Island In The Sky- Profits Flying Away?

Fiji's flagship airline, Air Pacific is being closely scrutinized by its majority shareholder, the Fiji Government.

Scoop magazine article quotes from Fiji's Finance Minister, regarding the lethargic financial perfomance of Air Pacific, which was widely believed to be a result of the dominance of the minority shareholder, Qantas.









The excerpt of Scoop article:

"Air Pacific Is A Stagnating Airline" -- Fiji Govt

Tuesday, 27 May 2008, 10:58 am
Press Release: Fiji Government

Air Pacific Operations Review

Government owns major shares in Air Pacific which makes the airline's commercial viability very much its concern, said Finance Minister, Mahendra Chaudhry.

He was responding to a front page report in The Fiji Times on Saturday quoting the Association of South Pacific Airlines telling government to stay out of Air Pacific's affairs.

"Air Pacific is a stagnating airline. Its profit is declining, it is not expanding, no new major international destinations have been added to its flight network in the past two decades. It is also beset by serious employee relations' problems."

"It is ridiculous for anyone to say that as the major shareholder the Fiji Government should sit back and not take timely action to set things right to avert," Mr Chaudhry said.

Government's concern, as outlined in its media statement, stems from months of complaints lodged by Air Pacific employees, concerned members of the tourism industry as well as the traveling public.

The national airline's deteriorating standards is a worry to the tourism sector. Chronic mechanical problems associated with its ageing fleet of aircraft, is causing delays in the airline's on time performance, sapping confidence in its reliability and efficiency.

"As Fiji's flagship carrier, it is expected to contribute to a vibrant tourism industry by exploring expansion into new markets and destinations. But we have not seen the national airline embark on any new initiatives in the past two decades.

"Air Pacific Board and senior management have to take full responsibility for the poor state of the airline today."

It is widely believed that Air Pacific's current state of inertia is the result of dominance by minority shareholder Qantas Airways.

"This is why we need to review the shareholding agreement with Qantas Airways to ensure that Fiji's national interest is not compromised by this partnership," Mr Chaudhry said.

ENDS

However, Qantas denies any responsibility in Air Pacific's financial track record, according to a Fiji Times article.

Qantas washes hands off Air Pacific woes

MARGARET WISE
Fiji Times Thursday, May 29, 2008

QANTAS says it is not responsible for the perceived sluggish performance of our national carrier Air Pacific.

And the airline, one of Australia's strongest brands, has taken strong exception to the interim Government's claim that Air Pacific's deteriorating standards was the result of Qantas' dominance.

A company spokesman from the airline's Sydney office said they were aware of the interim Government's plan to review the operations of Air Pacific.

With 46 per cent shares, Qantas is the second major shareholder in Air Pacific.

"We will, as a major shareholder, make a submission to the review at the appropriate time, the spokesman said.

"However, we reject totally the assertion that any perceived inertia in Air Pacific is the result of Qantas' dominance. The opposite is the case, we have provided operational and commercial support only when requested."

In a media statement this week interim Finance Minister Mahendra Chaudhry said it was widely believed that Air Pacific's state of inertia was the result of dominance by minority shareholder Qantas.

"This is why we need to review the shareholding agreement with Qantas to ensure Fiji's national interest is not compromised by this partnership," he said.

The review exercise will include a review of the shareholders' agreement between the two airlines, entered into some two decades ago.

Mr Chaudhry said government owned major shares in Air Pacific which makes the airline's commercial viability very much its concern.

"Air Pacific is a stagnating airline. Its profit is declining, it is not expanding, no new major international destinations have been added to its flight network in the past decade."

In a Radio Australia web article, Qantas claims that it actually helped Air Pacific.

Qantas says it's helped Fijian carrier

Updated Thu May 29, 2008 7:00pm AEST

Australia's main airline Qantas has hit back at claims by Fiji that it's responsible for the perceived sluggish performance of Air Pacific.

Qantas has told the Pacific News Service it's taken strong exception to the interim government's charge that Fiji's national carrier's falling standards, are a result of Qantas' dominance. Qantas says it's actually helped Air Pacific; providing operational and commercial support when asked to.

In a statement this week, interim finance minister Mahendra Chaudhry said the government would be reviewing the operations of Air Pacific of which Qantas is the second major shareholder. He says Air Pacific is a stagnating airline with falling profits and no new major international destinations have been added to its flight network in 10 years.

The sluggish performance by Air Pacific has been one of the reasons outlined, including certain powers given to Qantas, Australia's international carrier. According the Fiji's Attorney General as quoted in a Fiji live (FL)article, despite holding 51% shares; the Fiji Government is unable to exercise certain powers normally awarded to majority shareholders.

The excerpt of the FL article:

Fiji Govt unhappy with Qantas deal
11 JUN 2008

---

The Fiji Government is unhappy that Qantas airline has more say in the operations of its national airline Air Pacific.

The Government has majority shares in Air Pacific. However its aim to integrate the airline in its plans to boost the country’s economy has been inhibited by the status quo.

Interim Attorney-General and Public Enterprise Minister Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum said today that the Government will be calling for public submissions for the next 28 days in the hope that it may make changes.

“Government has 51 per cent shares in Air Pacific. However, despite this the Government of Fiji is unable to exercise powers that it may normally do as a majority shareholder,” he said.

“For example, under the Articles of Association, Qantas, which owns 46 per cent of Air Pacific, has veto powers in a number of key operational areas.

“These include the commencement of any new air routes, the issuance of shares, the adoption of an annual operating budget, the adoption or material variation by the directors of a dividend policy of the company, and the entry by Air Pacific into any major commercial agreement.”

Sayed-Khaiyum adds that many interested parties like the tourism operators, employees, business houses and members of the travelling public have raised concerns regarding equal employment opportunities in Air Pacific. He said Fiji needs to have direct connectivity with South East Asia, Middle East and Europe, which will among other things give Fiji a bigger tourism market.

The AG’s comments follow the establishment last month of a Cabinet task force to oversee a comprehensive review of the operations of Air Pacific.

The Cabinet team comprises Civil Aviation Minister Ratu Epeli Nailatikau, Sayed-Khaiyum, Finance Minister Mahendra Chaudhry and Tourism Minister Tom Ricketts.

The public submissions sought by Government will be presented to the task force.

Sayed-Khaiyum said the task force “will undertake further exercises to give Government a true picture of its position as 51 per cent shareholder of Air Pacific”.

Air Pacific CEO John Campbell told Fijilive this afternoon that he hasn’t had any communication with Government regarding the review.

Comments are being sought from Qantas.

Meanwhile, ousted Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase had said Government was interfering into Air Pacific's operations and is cause for concern. He said Qantas is one of the most reputable airlines in the world and it's partnership has ensured the survival and profitability of Air Pacific over the years.

The Association of South Pacific Airlines had also called on the interim Government to ‘stay out’ of Air Pacific’s affairs.

Fiji Times article also reported that three directors will be appointed to Air Pacific's board.
The excerpt of the FT article:

Three new directors set for Air Pacific

Thursday, May 15, 2008

THREE new directors will be appointed to the Air Pacific board from next month.

Board chairman Nalin Patel says Air Pacific's major shareholder, the Government, has informed him three new Fiji directors would be appointed next month.

The Government owns 51 per cent of shares while Qantas Airways Limited is the second largest shareholder with 46 percent.

Mr Patel said the names of the three directors would be advised by the government in due course. He said the chairman, managing director and Qantas-nominated directors remained unchanged.

"It's the shareholders prerogative and the Government owns 51 percent of the company. The appointments are done by the shareholders themselves," he said.

"The Government has the final say in regards to the Fiji directors. Fiji has five and Qantas has four. The appointments are done on a yearly basis and done at the annual meeting which is usually held in September."

Mr Patel said directors Daniel Elisha, Sitiveni Weleilakeba and Sekonaia Mailekai would step down after the May 29 board meeting. The interim Government will appoint the new directors by next month.

Mr Patel said he appreciated the contributions of the three departing board members.

Yesterday Civil Aviation Permanent secretary Ross Ligairi referred all questions to the director of Civil Aviation.

But Akuila Waradi said the Government was working on confirming the new board members.

"What's come out in the news is news to us. We're working on confirming the new members and who will be replaced," he said. "I'm not aware whether the board of directors are on contract but the term is usually for a year and renewable for a maximum of three year but all that has to be looked into."

Social Bookmarking

Club Em Designs

Kiribati aid and Fiji focus of leaders' talk

Aid for Kiribati and what to do about Fiji at the Niue Pacific leaders' summit in August were top of Beehive discussions held yesterday between Prime Minister Helen Clark and Kiribati President Anote Tong.

read more | digg story

Interim Defense Minister lashes out at U-S ambassador

Interim Defense Minister Ratu Epeli Ganilau has accused the U-S ambassador of deliberately feeding wrong information to Washington.Ratu Epeli made the comments in relation to a U-S State Department report that now lists Fiji as an offender in Human Trafficking.

read more | digg story

Walker On Fiji - psfk

In his latest Consumed article, Rob Walker looks at environmentalists' attacks on the bottled-water brand Fiji and the company's reaction--which includes an advertising campaign that promotes its green credentials. Walker raises an interesting point at the end of the piece about consumption decisions and our need for brands to help us make them.

read more | digg story

Fiji Times - Spelling Mistakes In Headline. (Updated)

I did not know that Air Pacific's order of the Dream liner (Boeing 787-9) was in for a fight, as alluded to in a Fiji Times article. I'm probably not the first person to see such mistakes on the online publication and as such, it is a poor reflection of the professionalism of the Editor and Sub Editor.

What is so difficult to understand is how the mistake could be missed in the headline?
The Fiji Times Editorial page, urges their readers to make a cool change.

We at The Fiji Times choose to make a cool change for ourselves, our families, our communities and our nation.

These are just some of a long list of things that The Fiji Times has initiated on the advice of experts and through the commitment of our staff.

With all their expert advice and the staff commitment, typos still arise and this definitely underscores the irony of the Fiji Times "cool change" campaign. Perhaps, the most urgently needed change with Fiji Times, is the employment of more proof readers.



In a span of a couple of days, the spelling mistakes continue unabated in the Fiji Times as seen in this article titled "Priets wants system change".




Social Bookmarking

Club Em Designs

Discussion Paper proposes abolishment of Fiji communal seats

Documents obtained by One National News reveal there are chances all communal seats will be abolished under electoral changes now supported by the National Council for Building a Better Fiji.

read more | digg story

Fiji High Court Judge Questions Activist's Proceedings.

Justice Hickie questioned if AUSAID and NZAID have been advised of Angie Heffernan’s various legal proceedings and if so have they been approached to provide funding of any of the outstanding legal costs awarded against Heffernan.

read more | digg story

2009 Fiji Poll not for ‘illegal’ parties: CCF

Reacting to a statement by the interim Prime Minister that the former ruling Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua party will not be allowed to contest the next election, Citizens Constitutional Forum (CCF) Executive Director, Reverend Akuila Yabaki says such a decision will augur well for Fiji.

read more | digg story

Fiji Government Reiterates Plans For 2009 Elections.

SUVA, Fiji: Fiji pledged again Wednesday to hold "free and fair" democratic elections in March 2009 — after months of serious doubt among foreign governments and observers.

read more | digg story

The Sickest Event On The Planet. (Surfer Speak).

Dubbed as "The Sickest Event on the Planet", the Globe Pro Fiji is returning to the perfect breaks of Cloudbreak and Restaurants, with the usual cast of top 45 surfers in the world from the ASP World Tour. Article in 5one predicts the action starts on Sunday and according to an article in Surfing Magazine.com, the surfers are literally 'stoked' for more action.








Social Bookmarking

Club Em Designs

Australia's Selective Compliance of International Law- A Fiji View. (Updated)

Fiji Live (FL)article covers the speculative and outrageous claims by Australian Foreign Minister, Steven Smith regarding the issue of 'threat letters'.

The excerpt of the FL article:

Follow diplomatic obligations, Fiji told
21 MAY 2008

Australia has called on Fiji to comply with its international obligations, which make it incumbent on the interim regime to protect diplomatic missions, staff and their families.

The call has come from Foreign Minister Stephen Smith, who told the Australian Parliament that Fiji was obliged to do this under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, the Age newspaper reports.

Smith revealed the Federal Government would pay for staff and their families at the high commission in Fiji to voluntarily return to Australia after Fiji's military rulers dismissed requests to bolster security following two death threats against the High Commissioner, James Batley.

He said the two threats in the past two weeks had been credible and repugnant but Fiji's rulers had rejected the Government's requests to deploy two unarmed federal police officers and to provide extra Fijian police.

"Regrettably, the Fiji interim Government has advised that it is not prepared to agree to close personal protection and I am still awaiting a response on additional Fiji police measures," he said.

"A number of additional steps will now be taken by the high commission itself to further strengthen security … The Government has decided to allow the families of Australian officials in our High Commission in Fiji to voluntarily return.

"Families may choose to stay. It will be entirely a matter for them."

Smith would not comment on whether the Fijian military was behind the threats, but said the swift response of the Fijian police indicated they regarded the threats as credible.

"Both anonymous threats were vile and repugnant in the extreme," he said. "The first threat, in my view, was a clear death threat against the high commissioner. The second threat was of the same order, but also could be interpreted as a wider threat to Australian officials at the high commission."

The death threats have further strained relations between Fiji and Australia, which has been leading the international effort to pressure the Fijian military regime, which seized power in a coup in December 2006, to hold elections.

Fiji's Foreign Minister, Ratu Epeli Nailatikau, said yesterday security at the high commission was adequate and that the Australian offer to repatriate diplomats was regrettable.

"The thing is that if you look at the letter that came … it could be from a crank," he said. "[The High Commissioner] is here in Fiji. He has not been tied down anywhere. He is going around Suva … What the Australians have asked us is to provide security [at] entrances to the high commission. We are providing all that."

A Fiji Sun(FS)article also quotes from Australian Foreign Minister, Steven Smith. The excerpt of the FS article:

Staff given option to leave
Last updated 5/21/2008 9:19:39 AM

Family members of the Australian High Commission diplomatic staff have been offered the choice of “voluntary departure” by their government amid security concerns.
It comes as Canberra again raised its concern over the interim government’s rejection of a request to bring in reinforcement security for the High Commissioner and his staff after two threats in the past two weeks.

Australian High Commissioner James Batley said the latest move by his government came about as part of precautionary measures put in place by the High Commission for its staff and their families.

The country’s Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has also reviewed its travel advisory on Fiji. Mr Batley, for security reasons, wouldn’t say if any of his staff was going to accept the offer to return home. Australia’s Foreign Affairs Minister, Stephen Smith said Canberra remained deeply concerned by the threats.

“The Government is disappointed that the Interim Fiji Government has not yet agreed to our reasonable requests for the deployment of Australian personnel and for additional security support by the Fiji police,” said Mr Smith. He reminded the interim government of its obligation, under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, to fully protect diplomatic staff and their families and diplomatic premises.

“A number of additional steps will now be taken, by the High Commission itself, to further strengthen the security of our staff, their families and our premises,” Mr Smith said.

“The Government has decided to offer spouses, partners and dependent children of High Commission staff in Suva the option of ‘voluntary return’ to Australia, with reasonable costs met by the Australian Government in the usual way.

“Families may choose to stay. It will be entirely a matter for them.” [Smith] said the threats did not alter the Australian government’s policy on Fiji. Meanwhile comments made by Australian authorities that the Fiji military was responsible for making threats against the Australian High Commissioner had been labelled as preposterous.

Interim Defence Minister Ratu Epeli Ganilau was reacting to reports in the Sydney Morning Herald which said: “Australian officials believe the Fijian military was responsible for two credible death threats against the high commissioner, James Batley, in the past two weeks”.

Ratu Epeli said the claims by the Australian authorities were unsubstantiated and should be backed up by facts if they wanted to maintain their claims. “The authorities who are occupying themselves with speculations would do better by spending their time with facts,” Ratu Epeli said. He said the interim Government has consistently maintained that it would not tolerate any threats by any person against diplomats in Fiji.

A Fiji Times article covering the subject of Australian diplomats being given the choice to relocate or remain, after the request by diplomats for deploying Australian Federal Police to shore up security in the Suva embassy was declined.

The excerpt of the FT article:

Return if you want, Aussie diplomats told

Thursday, May 22, 2008





A policeman checks out the occupants of a vehicle entering the Australian High Commissioners residence at Tamavua, in Suva

AUSTRALIA has updated its travel advisory, telling its nationals to observe a high degree of caution when in Suva and staff of the Australian High Commission in Fiji are authorised to leave Fiji if they wish.

The change was made after a request from the Australian High Commission for two unarmed Australian Federal Police officers to provide personal protection for its envoy, James Batley, was refused.

Under its safety and security clause in its advisory, the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade says "the Australian Government has authorised the voluntary departure of dependents of Australia-based staff in the Australian High Commission in Suva, if they wish to leave".

Police spokesman Atunaisa Sokomuri yesterday said the force continued to provide security at the High Commissioner's residence and at the Australian High Commission.
He said police were still investigating the two death threats which were delivered to the Australian High Commission.

Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Stephen Smith had said the Australian Government would pay for families of diplomatic staff to voluntarily return home.

Speaking to reporters in Canberra on Tuesday, Mr Smith said "a number of additional steps would be taken by the high commission to further strengthen the security of our staff, their families and our premises".

Note that the Fiji Times had quoted Foreign Minister Steven Smith, but omitted Smith's doublespeak of referring to the 1961 Vienna Protocol.

The incident of the death threat letters addressed to the Australian High Commissioner, is quite a deplorable incident in itself. However, it is simply another matter for the Australian Foreign Minister to start preaching about Fiji's obligations under the Vienna Convention; since it has been proven that Australia had willfully breached the letter and the spirit of the Vienna convention.

Although, Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade's own website claims that they take the Vienna Convention seriously; the website also provides a caveat in the limitations of the Australian Protective Service (APS):

The Australian Protective Service (APS) may be engaged to monitor alarms at other staff residences and at the residences of honorary consuls but this will be charged for. The APS is unable to provide a response service to alarms in residences of staff and honorary consuls.

In these cases, the services of a private security company should be engaged - the APS will monitor the alarm regardless of whether the APS or a private company provides the response service.

Blog "The Interpreter" recent posting by Jenny Howard-Jones seems to have stirred up some misleading points on the subsequent events, after the threat letters were received.
The excerpt of the posting:

Inexplicable new low in Fiji-Australia relations
by Jenny Hayward-Jones
1 day ago

Fiji’s refusal to provide additional security or allow Australian Federal Police to provide protection to the Australian High Commission in Suva in the face of two credible death threats to Australian High Commissioner James Batley is yet another extreme step backwards by the Fiji interim government.

Its lack of respect for international law has brought relations with Australia to a new and unnecessary low, after the deportation of two Australian publishers.

It would be easy to say that this attitude is evidence of the interim government’s increased intransigence but Commodore Bainimarama has surprised us all by meeting on 19 May with Laisenia Qarase, the Prime Minister he deposed with his 2006 coup. The meeting, brokered by church leaders and described as informal, is a significant step in reassuring the region that Fiji is moving on the path to restoring democracy.

Commodore Bainimarama also demonstrated a sense of responsibility for the safety of foreigners in Fiji last week when he said that Fiji was a safe place and assured some Australian tourists who had been the victims of assault that the perpetrators would be 'taken to task by the authorities.'

Like any country heavily dependent on tourism for income, Fiji does not want to see reports of crime scaring away potential visitors. Fiji, presumably, would also be hesitant to see the families of diplomats depart, with the endorsement of the Australian government, because they did not feel safe. The interim government might also bear in mind that it is Australian High Commission staff who provide assistance to Australian tourists who become victims of crime in Fiji – if the diplomats themselves do not feel safe, how can they reassure Australians that the Fiji authorities will look after them?

So why is the interim government being bloody-minded about providing some additional protection to the Australian High Commission? Allowing Australian Federal Police officers in the country might be construed by the interim government as an unwanted intrusion but surely the interim government can spare some extra security officers of its own to protect the High Commission and its staff? It is not just diplomatic relations with Australia at stake here. This kind of publicity does not really reassure tourists that Fiji is a 'safe place'.

The opening sentence of the blog from Meyer Melanesia Foundation Program at Lowly Institute for International Policy is highly inaccurate.

Fiji’s refusal to provide additional security or allow Australian Federal Police to provide protection to the Australian High Commission in Suva in the face of two credible death threats to Australian High Commissioner James Batley is yet another extreme step backwards by the Fiji interim government.

First and foremost, the refusal was directed at the request to deploy Australian Federal Police to the Embassy.

The security at the Australian High Commission was upgraded subsequent to the first threat letter. It is also concerning how the "threats" were leaked to the media in the first place, as security professionals deal with these matters better if the threat matrix was analyzed quietly with the assistance of the local law enforcement.

Fiji Exiles Board posting on the issue is interesting. A poster (Real Jack)on the forum believes that the threats were manufactured, since the Interim Government would have resorted to deporting the High Commissioner if he had been a problem.

Fiji is far more safer than some parts of Sydney and it appears that the Australian High Commissioner is not being fazed even with the threats, because it appears that he was spotted going to the movies with friends, according to a post (by Alohabula 1) on the Fiji Exiles Forum.

Leaking the threat letter to the media would have been a tool for the Australian Foreign Ministry to disparage the efforts of the Interim Government and dissuade Australian tourists from visiting Fiji.

Unfortunately, this disapproval (of deploying the Federal Police)has been spun by the Australian Foreign Minister Steven Smith; as a convenient ploy to garner empathetical support from the International Community, among other things. If the(APS) does not provide services to alarms in staff residences and honorary consuls even in Australia (APS recommends that the services of a private security company be engaged); how would the APS respond to alarms in Fiji?


Clearly, the Vienna Protocol has been conveniently abused by the Australia's Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade (DFAT) as a Fiji Times article (Wednesday Nov. th 2006 issue) outlines the claim of immunity to searches for diplomatic pouches. The excerpt of the FT article:

Diplomatic pouch is proper: Aussies

Wednesday, November 08, 2006

A diplomatic consignment sent to Fiji last Friday was cleared in accordance with normal procedures, Australian High Commission department of foreign affairs and trade media liaison officer Matt Anderson, says.

Mr Anderson said the Australian Government had sent a team of Defence Supplementation Staff (DSS) to help the high commission. "They are to assist the high commission with administration and coordination. This is standard contingency planning and the Fiji Government was advised of the additional staff," he said.

Australian Foreign Affairs Minister Alexander Downer and defence officials yesterday would not identify the number of personnel, their roles or the equipment sent to Fiji, apart from saying the men were "people to assist with coordination and administration".

New Zealand High Commissioner Michael Green said a small number of NZ police officers were in the country to provide security, advice and support to the high commission.

"The Fiji Government and the Fiji police were notified in advance of their arrival. The NZ police team did not arrive with silver boxes," he said. [Green] said that "no decision has been taken yet" over when the officers would return to New Zealand.

Meanwhile, Prime Minister's Office chief executive Jioji Kotobalavu said foreign embassies, high commissions, United Nations and international agencies based in Fiji were entitled to diplomatic privileges to bring in staff from overseas.

He said this could be as additional measures to protect office premises and staff residences, along with the safety of staff and families.

In a statement, he said there was nothing extraordinary about it. "It is part of their normal diplomatic entitlement under the Vienna Convention on Diplomatic and Consular Relations and the Fiji Diplomatic and Consular Privileges and Immunities Act," Mr Kotobalavu said.

"All they have to do is to notify the Fiji Ministry of Foreign Affairs of their intention, and to request the provision of normal courtesies and facilitation on arrival in Fiji.

"The Fiji police is responsible for the general security of diplomatic missions and their staff in Fiji. However, these missions are free to bring in their own security staff, based on their assessments. Some already do this and, in certain circumstances, they may bring in additional personnel. It is part of their normal entitlement."

On Sunday, the Fiji army's Land Force commander, Colonel Pita Driti claimed Fiji's sovereignty had been breached by the arrival of a group of Australian nationals and 400kgs of equipment on Friday. He said the group had bypassed normal immigration procedures. Col Driti warned the military would not accept foreign intervention.

On Monday night, Fiji military spokesman Major Neumi Leweni said they were still trying to find out more about the Australian nationals who entered the country on Friday. "It could possibly be the SAS. We are yet to confirm that," he said.

Mr Downer, speaking on ABC Radio, confirmed some extra staff had been sent to the Australian High Commission in Suva. "We have sent in some additional coordination and administrative staff in the event that there is a coup and there is some violence associated with the coup," Mr Downer told ABC Radio.

However, an article in Christian Science Monitor provides an expose on the abuses of this diplomatic pouch. The excerpt of CS article:

Guess what doesn't get screened by airlines? Diplomatic pouches.
Security experts worry that terrorists could exploit the protected status of these bags.

By Alexandra Marks | Staff writer of The Christian Science Monitor
WASHINGTON – Despite the intense scrutiny of airline passengers and their bags since 9/11, potentially explosive gaps still exist.

Top among them, for some analysts, are diplomatic bags - the privileged cargo that is given special immunity.
Readers Vote
(Having trouble? Click here)

Should the US start searching other countries' 'diplomatic pouches'?
Yes. It's only a matter of time before terrorists find a way to abuse their protected status.	61.28 % (201)
No. If it screens another country's diplomatic bags, the US can expect its own to be searched, too.	38.72 % (127)
Total votes: 328

Related story: Guess what airlines don't screen? Diplomatic bags.

* This is not a scientific poll. It is offered for those readers interested in expressing an opinion on a central issue presented in the accompanying story. The results are representative only of those self-selected Internet users, not of Internet users in general or the public as a whole. Voting closes 30 days after the poll is posted.

Security experts worry that terrorists could exploit the status of diplomatic pouches, which are protected from being opened or detained in any way by the Vienna Convention of 1961. In the past, rogue countries and individuals have used such bags to transport drugs, arms, and cash - and even to smuggle people. That's because a diplomatic pouch can be a crate big enough to carry a large desk.

Some security experts say it's "only a matter of time" before terrorists aligned with a rogue nation - or a dissatisfied diplomatic employee in a friendly one - find a way to abuse the privilege. To prevent that, a growing number of security experts, along with some diplomatic scholars, are calling for the United States and the international community to revisit the sanctity of diplomatic pouches.

The issue is gaining ground as the International Civil Aviation Organization, which sets global aviation standards and best practices, prepares to review its security guidelines later this month.

"The US needs to take the lead in saying this is a vulnerability that needs to at least be explored," says aviation security analyst Andrew Thomas of the University of Akron in Ohio. "Putting our heads in the sand and acting like it's still 1961 in a post-9/11 environment is just not the way to go."

But advocates of more tabs on diplomatic pouches have found an unlikely opponent - the US government itself. The State Department has consistently opposed screening diplomatic bags. "We support [the Vienna Convention] as it stands," says spokesman Noel Clay. That's because it doesn't want American diplomatic pouches screened when they are used overseas. The department worries such a move could compromise the nation's international intelligence operations, Mr. Clay says.

That view is shared by many in the intelligence and foreign affairs communities. The logic is based on preserving the integrity of the Vienna Convention, says Alfred Rubin, professor emeritus of international law at Tufts University's Fletcher School in Medford, Mass. So, if the US insists on screening another country's diplomatic bags, then the US would be vulnerable to the same treatment.

"Then American diplomatic pouches can presumably be examined and X-rayed or opened by our Latin American and African neighbors, and America doesn't want that," says Professor Rubin. "But I do think we have to explore the options."

Advocates of diplomatic bag screening contend there are ways to protect diplomatic protocol and at the same time increase aviation security. For instance, countries could ferry sensitive documents and technology on their own military aircraft.

"Because of the historical record of state sponsorship of and complicity with terrorism, it's certainly something that should be discussed, especially when it comes to nonintrusive means of checking," says Prof. Robert Lieber of Georgetown University in Washington.

Since 9/11, the Canadian government has implemented a policy that allows it to request examination of a diplomatic pouch if it has reason to believe the contents are suspect. "If the process is unsuccessful, [they can] deny transportation of the bag," e-mailed Vanessa Vermette of Transport Canada in response to a question.

Asked if the US has a similar policy in place, Clay of the State Department did not answer directly with a yes or no. "Diplomatic pouches are inviolable under international accords," he says. "We expect that host countries will obey the uses of the diplomatic pouch and institute reasonable precautions to ensure they're used only as intended."

But there is a long history of diplomatic pouches not being used as intended. For instance, in 1984, British authorities found a former Nigerian government minister who'd been abducted and drugged in a large diplomatic crate bound for Nigeria from the Stansted Airport. Also in the crate was a man who was conscious and equipped with drugs and syringes, according to the the July 1985 issue of The American Journal of International Law. Three people were arrested and charged, one of whom claimed diplomatic immunity.

When asked recently if the issue of diplomatic bag screening should be revisited, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff demurred. "There's a lot of law and custom and treaty obligations with respect to this matter," he said at a Monitor breakfast. "We do want to be mindful of all kinds of threats, but we want to operate within the treaty obligations we have."

The CS article underscores the danger of foreign nations exploiting the diplomatic pouch and in Fiji's case, the issue of those silver boxes allegedly holding arms was a validation of Australian abuse of Vienna Protocols; outlined in various SiFM postings (Aussie, Oi,oi,oi; Off Fiji or On Fiji; Location, location, location) on Australia's breach of International Law and the recent Fiji Human Rights Commission's report on the incursion of Australian SAS troopers, as covered by another SiFM posting "Aust. Military Presence in Fiji Pre-2006 Coup Raises Concerns".



Social Bookmarking

Club Em Designs

A Question of Numbers- Tied Foreign Aid To Fiji.

An earlier SiFM post" covered the issue of foreign aid to Fiji and the Pacific region. The blog "The Interpreter" featured a posting follow up from Fergus Hanson, who defends his data regarding China's aid to Fiji.
The excerpt of "The Interpreter" posting:

Fighting words from Fiji
by Fergus Hanson
1 day ago

An opinion piece I recently wrote for the SMH on Chinese aid in Fiji has stirred up a fighting reaction, along with some factual errors.

The Permanent Secretary of the Prime Minister’s Office in Fiji, Parmesh Chand, is reported in the Fiji Times today as saying 'His figures are all wrong'. But at the same time, he has refused to reveal what the actual figures were. This is peculiar as the same newspaper in November 2007 reported the Finance Minister expressing his gratitude for a $US150 million Chinese soft loan (the largest part of pledged aid to Fiji in 2007). Other pledged aid figures were also drawn from the public record and then independently verified.

I don’t pretend using reports of pledged aid is the most accurate way of measuring China’s aid program, but unfortunately, given the secrecy, it remains the best.

The response to my article contains some unfortunate inaccuracies* — such as mistaking my figures on pledged aid for aid received — but is a good reminder of the secrecy surrounding China’s aid program. Clearly, a lot more work needs to be done to persuade China to disclose the details of its aid program and recipient governments to accurately report the aid they receive. The interim government in Fiji should publish the figures on the aid it receives from China if it is serious about contesting the use of the only figures available to the public.

* The Fiji Times journalist also reports me as saying China’s aid to Fiji 'was more than the total amount of aid China gives to the Pacific as a whole on an annual basis'. This is not only a logical impossibility — as Fiji is part of the Pacific and therefore cannot receive more aid than the Pacific as a whole — it is not what my opinion piece said. It said China’s pledged aid to Fiji 'is more than half China's annual aid to the entire Pacific'.

Hanson comments on the remarks by the Permanent Secretary to Prime Minister's Office, Parmesh Chand; who refuted, in a Fiji Times article the published figures of China's 2007 aid to Fiji.

China's aid to Fiji clearly exceeds the aid from Fiji's neighbors- Australia and New Zealand by a resounding factor. Irrefutably, China's deep pockets has created ripples of uneasiness in Wellington and Canberra; both resigned to notion that the untied aid from China equates to a considerable degree of influence, as well severely embarrassing their own 'tightwad' foreign policy in the region; which is traditionally packaged with strings attached.



Social Bookmarking

Club Em Designs