FJT
Friday, June 01, 2007

Update: 2.47pm A NEW ZEALAND lawyer, who fled the country last week, is questioning why the military did not take any action against Ba lawyer Dr Shamsudin Sahu Khan when he floated the idea that native land not used by landowners be returned to the State.

Janet Mason says despite a State of Emergency warning against incitement, the military took no action against Dr Sahu Khan for his comments, according to a report by Pacific writer Michael Field.

Ms Mason says when lawyers Kitione Vuataki and Savenaca Komaisavai, who are representing the Great Council of Chiefs over its suspension, questioned the paper, the military accused them of inciting the indigenous people and hauled them into their barracks for questioning.

Ms Mason, who worked with the two lawyers in the GCC case against the interim regime, found that curious.

''If Dr Sahu Khan has recently presented this paper without being detained for inciting instability then I would have imagined that, for instance, I should be free to present alternative views at workshops around the country without fear of being detained,'' she said.

The New Zealand lawyer fled the country after she and her husband were robbed in their Lautoka home.

Realistically, the comments by Dr Sahu Khan was made in his submission to the proposed Qoliqoli Bill, launched by the SDL Government. In addition, Khan's remarks did not address the indigenous populace or make innuendos advocating violence. Mason's remarks to the Fiji Times prompted a scathing letter to the Fiji Times.

This is the excerpt to the response:

Janet Mason

I have been reading with interest the comments by New Zealand lawyer Janet Mason. She indeed highlights a few interesting points about the situation in Fiji.

However, it is ironic that she now goes to the media to raise her voice. After all, she would have had a lot of information way before she came to Fiji for the GCC suspension case.

After all, her husband would have been reading daily reports and analysis of the Fiji situation. Her voice was never heard when Qarase was trying to resolve the impasse with the army. I am sure her husband had a lot of information in regards to information analysis at the time.

Never at any time did she voice her opinions on the army stance against the Government. That was at a time when her opinion may have made a difference for Mr Qarase and his deposed ministers.

Instead, like our so called "big brothers" she waits for the noose to tighten before she actually tries to make her presence felt. It makes it look like the "knight in shining armour".

[Mason] should leave our problems to us to solve. She has chosen New Zealand ahead of Fiji and we don't need her expatriate views on Fiji.

We certainly don't need her belated concerns and advice.

Josaia Sovea
Suva

Fiji Sun's new look website published an interesting "Letter to the Editor". This is an excerpt of the letter:

Democracy and NGOs
Last updated 6/1/2007 11:52:59 AM

It will be oversimplifying to say that democracy is a form of government in which the sovereign power is in the hands of the people, because it is a bluff.
Having heard so much about the word recently, that is magic to some, I can only say that it is vile to me. The practitioners of democracy, and who are in Australia, New Zealand , Canada , USA are mostly Anglo-Saxons, Normans, Dutch, Scandinavian, Spaniards and Mediterraneans - in other word Europeans, a branch of the Caucasian racial group.

The natives of these states do not sit as a majority in their respective Houses of legislature. Why? In short, the natives were hunted and slaughtered like animals by new settlers (the polite term) who put strategies in place to starve them out of their God-given land.

These states have not been tested in the true essence and operations of this magic word. What is successful democracy to them is to be in a comfortable environment of compatible ethnic/racial groups. If not, then why are the natives of Australia, New Zealand and the Americas not represented as a majority in power sharing?
A century and a half and more has passed with this set up and mind set, making it difficult for them to perceive the reasons for the coups in Fiji; why Fijians are nervous about the Indians, which is yet another story.

One of the legs on which democracy stands is "the people's voice," but specifically the underprivileged groups. In brief then, the yardstick if democracy is really at work is to continually, if not continuously, monitor whether the lot of these groups is improving during the term of governments, or as some people like to hear, a democratically elected one.
What is an election, an opposition, all in the name of democracy, when the lot of the poor cannot be gradually improved to a decent level from one government to another?
We have had some 30 years of this system without success and peace. There are other models that would work better for Fiji; it is a matter of will to try it out; or we should be asking the 'experts' what type of democracy is best suited. They have had enough time to work that out.

Indeed the lot of the rich has got better in leaps and bounds. Those mushrooming 20 years age are now multimillion dollar organisations, well entrenched and self-serving. Which Prime Minister has not gained assets directly attributable to his Prime Ministership? The same question can be asked of cabinet ministers. Democracy is for the poor but instead it has been raped.

What is the NGOs' understanding of democracy, the underprivileged, and their human rights? Their comments seem to be rigorously channeled to the military only. What are 30 or 50 persons called to the camp compared to thousands whose human rights have been eroding throughout the years? If NGOs were true to their call we should have heard their rigorous criticism throughout the years a not only over the last five months.

Club Em Designs