X-Post- Scoop: A New Containment Policy In The South Pacific

Friday, 24 February 2012, 11:45 am

A Word From Afar –
By Paul G. Buchanan
 
One of the interesting aspects of the leaked emails between Foreign Minister Murray McCully and MP Johns Hayes, a former diplomat, is the latter’s mention of the need to “resist” China’s growing presence in the South Pacific. With that simple advice Mr. Hayes has revealed a much larger issue, one that undoubtedly has been discussed at length with New Zealand’s major allies, Australia and the US. The issue is how to contain China. 

Along with nuclear deterrence, “containment” was at the heart of Western approaches to the Cold War. The strategy of containment was to resist and counter-balance Soviet influence in the Third World, including the South Pacific. New Zealand had a significant role in the application of anti-Soviet containment in the South Pacific, and its diplomatic, military and intelligence assets were used to that end. With the collapse of the Soviet Union and end of the Cold War, there followed a decade of relatively benign neglect of the South Pacific by traditional Western patrons, who cast their geostrategic gaze elsewhere and prioritized accordingly.

Into that breach stepped the People’s Republic of China (PRC), which used phenomenal economic growth to expand its sphere of influence throughout the Western Pacific basin and beyond. As an emerging great power China must fuel its growth via the importation of raw materials from new investment markets, and must extend its influence (and deploy force) along the sea lines of communication through which these imports flow (with the South Pacific now being a major corridor between South American and Australasian investment and trade with the Chinese mainland).

In the South Pacific, China’s interest has been manifest in the use of “chequebook diplomacy” to provide aid and investment unencumbered by “good governance” and transparency requirements upon which most Western aid and investment is based. Besides winning friends in the Pacific Island Community (PIC) with this practice, the PRC also encourages Chinese migration to the region as a source of semi-skilled and skilled labour (most of the Chinese-funded infrastructure development projects in the South Pacific require the use of Chinese rather than local labour).

Resident Chinese communities now constitute important segments of the merchant and investor classes in places like Fiji, Tonga and the Solomon Islands, where they are suspected by Western intelligence agencies of engaging in human intelligence collection on behalf of the homeland.
To this can be added the expansion of diplomatic and military ties between the PRC and PIC nations, to the point that the PRC has the largest diplomatic presence in the region (its embassy in Suva is the largest in the PIC) and has established military-to-military ties with countries such as Fiji (in part to take advantage of the strained ties between the Bainimarama regime and its Antipodean critics).

Chinese navy surface vessels now make regular port calls throughout the South Pacific, and its submarines are reported to make 6-10 deployments per year deep into Southern waters, often tailing a growing Chinese fishing fleet that has on-shore processing facilities throughout the region and which is suspected of providing cover for Chinese signals intelligence monitoring.
It was not until the mid 2000s that the US and its South Pacific allies reacted to this trend. Since then, the US has shifted its strategic priority away from Europe and towards East Asia, including moving the bulk of its naval assets to the Pacific. The US has re-opened aid and trade missions in the PIC, and most importantly, has solidified and expanded its security ties with Australia and New Zealand (including the November 2011 “Wellington Declaration” whereby New Zealand was restored as a full security partner of the US after years of tension stemming from its 1985 non-nuclear decision).

Paul G. Buchanan


"To this can be added the expansion of diplomatic and military ties between the PRC and PIC nations, to the point that the PRC has the largest diplomatic presence in the region (its embassy in Suva is the largest in the PIC) and has established military-to-military ties with countries such as Fiji (in part to take advantage of the strained ties between the Bainimarama regime and its Antipodean critics)

[...]In places like Fiji, application of the containment strategy may be a case of too little too late, as China has cemented its relationship with the Bainimarama regime. But elsewhere, even in countries with a strong Chinese presence such as Papua New Guinea, the Western alliance is in full containment mode."

The twist in this tale is that both Australia and New Zealand have become increasingly dependent on trade with the PRC, which has caused them to pay much diplomatic lip service to the concept of mutual interest with the PRC and given an increasingly Asian focus to their respective foreign policies.
However the reality, as indelicately phrased by Mr. Hayes, is that not only the US but also Canberra and Wellington fear the emergence of China in the South Pacific because its rise has the potential for supplanting the US-led alliance as the dominant regional player. Thus the strengthening of trilateral security ties between them and the expansion of their bi- and multi-lateral diplomatic overtures (mostly couched in the language of developmental aid) within the context of the Pacific Island Forum (PIF) and South Pacific Community (SPC). Along with EU engagement with the PIC (now on the wane), the diplomatic re-emphasis is designed to counter-balance Chinese influence and restore a pre-eminent Western orientation in the PIC.

All of this involves a mix of “hard” and “soft” power (using military, diplomatic and economic instruments) in order to engage in the “smart” use of aggregated Western influence in the face of Chinese regional inroads. If nothing else, renewed Western involvement in the South Pacific raises the economic and diplomatic costs to the Chinese of maintaining their position, which in turn diverts resources that otherwise could be directed elsewhere. The South Pacific Chinese containment strategy, in other words, is directed at “rolling back” Chinese regional influence.

In places like Fiji, application of the containment strategy may be a case of too little too late, as China has cemented its relationship with the Bainimarama regime. But elsewhere, even in countries with a strong Chinese presence such as Papua New Guinea, the Western alliance is in full containment mode.
For Australia, with its mineral resources coveted by the Chinese and an association with the US that is seeing it gradually replace the UK as the US’s major military ally, the issue of containing China’s South Pacific ambitions can be justified as being one born of strength and self-interest: the Chinese need Australia’s resources more than they need a confrontation with it, and alliance with the US is set to make Australia a global military and diplomatic player in the years to come. Australia’s interests extend far beyond its immediate vicinity, so the South Pacific containment strategy is one piece in a larger geopolitical strategy in which it holds significant leverage vis a vis the PRC. China can live with that.

For New Zealand the situation is different. Revelation of the Chinese containment strategy in the South Pacific places New Zealand on the horns of a Melian dilemma: as a small island state caught in the middle of an incipient great power struggle, it has attempted to balance the two by increasingly trading with the PRC while renewing its security ties to the US. But New Zealand has no strategic leverage on the PRC, and is more dependent on Chinese trade and investment than vice versa. Thus the situation may become untenable for New Zealand the more its commitment to containing the PRC is made apparent in light of increasing tensions between the two great powers in the Western Pacific. In that event it will be forced to choose sides rather than suffer the fate of Melos, whose neutrality in the Peloponnesian Wars was rewarded by its invasion and sacking by the Athenians.

In the New Zealand version of this dilemma, the choice will be between trade and security, at which point the commitment to South Pacific containment will receive its sternest test. New Zealand’s hedge against this dilemma is ratification of the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), a multinational trade and investment compact involving the US that excludes the PRC and which is currently under negotiation. The TPP is the economic component of the China containment strategy, as it is designed to link the most important East and South Asian economies with Antipodean and Western Hemisphere partners. The PRC understands the fence-ringing thrust of the TPP within the larger geostrategic context, and has objected, without success, to its exclusion.

Should the TPP be ratified and entered into force, potential loss of Chinese trade and investment could be compensated y the increase in trade and investment between TPP partners. That is a theoretical gain rather than a certain one given the multiplicity of actors and issues involved. It also does not factor the Chinese response, which could be to redouble its efforts to cement a sphere of influence in the South Pacific. If that were to occur, tensions can be expected to rise on both sides of the containment “fence.”
Given the uncertainties involved and its weak position vis a vis the PRC, New Zealand’s support for the US-led South Pacific Chinese containment strategy can therefore be considered a delicate balancing act that potentially has as much of a downside as it does an upside.

Club Em Designs

A Tribute To Dr. M.L King Jnr.

SiFM considers and ponders on the timeless words of Martin Luther King Jnr on this day.

According to Wikipedia that particular speech:

King delivered a speech titled "Beyond Vietnam".[87] In the speech, he spoke strongly against the U.S.'s role in the war, insisting that the U.S. was in Vietnam "to occupy it as an American colony"[88] and calling the U.S. government "the greatest purveyor of violence in the world today".[89] He also argued that the country needed larger and broader moral changes:

A true revolution of values will soon look uneasily on the glaring contrast of poverty and wealth. With righteous indignation, it will look across the seas and see individual capitalists of the West investing huge sums of money in Asia, Africa and South America, only to take the profits out with no concern for the social betterment of the countries, and say: "This is not just."[90]

Save Page As PDF

Social Bookmarking

Club Em Designs

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