Barr's Expose On Equity- A Discussion On Fiji's Democracy

An article written by Kevin Barr was published in the Fiji Sun, and the content is illuminating. Fiji Times also published the article. The excerpt of the article:

A legal-illegal paradigm
Last updated 4/10/2008 9:25:29 AM

In the aftermath of the military coup of December 6th 2006 we have witnessed a lot of wrangling among the legal profession about the legality or illegality of legal decisions and legal appointments. Some good judges have not renewed their contracts while other equally good judges have been willing to take up appointments. There have been divisions within the Law Society and its members.

"The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. "

Some NGOs also have entered the fray and have refused to engage with the interim government on the grounds that it is part of an illegal regime. Others, while accepting that there has been an illegal overthrow of an elected government, have looked beyond legality issues and have focused on the issues of social justice which the interim government aims to address (and which were not adequately addressed under the previous “legal” government).

Is the Law our only guide?
In his recent book Living by Bread Alone (2008:78) Tui Rakuita writes:
“The predominant view of what occurred (in December 2006) is informed largely by the ‘legal paradigm’ resulting in the emergence of a legal/illegal dichotomy from which all other issues are analysed.

This widespread adoption of the legal framework also highlights the legalistic bent that is becoming more and more salient in our reasoning. Perhaps this is because the one-dimensional cognitive thrust offered by the legal community is convenient in a time of great transformation; in the face of uncertainty and flux this paradigm is offering certainty and conviction.”

[Rakuita] then goes on to say:

“However this stance is not without its concomitant costs. Our cognitive frameworks are so completely immersed in this duality that a certain lethargy in conceptual thinking has quietly crept in. This has been exemplified by a certain reluctance to see beyond the legal/illegal impasse. This is not in any way to dismiss the importance of the legal dimension pertaining to validity claims, but rather to point at other issues that do not derive their justificatory premises from the legal framework of understanding.”

He suggests that we need a broader, multi-dimensional approach in our thinking and reasoning.

In my booklet Thinking About Democracy Today (2007:36) I quoted the words of the French Minister for Foreign Affairs who said: “It is sometimes necessary to go outside of the Law in order to achieve justice.”

Of course, these are potentially dangerous words but they contain an important truth - especially where the law has been framed to protect those with wealth and power or those who promote an extreme nationalist agenda.

I also quoted the words of Thomas Jefferson - one of the signatories of the American Declaration of Independence from Britain (which was at the time an illegal, treasonous document):

“A strict observance of the written laws is doubtless one of the high duties of a good citizen, but it is not the highest. The laws of necessity, of self-preservation, of saving our country when in danger, are of higher obligation. To lose our country by a scrupulous adherence to written law, would be to lose the law itself, with life, liberty, property … thus absurdly sacrificing the end to the means.”
Thomas Jefferson Correspondence to John Colvin 1810.

Equity
Derek Roebuck (2003:83ff) in his article "Insights Into Equity" points out that no one has yet found a word or phrase to satisfactorily describe “equity” in English. However it is basically about justice and what is right. He traces its origins to Plato and Aristotle through Cicero and Justinian to the role of the Chancellors in medieval English times.

In his Nichomachean Ethics (5.10) Aristotle states:

[...]the ‘just’ and the ‘equitable’ are both good but the ‘equitable’ is superior. The difficulty arises because the ‘equitable’ is just but not ‘just according to law’.

It is a correction of legal justice. The reason is that every law is general and it is not possible to deal generally with some matters.”
[Aristotle] goes on to state that the law takes into account the majority of situations but is not able to account for every situation. So the legislator must make a decision to correct the law for those particular situations.

Justinian’s Corpus Juris and Digest spoke of the need to supplement or correct civil law and stated that “indeed in all matters, but particularly in law, equity must be observed”.
The prevalence of equity could hardly be more strongly stated than in the Emperor’s own instruction: “It is my wish that the leading principle in all matters shall be justice and equity rather than the strict law”.

In the great British legal tradition (influenced no doubt by Roman law) there grew up a body of law known as equity which originally came into existence in order to mitigate the rigid application of legal rules under the common law system.
Equity developed as a result of the injustices caused by a strict application of the common law and was originally based on popular notions of morality and natural justice.

The famous Earl of Oxford’s case in 1615 determined that, whenever there was conflict between common law and equity, equity would prevail. An important distinction that needs to be noted between law and equity is the source of the rules governing the decisions. In law, decisions are made by reference to legal doctrines or statutes. In contrast, equity, with its emphasis on fairness, natural justice and flexibility has only general rules known as the maxims of equity.

The primacy of equity in England was enshrined in the Judicature Acts of the 1870s. Although the courts of equity and the common law were then brought together into one unified court system and so are implemented by the same courts, the two branches of the law are separate. Where there is conflict, equity still prevails.

Roebuck (2003:93) in his article noted above has this to say about the relevance of
equity for lawyers and judges today:

“Those who try to dispense justice have to face the dilemma which Aristotle elaborated so well. The law tries to ensure consistency. Certainty is a value. But no law can be refined enough to meet all the contingencies that life presents. We are not just clever enough to foresee all possible future events and then put into words the rules we want to govern them. So we give our decision-makers discretion. As long as we recognise this inevitability, we can do our best to be fair. Fairness and certainty are both desirable.”

Then comes a statement which, I think, may be particularly relevant to our current situation in Fiji today:

“Some judges feel more comfortable if they work well within the rules. Some like to create more flexibility for themselves and are so uncomfortable with what they see as an unfair outcome that they cannot rely on the rules to relieve them from unease. For most judges, the nature of the dispute and the prevailing wisdom among their colleagues will influence which way they go.”

He concludes with the statement:

“In any legal system which claims to provide justice - and which does not? -
there must be scope for Aristotle’s equity, that which provides for exceptional and unforeseen problems to be dealt with exceptionally.”

Jesus and the Law
Some interesting anecdotes from the life of Jesus are also very illuminating.
He lived in a society which was dominated by a strict observance of the law and a rigid interpretation of the law. [Jesus] obviously felt very uncomfortable in such an atmosphere where observance of the covenant was interpreted in such legalistic terms and God was seen as demanding such strict observance of laws.
This did not reflect the God who described himself as “kind and merciful, slow to anger, full of compassion and love”.
In John’s gospel (John 8:1-11) we are told that a woman who had been caught in the act of committing adultery was brought to Jesus by the Scribes and Pharisees - the strict religious legalists of the time.
They pointed out that, according to the Law, she must be stoned to death but they asked what he thought should be done. It was a trap of course to catch him out.
What Jesus did is very revealing. He refused to dispute the law or give a legal response but simply suggested that those Scribes and Pharisees who were without sin should cast the first stone.

Then he sat and doodled in the sand waiting to see what would happen. One by one the woman’s accusers went away. When only the woman remained, Jesus, while recognizing she had done serious wrong, told her to go and sin no more.

The point is that Jesus did not deny the illegality of the woman’s action and did not dispute what the Law demanded. But he recognized that there was another very important dimension that was being neglected and that needed to be taken account of.
That was the whole dimension of compassion which should inform any legal decision. Jesus thought that compassion for people was of greater value than seeing that the demands of the law were implemented.

Of course this was not the only instance where Jesus showed that he valued compassion and concern for people over legality. In the story of the Good Samaritan (Luke 10:25-37) the Jewish priest and Levite obeyed the Law and refused to touch the unclean body of the Jewish man who had been bashed up and left to die by the roadside.

They certainly obeyed the Law very strictly but they showed no compassion and concern for someone in need. It was the Samaritan - the religious ‘enemy’ of the Jews - who overlooked legality and undertook to take care of the man. Jesus praised him for his compassion and he has become a symbol of care and concern the world over.

Again, when asked by the Pharisees if it was lawful to cure someone on the Sabbath (Matthew 12:9), Jesus made a common sense observation that, if a sheep fell into a pit on the Sabbath there would be no hesitation in letting someone pull it out, so he saw no problem in curing a person of his sickness on the Sabbath.
Elsewhere he observed that “the Sabbath was made for man, not man for the Sabbath”. In other words laws surrounding the Sabbath must be interpreted sensibly and with compassion.

It seems that Jesus often bypassed the legal/illegal paradigm and saw it as unhelpful when there were bigger human issues to be dealt with. As he remarked: “I have come not to destroy the law but to bring it to fulfillment”.
He sees himself as not in opposition to the Law but seeing the law in a wider perspective - the perspective of his Father’s compassion and understanding love.

Conclusion
The current legal/illegal paradigm being pursued in Fiji today seems to be getting us nowhere. It simply creates an endless cycle of negativity and stalemates. While the law is extremely important and legal issues need to be pursued, it is extremely important to recognise that other dimensions also need to be taken into account.
There are considerations above and beyond the legal ones. As Tui Rakuita noted above, there are “other issues that do not derive their justificatory premises from the legal framework of understanding.”
A truly democratic society needs the rule of law but it cannot be built solely on the rule of law. It also demands that the law be balanced by principles of social justice, compassion and common sense. It may not always be helpful to fight for the rigid application of the law.


Bibliography
Barr, Kevin (2007) Thinking About Democracy Today (ECREA. Suva)
Radan, Peter, Cameron Stewart and Andrew Lynch (2005) Equity and Trusts (LexisNexis
Butterworths. Sydney)
Rakuita, Tui (2008) Living By Bread Alone (ECREA. Suva)
Roebuck, Derek (2003) “Ínsights into Equity” in Bond Law Review 15 (2) December

Social Bookmarking

Club Em Designs

Fiji Constitution Lacks Credibility

Fiji's constitution has lost some of its credibility over the past 10 years according to the National Council for Building a Better Fiji consultation (NCBBF) document which is now being distributed to the members of the public.

read more | digg story

Kevin Rudd Salute To Bush- Kissing The Signet Ring?

Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd was caught on tape saluting his US president George Bush on NATO Summit in Bucharest on April 4, an incident later he laughed out and said it was "a joke"! But Rudd's friendly salute has been criticized as a conduct unbecoming of an Australian prime minister by the Opposition Leader Brendan Nelson.

read more | digg story

Seeking a more balanced media view of Fiji

The Fiji news media gets a lot of ticking off these days- there are serious problems in the Fiji media about training/professionalism and credibility and they need to be addressed.

read more | digg story

The Rush to Mine The Pacific Seabed- A Fiji Perspective.

In a follow up to an earlier SiFM post titled "Seabed Mania in the South Pacific-Claims & Counter Claims", it appears that the subject of the post has resurfaced with some recent developments.
Solomon Times (ST)article reports that the South West Pacific region is increasingly attracting a lot of attention, from deep pocketed investors.
The excerpt of ST article:

Gold Reports Attracting Attention to Region


Reports of gold in South Pacific waters are attracting prospectors to the region. Meanwhile, a South Korean company has secured mineral exploration rights in Tonga.

A report by Fiji Broadcasting Corporation Limited states that 'big-time gold prospectors are scouring the seas between Fiji, Tonga and New Zealand after reports of gold deposits in South Pacific waters'.
The report quotes New Zealand's Dominion Post newspaper as reporting that the gold rush has become hi-tech with serious players spending big money.

'At stake in the waters of New Zealand, Tonga and Fiji and around the potentially disputed continental shelf boundaries of the three are high-grade gold, copper, zinc, lead and silver'.

The report identifies one problem which is that no continental shelf boundary line between Fiji, Tonga and New Zealand has been defined, which is a requirement by the United Nations Law of the Sea.

'No treaties have been signed but Tonga has historical claims to the Southern Lau group of islands, now part of Fiji. Several years ago Suva officials suggested that Minerva Reef, 400 kilometres southeast of Nuku'alofa, was Fijian'.

Meanwhile, The Korea Times has reported that South Korea has secured exclusive seabed mineral exploration rights in Tonga.

The report states that 'the Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs said the 20,000 square kilometer area the Tongan government granted an exploratory license for has more than 9 million tons of hydrothermal deposits of copper, zinc and gold'.

'This is enough to supply 300,000 tons of minerals annually over the next 30 years, which will save about $100 million in imports, the ministry said, adding that commercial production was targeted for 2010'.

Apparently, with the scarcity of strategic metals, there is a race to secure natural resources, of which the region seems to have especially with the recent confirmation of valuable minerals on the Tongan seabed.

Nautilus Minerals Inc. had done preliminary studies according to their website. Nautilus now appears to be restricting itself to the region off Papua New Guinea called Solwara 1 Development and has recently awarded a $US116 Million dollar contract to Technip USA Inc. to provide engineering procurement and construction management, according to the Nautilus website.


Stuff Magazine publishes a piece by Micheal Field on the Tonga.

The excerpt of Stuff Magazine article:

Hunting for treasure on the ocean floor
The Dominion Post | Monday, 31 March 2008


TREASURE HUNT: New Zealand geologist Cornel de Ronde (inset) predicted there was gold in South Pacific waters, now serious players like Nautilus are using the University of Hawaii exploration ship Kilo Moana to prospect for deposits.

A hi-tech gold rush is building in the South Pacific and, as Michael Field reports, serious players are spending big money.

New Zealand geologist Cornel de Ronde used to look toward the South Pacific and say: "There's gold in them thar waters." His prophecy went unheeded for about 10 years but now serious players with big money are on the hunt.

At stake, in the waters of New Zealand, Tonga and Fiji and around the potentially disputed continental shelf boundaries of the three, are high-grade gold, copper, zinc, lead and silver.

Nautilus Minerals, which is Australian-dominated but listed on the Toronto Stock Exchange, joined an expedition out of Nuku'alofa last week to check out the potentially lucrative Valu Fa Ridge in the Lau Basin near the Fiji-Tonga boundary.

It is also eyeing prospects further south in the Kermadec back-arc off New Zealand. Rival Neptune Minerals, which is also Australian-controlled but listed on London's secondary market, said last week it was preparing to file a mining licence application in New Zealand.

It is seeking "seafloor massive sulphide" (SMS) deposits on the Rumble II Seamount, 300 kilometres north of East Cape. Dr de Ronde of GNS Science in Wellington notes that these "very serious players" are benefiting, to a large degree, from data that New Zealand scientists have been collecting for about a decade.

The scientists were among the first to discover that deep underwater hydro-thermal vents were creating mineral-rich chimneys in vast fields.

"I said then, I envisaged this being a big gold rush," he told BusinessDay. "It's the last frontier for exploration. The oceans are so largely unexplored."

Neptune, in its half-year results last week, said it had found two new SMS zones at Rumble II. It had begun work on an engineering study on how to get at the minerals and launched "Project Trident", a programme of SMS exploration, this year using survey and sampling ships off New Zealand.

Chief executive Simon McDonald said the company would focus on lodging its first mining licence. "The company still aims to conduct trial mining by 2010."

Neptune says it is now undertaking a baseline environmental impact assessment in the area. It has also lodged three new prospecting applications over a total area of 84,880 square kilometre near the undersea Monowai volcano on the Kermadec Arc and along the Colville Ridge.

Neptune acknowledges it is benefiting from the New Zealand government work, calling it "significant academic research".

"We are very excited about the potential to develop this untapped natural resource," Mr McDonald says in a company publication.

"New Zealand is a great place to be, not only for its mineral prospectivity but also because of the supportive government, which has existing appropriate legislation in place to assist development whilst safeguarding the environment."

Nautilus has become the world leader in undersea mining, exploiting SMS data collected by Australian government scientists in Papua New Guinea waters.

It has spent US$310 million to date developing its Solwara 1 mining project over 186,000 square kilometres in the Bismarck Sea.

It says the data on the Valu Fa Ridge, 100 kilometres west of Nuku'alofa, has revealed "high-grade mineralisation might be present" and it wants to use its "strategic first mover advantage" and go after the minerals.

In Tonga last week 10 Nautilus staff joined the University of Hawaii exploration ship Kilo Moana, which Nautilus has chartered to survey the Valu Fa, 2000 metres below the surface.

Nautilus official Paula Taumoepeau told the Matangi Tonga website that the first phase would involve mapping and surveying the seafloor, environmental monitoring, oceanographic work and water quality studies of the exploration areas.

"If we find minerals in commercial quantity during the exploration or prospecting phase, we intend to apply to the government for a mining licence."

One potential problem lurking between Fiji, Tonga and New Zealand is that no continental shelf boundary line has been defined, as required by the United Nations Law of the Sea. No treaties have been signed but Tonga has historical claims to the Southern Lau group of islands, now part of Fiji.

Several years ago Suva officials suggested that Minerva Reef, 400 kilometres southeast of Nuku'alofa, was Fijian.

In 1971 a group of Americans took barges of sand there, built a small tower and raised the flag of the Republic of Minerva. The man who became Tonga's king, George V, sailed there on a government boat and hauled down the flag, raising the Tongan standard.

At the time the dispute was regarded as an amusing South Seas tale, but scientists, and now miners, know that at stake is part of a vast goldfield.

Islands Business online article announces that [South] Korea has won the exclusive exploration license in Tonga.

The excerpt of I.B article:

Korea wins sea mining rights from Tonga

The ministry will check the size of the deposit and its economic value by 2010 and start mining in earnest from 2012.


Chosun.com/ Pacnews
Thu, 3 Apr 2008

SEOUL, KOREA ---- Korea has secured the rights to dig up US$100 million in raw minerals a year from beneath the waters of the South Pacific.

The Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs said that Korea has won exclusive exploration rights from the South Pacific island nation of Tonga to develop mineral resources in a 20,000-sq.km area within Tonga's exclusive economic sea zone.

The ministry said that the underwater area has mineral deposits of more than nine million tons, and Korea should be able to secure 300,000 tons a year if it starts mining the area in earnest. The minerals include gold, silver, copper and zinc.

The government has spent W6.1 billion (US$1=W975) surveying mineral resources in the underwater area with Tonga via the Korea Ocean Research and Development Institute. In the process, Korea won trust of the Tongan government and was able to obtain the exploration rights, the ministry said.

The ministry will check the size of the deposit and its economic value by 2010 and start mining in earnest from 2012.

The source of the I.B story was from Chosun.com, the excerpt of the article:

Korea Wins Sea Mining Rights from Tonga
Korea has secured the rights to dig up US$100 million in raw minerals a year from beneath the waters of the South Pacific.

The Ministry of Land, Transport and Maritime Affairs said that Korea has won exclusive exploration rights from the South Pacific island nation of Tonga to develop mineral resources in a 20,000-sq.km area within Tonga's exclusive economic sea zone.

The ministry said that the underwater area has mineral deposits of more than nine million tons, and Korea should be able to secure 300,000 tons a year if it starts mining the area in earnest. The minerals include gold, silver, copper and zinc.

The government has spent W6.1 billion (US$1=W975) surveying mineral resources in the underwater area with Tonga via the Korea Ocean Research and Development Institute. In the process, Korea won trust of the Tongan government and was able to obtain the exploration rights, the ministry said.

The ministry will check the size of the deposit and its economic value by 2010 and start mining in earnest from 2012.

(englishnews@chosun.com )

The news of Korea winning exclusive exploration rights in Tonga has opened up the debate of territorial boundaries between Fiji and Tonga, that revolves around an isolated reef formation known as Minerva. Fiji Government website article quotes from former Foreign Minister, Kaliopate Tavola regarding the negotiations on Minerva. The excerpt:

"In the work related to the completion of the determination of our maritime boundaries, some bilateral discussions are essential, for example with Tonga. We need to negotiate where the relative EEZ boundaries of the two countries will lie. That work in itself will lead, hopefully, to resolving the current dispute on the ownership of the Minerva Reefs in Southern Lau. That will have direct benefits, of course, to the country¹s fisheries resources," he said.

"The bigger fish of course, if you will excuse the pun, is the extent to which we can claim the outer limits of the continental shelves originating within our EEZ. This will open up new economic opportunities in increased fisheries resources, unprecedented mining potential of new minerals and natural gases, etc.

Mr Tavola said this will require both bilateral and even sub-regional discussions, especially as regards the area of the Lau Ridges in the waters of Southern Lau.

"For this area in particular, discussions will have to take place with Tonga and New Zealand due to our overlapping and competing claims. These discussions will have to take place initially, and be well advanced, before we can submit our claims for the outer limits of our continental shelves to the International Seabed Authority, established under the UN Convention on the Laws of the Seas," Mr Tavola said.

According to a Wiki for Republic of Minerva, Fiji had launched an official complaint to the International Seabed Authority based in Kingston, Jamaica. The International Seabed Authority's council composition from 2005-2010 is tabulated here. A briefing published by International Boundaries Research Unit titled "Undelimited Maritime Boundaries In Pacific Ocean Excluding Asian Rim" covers some legal maneuvering behind Tonga-Fiji dispute over Minerva.












Social Bookmarking

Club Em Designs

Hemispheric Hypocrisy -An Australian Ideal?

Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith rejects the contents of the recent released report by Fiji Human Rights Commission (FHRC) calling them "spurious suggestions". Undoubtedly, the Foreign Minister's reactions were simply obfuscated denials of the gross breach of International Law.
The rejections of Fiji Human Rights Commission(FHRC) released report, is obviously predictable belligerence from the MP representing Perth, Western Australia and also as a matter of curiosity, the Australia SAS is based in Campbell Barracks, Swanbourne, Perth according to Wikipedia.

Fiji Sun article excerpt:

Keep word, State told
Last updated 4/3/2008 8:28:40 AM
The report by the Fiji Human Rights Commission is another attempt to get the interim regime to avoid its commitment for a general election next year, says Australia’s Foreign Affairs minister Stephen Smith.
Speaking to the Fiji Sun yesterday, Mr Smith rejected the allegations made against Australian forces in the report saying it was another potential distraction from holding elections in 2009.

“This is just another device, another potential distraction to put the interim Fiji government, the military government, in the position of sliding out a faithful undertaking that it gave to Pacific nation states at the Pacific Island Forum in Tonga in 2007 that they would have an election by the end of March, next year,” he said.

Mr Smith said the interim regime needed to meet and fulfill its commitment to the Forum that a general election would be held as promised in early 2009.
“The best thing that can happen in Fiji is not spurious suggestions about Australian activity, but having an election, returning Fiji to democracy, respecting human rights and democracy and allowing a potentially very prosperous nation to get on with the job of providing for its citizens,” he said. Mr Smith said the allegations made were not new.

“We’ve seen these spurious allegations before from, effectively the interim regime which took power through military force, not through democratic means. They have been rejected in the past. We reject them again.”

He said the Australian military had previously pointed out that Australian military were effectively on stand-by in Fiji prior to the December, 2006 coup so as to ensure the safety and welfare of Australian nationals should it have become necessary.

Fiji Human Rights Commission director Dr Shaista Shameem said it was prompted to investigate Australia’s breach of international laws after the media’s failure to conduct an investigation into the matter. She pointed out the FHRC was an independent body that could publish investigation reports at any time.

“There is no mention of the takeover in the report, merely an Australian intervention in a sovereign nation before the Biketawa meeting took place.” She denied any military involvement in the compilation and preparation of the report pointing out that most of the information was from media reports in Australia, the region and Fiji.

Fiji Live(FL) article also covers the story.

The excerpt of FL article:

Australia rejects Fiji accusations
03 APR 2008
Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith says fresh accusations from Fiji about Australia are just an attempt to distract attention from the military Government, keeping democracy on hold.

His comment follows a report by the Fiji Human Rights Commission alleging that Australia had breached international law through its military activities before the December 5, 2006 coup.

According to the report, the Fiji military claimed at the time that Australia secretly sent SAS soldiers and weapons to Fiji and its navy ships entered Fiji waters in preparation for a potential intervention.

“We've seen these spurious allegations before,” Smith told ABC Radio yesterday.

“They've been rejected in the past, we reject them again.

“The Australian military were effectively on standby so as to ensure the safety and welfare of Australian nationals should that have become necessary,” Smith clarified.

He said the interim Government was using such methods to divert attention from its failure to prepare Fiji for elections next year as promised.

“This is just another device, another potential distraction to put the interim Fiji Government, the military Government, in the position of sliding out of a faithful undertaking that it gave to Pacific nation states.

“The best thing that can happen in Fiji is not spurious suggestions about Australian activity but having an election, returning Fiji to democracy, respecting human rights and democracy and allowing a potentially very prosperous nation to get on with the job of providing for its citizens,” Smith said.

Fijilive

Radio Fiji article also covers the denial by Australian Foreign Minister, Stephen

Allegations against Australia distraction
Thursday, April 03, 2008

Australia Foreign Minister Stephen Smith.
Australia Foreign Minister Stephen Smith says fresh accusations from Fiji about Australia are another attempt to distract attention from the Military Government here keeping democracy on hold.

Smith’s comment follows the Human Rights Commission report, which alleges Australia breached international law through its military activities ahead of the coups in 2006.

The report repeats claims by the Military at the time that Australia secretly sent SAS soldiers and weapons to Fiji and its navy ships entered Fiji waters in preparation for a potential intervention.

However, Smith told ABC Radio the allegations, which have been made before have been rejected.

Smith says the Australian military was on standby to ensure the safety and welfare of Australian nationals should that have become necessary.

He says the Military Government has used such methods to divert attention from its failure to prepare for elections next year as promised.

Smith says the best thing that can happen in Fiji is not spurious suggestions about Australian activity but having an election, returning Fiji to democracy and respecting human rights and democracy.

ABC article covers the initial story.

The transcript of ABC interview with FHRC Chair. Podcast of Pacific Beat.

Australia has been accused of helping spark the December 2006 coup in Fiji by sending military forces to the country. The allegation is made in a report by Fiji's Human Rights Commission. The report looks at events which led up to the December 5th coup, focusing on Australia's deployment of ships to nearby waters and an alleged contingent of Special Air Service soldiers who flew in on a commercial flight.

The Australian Defence Force confirmed at the time that Defence Supplementation staff were sent to assist the High Commission in Suva with communications, as part of what was described as routine precautionary measures. Commission chair, Doctor Shaista Shameem, says the presence of the SAS troops was detected by the Fiji Military Forces, whose commander, Commodore Frank Bainimarama, was at the time threatening to take over the government from the elected prime minister, Laisenia Qarase.

Presenter: Bruce Hill
Speaker: Doctor Shaista Shameem, Chair Fiji Human Rights Commission

SHAMEEM: The mixed messages that were being reported in the press in Brisbane I think it was, but also in Canberra, prior to the vessels being sent out.; In fact, I think Kevin Rudd was the first person who introduced the idea of invoking or activating as he called it, the Biketawa agreement, and he kept saying let's get on with it, let's get on with it. He said that phrase twice in two different interviews. And it was the same evening that one of the ships, I think it was the Newcastle, actually left for Fiji waters and it was joined later on by the Kanimbla and the Success. So there are a lot of things being said which were quite different from the official position that the Australian Government was maintaining throughout, that it was in relation to the evacuation of Australian nationals. But that was in relation just to the sending of the ships.

The other problem was the presence of the SAS forces in Fiji that had arrived quite clandestinely and not having gone through customs procedures and so on and of course the RFMF new about them a little while later, because they were with the police tactical response team.

HILL: How were the SAS soldiers detected? Do you know how many of them there were and what their mission was?

SHAMEEM: Well, the official report is that they denied, the Australians have denied the SAS forces were there, but there were, our Army here obviously has its own intelligence sources. So they found them out and then the Australian defence advisory and the Australian High Commission here denied the presence of those forces and so the RFMF commander said that he would treat them as mercenaries. And it was at that point that the chief of defence in Australia rang him up and said no, they are SAS forces, they're mine and they then withdrew to the Australian embassy.

HILL: What were the SAS soldiers from Australia doing in Fiji?

SHAMEEM: No idea, you need to ask the Australians that. But what we do know is that they had bought with them more than 400 kilograms of something in big, sealed boxes, in silver boxes and which Downer said was communication equipment, but the RFMF said were weapons and ammunition.

HILL: Now the official story from Canberra was that ships were sent and they were outside Fiji waters in case there needed to be an emergency evacuation of Australian citizens. Is that what the report says? That they stayed outside Fiji waters?

SHAMEEM: Yes, that's what they said officially, because they were outside, they were going to stay outside Fiji territory. I think there was a lot of insistence on that point. But in fact when the civilian aircraft were sent to find them, they were found within Fiji waters.

HILL: How far inside Fiji waters?

SHAMEEM: Eh, off one of the islands actually.

HILL: Which one?

SHAMEEM: Vatulele.

HILL: Do you think that Australia was actually seriously planning to invade Fiji with some SAS troops and some ships?

SHAMEEM: Look, I think the evidence is all there and people can put a different light on that. What we're really looking at is the inconsistencies and the statements and exactly the fact situation. So if it was consistent with evacuation, we would have said yes, it looked like they were evacuating. But right from the beginning, in fact from November 3rd, there were a whole lot of inconsistent statements that were given by the Australian forces, politicians, Downer, Brendan Nelson, I think his name is, Mark Vaile, presumably was the acting prime minister at the time I think.

HILL: If this plan which your suggesting the Australians had to somehow intervene militarily in Fiji had gone ahead, what would the consequences of that have been do you think?

SHAMEEM: Well, I think, are we talking about a kind of an Iraq type situation, would we have been like Iraq in the Pacific or would it have been something a little bit low key? I mean really the horror of it is just unimaginable. So first of all of course the Australians would probably tell you that they had no intention of doing etc. etc. etc. but that's not the impression that everyone got, including the RFMF. But that's not the interesting question. Of course the interesting question is if the Australians had not been there, and if this had not been a threat as the RFMF thought, would December 5th happened anyway? Well how did it instigate? What happened on December the 5th, that is really the important question I think.

Fiji TV article.
Sydney Morning Herald article.
Australia Network news article.
Australian news article on Smith's denial.

Smith's furious rejections simply sends a message to other nations that, Australia does not respect the UN Charter and will single out and lecture others of human rights, democracy when they themselves, aside from the U.S, are colossal violators. Case in point the documented reports of Australian violations of Human Rights.

The only deflection of attention is definitely on Australia's part. Despite the newly elected Government led by Kevin Rudd, Australia's foreign policy may resume the trajectory set by John Howard's Government, which according to the Australian Review of Public Affairs(ARPA) article, Howard's Government had shown little interest in the U.N. However, the current Australian P.M Kevin Rudd has indicated the intention of seeking a seat in the U.N Security Council in 2013, according to VOA news article and that bid is probably Australia's way entering the big boys league, after languishing at the Kid's table for years.
A column in the Australian, suggests Rudd's honeymoon is coming to an end. Rudd is currently making the rounds in Washington as covered by Wall Street Journal, in reality, Rudd's Washington stop over was a signet ring kissing ceremony.




Social Bookmarking

Club Em Designs

Aust military presence in Fiji Pre-2006 Coup Raises Concerns

An investigation report by the Fiji Human Rights Commission(FHRC) has raised some very serious concerns about the presence of the Australian SAS forces, warships and Black Hawks in Fiji in 2006.

read more | digg story

The actual report (PDF).

FHRC report

An excerpt of Fiji Sun's coverage of the report release:

FHRC report questions presence of foreign forces
Last updated 4/2/2008 8:53:41 AM

The presence of Australian forces, warships and black hawk helicopters in Fiji in the lead up to the December 2006 coup have been questioned by the Fiji Human Rights Commission.

The Special Investigations Report released by the FHRC yesterday recorded the chronology of events from October 30 to December 5, 2006 mainly highlighting Australia’s presence in Fiji in the lead up to the coup.

Australia’s high commissioner to Fiji, James Batley yesterday had no comment to make on the matter. Questioned in the report was the presence of the Australian Task Force 636 in Fiji between November-December 2006.

The explanation post-Black Hawk-crash that warships were preparing to evacuate Australian nationals was deemed inconsistent with statements made pre-crash and eye-witness accounts. Further, the statements of the Defence Force Command, Alexander Downer, Brendon Nelson and others were said to be ambiguous and downright contradictory.

The report stated no satisfactory explanation was provided for the presence of Australian SAS forces in Fiji from November 3 and there was also no record of when and how they left Fiji. Also criticised were the recent comments by Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith when he said Fiji’s bad behaviour would not be rewarded and should be taken seriously.

“This type of comment from Australia’s Foreign Affairs Minister will certainly raise eyebrows given this special investigations report,” the report noted.

Relevant international laws the FHRC believed were breached with the presence of Australian troops in Fiji were cited from articles of the United Nations Charter, the UN Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation Among States and the UN Declaration of the Non-Use of Force. The need for an independent assessment of whether the Australian Government complied with its international obligations towards Fiji pursuant to the UN Charter was emphasised, given the chronology of events.

“Furthermore there needs to be an assessment of whether any of the provisions of the Biketawa Declaration would have been available at all to Australia as opposition spokesman Kevin Rudd claimed on November 2.”

The report stated the Biketawa Declaration may have been misapplied by Australia to intervene unilaterally in a sovereign Pacific State.

“In any event the substantive provisions of the Biketawa Declaration should be read consistently with its preamble that Forum Leaders would respect the principle of non-interference in the domestic affairs of another member state. This perspective accords with the UN Charter.”

Another question raised was whether western powers intervention and involvement in Fiji’s affairs in 2006 complied with international law was a relevant question.

The report recommended that any inquiry into the Australian presence in Fiji should take into consideration the SAS forces arrival in Fiji that was initially denied by Australia but later confirmed they were SAS forces after being warned by the military they would be treated as mercenaries.

Also recommended for consideration were statements by the Australian Defence that warships were sent to evacuate Australian nationals in the event of a coup.
“But two of the ships depart Fiji waters on November 30, five days before takeover, presumably leaving Australian nationals in Fiji to fend for themselves on December 5.”

The report concluded there was need for meaningful discussions in forthcoming Pacific Island Forum meetings about the obligations of sovereign states to each other and the right and duties of members of the sub-regional body under international law pursuant to the UN Charter and the relevant declarations mentioned in the report.

Fiji Times article covers the release of FHRC report.

The excerpt of FT article:

Human rights report lays blame on Aust

Wednesday, April 02, 2008

THE Fiji Human Rights Commission has released a special investigative report on how Australia intervened in Fiji's situation from October to December 2006 that eventually led to the military coup.

The 13-page report states that former Police Commissioner Andrew Hughes confiscated a consignment of ammunition meant for the Fiji army on October 30.

It also stated that Army Commander Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama got a call from Australia's Air Chief Marshall, Angus Houston, in Sinai threatening and warning him not to do anything that would make him "pit his soldiers against Fijian troops".

The report stated that Commodore Bainimarama said this call was a threat that involved clear intention to send Australian forces to Fiji. "He said in military terms when you threaten someone it involves capability and intention so there was intention to move troops to Fiji," the report said.

This incident happened on October 31.

The report also said on November 6, the Australian Department of Defence admitted sending an "unspecified number of staff' to the Australian High Commission in Suva".

The report stated that on November 28, the former Australian High Commissioner, Jeniffer Rawson, United Kingdom's High Commissioner and the US Ambassador visited high ranking army officers at Queen Elizabeth barracks to request officers to withdraw their support for Commodore Bainimarama.

On November, 29, the report stated that Canberra was taking aggressive steps to protect its interests in Fiji and the region.

"The Elite Australian troops had their leave cancelled and a Sydney- based commando task group was placed on standby," the report said.

The Commission said they collated this information last year from independent eyewitness accounts and media reports from the region.

Ousted Prime Minister, Laisenia Qarase said he would comment after he reads a copy of this report.

Questions sent to interim Attorney-General and National Federation Party president, Pramod Rae were yet to be answered.

Note on the excerpt of the Fiji Times article, there is no reference to International Law nor the breaches of it. FT article describes the scenario of SAS troopers deplaning at Nadi Airport with unchecked cargo and outlines as well as condensing or minimizing the event into 3 lines:

"The report also said on November 6, the Australian Department of Defence admitted sending an "unspecified number of staff' to the Australian High Commission in Suva".

FT article does not even frame the context of the Australian Department of Defence statements and or even mention exactly who were these staff members or the controversy behind their arrival.


SiFM earlier posting titled "Off Fiji Or In Fiji" raised the issue of media coverage of the event. Another post titled:"Location, Location, Location." examines the precise location of the crash and International Law.















With the advent of Youtube, the actual footage of the Black Hawk crash, underwater wreckage, the subsequent board of inquiry is available, posted below.

Video #1-Source: New Zealand TV3.



Video #2-Source: Australian Broadcast Corporation.

Winston Defames Fiji?

What Winston seems unable to get his head around is the fact that Fiji is not 'just like New Zealand' when he comments disparagingly about The Commodore's 'People's Charter' which in itself is the key to positive political change in Fiji.

read more | digg story

Perhaps a look into Winston Peters and the sources of his campaign finances, as outlined in this video (posted below)unravels the integrity of the New Zealand Foreign Minister.

Beta Democracy 2.0 -A Discussion On Fiji.

The opinion piece in the Fiji Times, written by Swani Maharaj was thought provoking and outstanding.

The excerpt:

"Thus the mindset of generations became based on kai Idia, kai Viti, kai Valagi, instead of as fellow citizens above and beyond race. When we think of any national issue we think from a racial perspective and not from a nationalistic one, or from the point of view of the good of the community in Fiji"

Only we can make it happen

SWANI MAHARAJMonday, March 24, 2008


Image (L):The various races that make up Fiji mingle in central Suva as they go about their business


The National Council for Building a Better Fiji is a dream. It is the dream of the interim Government to build a true democracy regardless of race, to unite the people of Fiji through equal value for vote, and to remove the inherent injustices imposed on many of the people of Fiji.

Whether it stays a dream or is translated into reality for the benefit of every citizen in Fiji is entirely up to us. The NCBBF hopes to produce a charter expressing the collective expectations of the people of Fiji from future governments.

This is not a unique phenomena the 1997 Constitution was itself the dream of people who genuinely wanted to build a better, more just, and truly multi-racial Fiji.

This is evident from Dr Brij Lal's comment (FT 3/3/08) that the letter as well as the spirit of the Constitution must be followed.

But neither was that dream was shattered by racial polarisation or perhaps by petty self interest which surpassed the interest of the nation either the leaders were so oriented or the people of Fiji were unable to consider themselves as people of Fiji rather than 'Indians", 'Kai Viti', etc.

So will the NCBBF succeed when the 1997 Constitution failed? Yes, it will if we do our bit.

This is the first time that the largest number of people from all walks of life, and not only political leaders can have their say. It will and it can because two coups later, and with demographical changes much has changed.

One important difference is that the 1997 Constitution was a result of the 1987 coup which propagated indigenous supremacy.

The NCBBF comes two coups later. Of these, the Speight coup was unable to effectively demonstrate that it did the ordinary Taukei any good.

And the 2006 'takeover' aimed to rescue a nation where racial discrimination masqueraded as 'affirmative action', where corruption was more pervasive than AIDS in Africa, and where the government was too arrogant to consider itself answerable to anyone be it the Opposition or the taxpayer.

This is an opportunity to rise to the occasion and speak up. To make a difference to the nation, to our future generations. It is a sacred responsibility.

A history of the politics of race

Our colonial masters laid strong foundations of institutionalised racial barriers in order to divide and govern Fiji. This racism permeated the deepest recesses of our psyche from our tender years we imbibed it in schools in which even the curriculum perpetuated racial compartmentalisation rather than integration and interaction.

Thus the mindset of generations became based on kai Idia, kai Viti, kai Valagi, instead of as fellow citizens above and beyond race. When we think of any national issue we think from a racial perspective and not from a nationalistic one, or from the point of view of the good of the community in Fiji.

The 1970 Constitution came with independence; its inherent racial compartmentalisation and the 1987 coup further entrenched the politics of race.

However, in 1996 there was a welcome and progressive change in the form of the Reeves Commission Report. This report was envisaged to become the basis of a united and consolidated nation as it laid the foundation for non-racial elections.

For the first time, it gave all the people of Fiji a say in the election of the President and Vice-President of Fiji.

Being based on true democratic principles, it reshaped the role of the GCC in the interest of uniting all the people of Fiji. Unfortunately, the leaders of the major political parties NFP, SVT and GVP changed the recommendations of the Reeves Report.

Sadly, for Fiji its recommendations were not incorporated in the 1997 Constitution. The members of the NCBBF could find valuable avenues and options in the Reeves Report to formulate the basis of uniting the people of Fiji.

Blair, Rudd and the NCBBF

In 2003 Tony Blair launched 'the Big Conversation' a kind of roadshow through which he endeavoured to talk to people from all walks of life by visiting churches, community halls, schools, and towns etc.

He appeared on TV-radio and was available on websites to listen to and address question by the average John Citizen. He shared his vision for the United Kingdom with his people and got their views as well. He won the election because it was a bottom up exercise that was all about listening and sharing his vision.

The NCBBF seeks to do the same. And Fiji must avail itself of this opportunity in order to work out its own destiny.

Two very important reactions to his summit are worth noting while the Opposition leader, Brendon Nelson, welcomed the summit, Alexander Downer, the former Foreign Affairs Minister, ridiculed the process saying "He is the PM, he should know what to do next, not consult a thousand people" (Courier Mail 4.02.08).

The NCBBF provides both an avenue and a challenge for the people of Fiji we can look at contributing positively through this avenue initiated by the interim Government. Or we can reject it out of sheer peevishness, small-minded self-interest or simply because we really don't want to make the effort to think beyond our noses.

It is a question of seeing the glass half full as Nelson sees it, or half empty as Downer sees it. We can be either optimistic or pessimistic the choice is ours. We can have our say and be heard it might make a difference. Or we can be quiet and deny ourselves the chance of being heard, let alone making any difference to our state of existence.

Under the 1997 Constitution, such a national consultation process is impossible. It would be superfluous a government voted in on the communal voting system, elected by one ethnic group, would work to sustain that vote bank and would thus have no reason to seek broad-based consultation or to formulate a national charter.

We, the people of Fiji, and our friends and well wishers in the international community, must appreciate that any so-called 'democratically elected' government in Fiji will never wish to engage in such an exercise.

Tradition and change

This is the reality of Fiji: One ethnic group is subject to 'traditional' controls clearly this does not constitute a democratic setup. And the other group exists in a partial and flawed democracy in which they do not have political democratic rights at all levels of government.

It is important for us to decide whether we want a modern day democracy and its benefits or we want to continue with this 'mutant' version of democracy. If we want a 'true' democracy, traditional institutions should be democratic in nature so that the population can benefit from their protection and guidance in which there is no opportunity for manipulation, or denial of democratic freedoms.

The voice of the commoner is equally important in a democracy by its very nature a democracy has no place for social hierarchies. Numerous advocates of 'democracy' and 'elected governments' fail to see this glaring anomaly, this flaw in the system.

Decisions in this regard must carefully consider the needs and values of future generations of indigenous people who will be living in a more materialistic world, in the digital age, competing on a level playing field.

The latest census figures show the rapidly increasing urbanisation of indigenous people tradition and modernisation can be conflicting realities for them, or they can be complementary realities. Perhaps the NCBBF is an appropriate forum to deliberate upon and arrive at decisions in this regard and embody these in the Charter.


A peep into the future

This brings us to the question of acquisition of land for the public interest in Fiji.

For example let us look at FEA. FEA has to pay over $ 50m in lease money in compensation to landowners every 50 years, that is $ 1m per year. Where does FEA earn this kind of money from? Obviously from its users. Before 1987, because of the larger population and urbanisation of Fiji-Indians, we may safely say that they may have been the group that primarily contributed to the FEA.

Twenty years from now, the Fiji-Indian population will be down to 20 per cent and the indigenous population will be the majority of electricity users and taxpayers they will then pay exorbitant rates in order to enable FEA to pay lease money. The recent payment by the Government for community-government school lands is a deterrent to public benefit and a huge burden on the taxpayers who will, in the near future, be ethnic Fijians.

Today, it is important to evaluate such payment arrangements from a non-racial perspective. The NCBBF may be the right forum to generate optional systems in the interest of public services such as hospitals/nursing stations, government offices, schools, airports, roads and wharfs.

This will avoid closures and demands which are detrimental to the economy and will also relieve the taxpayers' burden.

The views expressed are the writer's own and not those of the Fiji Chamber of Commerce of which he is president.

Interim Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama points out the resistance against the charter in a Radio Fiji article. The excerpt:

PM: Some resisting Fiji regimes effort
Thursday, March 27, 2008

NCBBF co-chair Commodore Voreqe Banimarama and John Samy (L)

Taken from / By: Fiji Broadcasting Corporation

Interim Prime Minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama says there are some within Fiji and outside who have turned a deaf year and resisted change in the country.

Speaking at the second meeting of the National Council for Building a Better Fiji in Suva, Commodore Bainimarama says these very people have taken every opportunity to fault Fiji, stir up controversy and disrupt the Interim Government’s efforts to take the country to elections.

He’s told delegates at the meeting that what is more important is the fact that the Interim Government has not deviated from its fundamental purpose.

These are, he says moving Fiji forward, putting new policies for growth and development in place and putting Fiji on a path of sustainable democratic governance.

The meeting ends this afternoon.

Perhaps the individuals who stir up controversy, may also include Fiji Sun's acting Publisher, who wrote an opinion article published in Tuesday March 26th 2008 issue.

The excerpt of FS article:

Fijian protocol must be respected in the promotion of the People’s Charter. The interim government must tread cautiously when trying to convince the Fijian people to support the charter.

Already, the Fijian people are divided and the charter cannot be forced on them.
On the record paramount chiefs of Rewa (Marama Bale na Roko Tui Dreketi Ro Teimumu Kepa), Naitasiri (Turaga na Qaranivalu Ratu Inoke Takiveikata), Cakaudrove (Turaga Bale na Tui Cakau Ratu Naiqama Lalabalavu), Nadroga (Turaga Na Kalevu Ratu Sakiusa Makutu), Tavua (Turaga na Tui Tavua Ratu Ovini Bokini) and Namosi (Turaga na Tui Namosi Ratu Suliano Matanitobua) are against the charter.

Usually, Fijians follow their chiefs although to some extent this has changed.
Religious groups including the Methodist Church, the Then India Sanmarga Ikya (TISI) Sangam, Shree Sanatan Dharam Pratinidhi Sabha have decided not to be part of the charter.

We must be mindful of the rights in the 1997 Constitution. People have the right to decide for themselves and in the current case must decide on whether to accept the charter or not. We must be mindful of the fact that the charter is a new political vehicle initiated by Interim Prime Minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama.

The format, content and authority of this charter are not yet clear.
President Ratu Josefa Iloilo addressing the first meeting of the National Council for Building a Better Fiji (NCBBF) said the council would chart out a course for peace, political stability, good governance, harmonious co-existence and prosperity for all, the people of Fiji. In fact this is a way forward for a new Fiji.

The charter must be supported by the indigenous Fijians to make it effective. The religious body which represents the majority of the Fijian people, the Methodist Church of Fiji and the political party that represents majority of the Fijian people (Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua - SDL) is against the charter.

SDL leader Laisenia Qarase said Fiji does not need a People’s Charter to achieve true democracy. He said the charter should not be forced on the people of the country and the interim government should take steps to start dialogue on the People’s Charter before formulating the document.

Already I must admit the Fijian people are suspicious about the charter. They are not happy with the reforms made in Fijian institutions. They are not happy with the new Fijian Affairs (Great Council of Chiefs) Act. They are not happy that the new Act that has ruled out chiefs who are SDL members or public office bearers in 2006 to be members of the Great Council of Chiefs. They are not happy that the charter will not allow communal voting. They are not happy that election will only be carried out if they accept the charter.

They are not happy because they now realise that the way forward for PM Bainimarama and backed by the Interim Finance Minister and Fiji Labour Party leader Mahendra Chaudhry involves cutting long-established government programmes for Fijians that the new government’s leaders label racist and divisive. They are not happy with the militarization of the civil service.

It is a fact that the government of the day must try to unite the Fijian people and get their support before preparing the charter. Because of the lack of support from the Fijian people, all efforts to put in place the for the charter will be meaningless.

They have given their total support to the 1997 Constitution. They know that there is no provision in the constitution for a referendum to be carried out in the absence of parliament.

Ousted Opposition Leader Mick Beddoes when asked about the referendum to get the people’s approval said - “In so far as the suggestion of a referendum to adopt this charter, I am aware that there is currently no provision in our constitution for such an undertaking so some type of promulgation will obviously be required to create a law to deal with this, so as to regulate how the various questions are to be framed.
In this regard, I would like to think that some ‘external international assistance’ is sought to ensure ‘impartiality’ on the part of the Interim government.”

"
Mr Beddoes said although the referendum would probably be extra constitutional, the result could possibly be acceptable as it will ‘from the people’ who are after all the real source of power and sovereignty."

Majority of the legal birds contacted said the charter has to be put in place by a democratically elected government. It will be interesting to see how the charter will be put in place. If it is through a referendum so that the voice of the people is heard, it will be unconstitutional because the Constitution is silent on referendum.


Outside observers have speculated that the PM might argue for the postponement of the election until a charter is put in place. Some critics have gone further, wondering if the People’s Charter might become a populist vehicle to legitimising the military regime, perhaps displacing the 1997 Constitution itself.

Well, with the division in the Fijian society, government must use the Fijian protocol to get the support. It must first of all seek the forgiveness of the chiefs and ask for their support to the charter.

Government must concentrate on its clean up campaign and bring people implicated to justice. The Fijian people want a democratically elected government to decide on the political future and changes for the nation.

With the current progress I must admit that the Fijian people feel they have been discriminated. According to Fijian academic and Rewa young chief Ro Filipe Tuiswau it is becoming more and more apparent that the Interim Government is fulfilling a pre-conceived agenda to weaken the core strength of the Fijian people.

When one looks at the events of Dec 2006 and the overthrow, he says, it is basically aimed at the Fijian people. “To date, no SDL MP has been arrested for corruption so the coup was really just a pretext to launch certain individuals to power, apart from hiding their own corruption and illegal acts such as tax evasion, as the sun was about to set for them. Not only that, it propelled into powers the Labour Leader, his cronies and failed New Alliance politicians. All of them were going out and this was their last chance of glory.

However, when you look at the suspension of GCC, targeting of Fijian executives and Fijian institutions and businesses, there is a clear agenda in place. This agenda can easily be linked to the recommendations in Saiyed Khaiyums thesis publicised in the May 2007 Islands Business magazine.

It recommended the restructuring and weakening of Fijian institutions so that their loyalty is redirected to the state rather than to their provinces and chiefs,” Ro Filipe said. He said the Peoples Charter aim to create a non racial Fiji is all part of the anti Fijian conspiracy.

It is time for the government to rally for the support of the Fijian people.
Fijians are divided between allegiance and support for the military-led government and the GCC. Because there is a definite split it is time that Fijian leaders sit down and talk with our current leaders..

It is also time that the relationship between the interim administration and the GCC also needs to be rectified. According to Dr Steven Ratuva it is time for a bridge to be built across it and talks to begin for the future of this country.
The way forward is not the Charter but the support of the Fijian community.

Accordingly, SiFm offers a rebuttal for the opinion piece. The excerpt of the rebuttal:

The opinion article that appeared in Fiji Sun, Tues March 25th, 2008 regarding the Charter compiled by the National Council To Build a Better Fiji (NCBFF) is disingenuous, divisive and deceptive.

The article opens with an obtuse generalization stating that: “Fijian protocol must be respected in the promotion of the People’s Charter”. It is no doubt that the article has the finger prints of Fiji Sun's acting publisher, Samisoni Kakaivalu all over it, based on his previous writings that carry the same DNA: oversimplification, overwhelmingly ethno-nationalistic and devoid of facts.

Clearly the Fijian protocol is not in contention and for the article to even suggest that is reprehensible. The opening statement, is merely the opening moves of an article, riddled with condescending logical flaws.

Kakaivalu drops the names of six chiefs who have not acceded their support to their charter, after stating that “the Fijian people are divided and the charter cannot be forced upon them”.

The article contradicts its opening premise on the chiefs decision by correctly alluding that: “Usually, Fijians follow their chiefs although to some extent this has changed”.

The article list the religious organizations which also do not support the charter and then follows up with the suggestion that under the 1997 Constitution, people have a right to choose on their own accord. That also means that, regardless of what the chiefs or religious organization have declared, the people will determine their own destiny.

Kakaivalu continues his ethno-nationalistic generalization of how the Methodist Church is made of majority Fijians, as with the SDL party and with a “Non Sequitur” inference, concludes that the decisions made by the Methodist church and SDL are best for the Fijian people.

The article quotes from deposed Prime Minister and SDL party leader Laisenia Qarase: “Fiji does not need a People’s Charter to achieve true democracy”.

According to Qarase's model of true democracy, raced based voting system is prevalent, where chiefs use their traditional authority to force their people to vote a certain way, where culture, religion and politics are so intertwined and blurred that people are not sure if they are voting for a lay minister or a chief.

"The ripples of fears emanating from the detractors of charter to take Fiji forward, are perhaps self induced doubts by those living in the past and like crabs in a basket, continue to drag back in, those trying to escape".

Under Qarase's 6 years of true democracy, the resources of the state where squandered in vote buying schemes known as the Agricultural scam and where $F20 million loan to construct the Great Council of Chiefs(GCC) complex was mysteriously converted to a grant. The legacy of Qarase's true democracy leaves a wake of poor and rural dwelling Fijians, clutching at unfulfilled promises.


Kakaivalu further outlines how the Fijian people are unhappy for litany of reasons, without providing evidence of his source. For all we know, the article's author could have plucked those supposed facts, out of thin air. The article quotes from people who undoubtedly have their own axes to grind and then continues with ethno-nationalistic fear mongering, a well used approach by Kakaivalu during his tenure at the Fiji Times.

The article further falls victim to “Post hoc, ergo propter hoc”, a classic logical fallacy when quoting from Filipe Tuisawau who was commenting on the charter:

“It recommended the restructuring and weakening of Fijian institutions so that their loyalty is redirected to the state rather than to their provinces and chiefs [...]the Peoples Charter aim to create a non racial Fiji is all part of the anti Fijian conspiracy”.

It is circular reasoning to conclude that that all Fijian people are first citizens of the provinces, subjects of their chiefs and not the state. The Fijian people use the currency of the state to purchase goods, not on monetary notes issued by the province. The Fijian people who travel, have passports issued by the Fiji Government, not by the provincial chiefs. Fiji is a member of the United Nations, not Rewa, Naitasiri, Cakaudrove, Nadroga, Tavua, Namosi or any loose alliances in between.

The Fijian people had watched the Fiji team play well during the last world cup and with the upcoming 2008 IRB Hong Kong Sevens tournament, the rugby team will be wearing Fiji jerseys, not provincial ones. Nor will the question of provinces or loyalties to a chief will be raised, because even the chiefs themselves will be watching the game in anticipation, as well as cheering when the Fiji team excels.

Being a chief is not the criteria for choosing the rugby team representing Fiji and if it would, the team would succumb to traditional protocol, just to figure out who runs on to the field first and who should be the Captain. Even the choice of passing, tackling and kicking the ball would have to be first determined under consensus using traditional protocol.

It would not take a rocket scientist to figure out the track record of such a hypothetical team and its ultimate fate; for certain it will be become the greatest laughing stock of the entire sporting world. We dare not think about the future of a state, under the same conditions of provincial bickering, handicapped by traditional protocol and governed by chiefly duplicity.

Fijian culture is not being threatened; for the arts and crafts, mannerisms, respect for the elderly are inherently safe and that knowledge is passed on from generation to generation.

The fear of divided loyalties, unfortunately lies solely with those disgruntled detractors who are aligned with the chiefly system. The detractors worry that, no longer will they have any subjects to rule and no longer can they influence people and arrest their god given right to choose, live and think for themselves.
Although, there is some legitimacy to the fear of change; people cannot be permanently paralyzed by all things new, as that will reduce the populace to the wasteland of a fortress mentality.

As the article pleads for the Interim Government to unite the Fijian people, it is rather ironic that the main thrust of Kakaivalu's article, magnified the matters the divide the nation and dismissing the ties that bind the nation together.

According to renown African American scholar, W.E.B Du Bois' 1944 essay: "My Evolving Program For Negro Freedom" :

“The hope of civilization lies not in exclusion, but in inclusion of all human elements; we find the richness of humanity[...]not in great aristocracies, chosen people and superior races, but in throngs of disinherited and underfed [people]. Not the lifting of the lowly, but the unchaining of the unawakened mighty, will reveal the possibilities of genius, gift and miracle, in mountainous treasure trove, which hitherto civilization has scarcely touched”.

As the charter proposes to steer the nation of Fiji on a new course for the future and inspires the building of bridges, as opposed to burning them; perhaps those who oppose that, are merely obstructionists for their own reasons, reasons far divorced from those of the nation.

The ripples of fears emanating from the detractors of charter to take Fiji forward, are perhaps self induced doubts by those living in the past and like crabs in a basket, continue to drag back in, those trying to escape. Undoubtedly people must be inspired to lift themselves out of the basket of hopelessness and misery, to a forge a new paradigm which the charter encapsulates. In order to ignore those fears of change, the slogan of the Barack Obama's US Presidential campaign is invaluable- “Yes we can!”.

Social Bookmarking

Club Em Designs