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

Two Sides of the Coin- Fiji Coup Anniversary.

In the first anniversary of Fiji's forth coup, two different opinion articles from two New Zealand journalists commenting on the same event, are seemingly polar opposites in terms of context.

One from self-declared Pacific expert, Micheal Field appearing on Stuff website. Judging from the syntax of Field's opinion, it can be summed up that he sure has a large axe to grind.

The quotes used by Field are overwhelmingly from the same political segment and none sourced from the average Josefa.

The excerpt of Field's opinion article:

History repeats as coup eats its own
The Dominion Post | Wednesday, 05 December 2007


On the anniversary of Fiji's latest coup, Michael Field takes a personal look at the year since Voreqe Bainimarama seized power. Just to the west of Suva last month three cars were pulled over by police. That's not uncommon in Fiji, where police routinely stop cars to extract bribes. But this time it was different.

Eleven people were taken to Delainavesi police station. Witnesses remember another car, which delivered "civilians" to the station. But this was Fiji – the "civilians" were soldiers, one of them a sergeant in the Republic of Fiji Military Forces (RFMF) who had thumped me in the back last year.

Agnes Bulatiko, who had been in one of the cars with her partner, Ballu Khan, a Suva IT businessman, remembered how they singled him out, fists smashing into his face. "Then the room filled with officers punching him. It was terrifying."

At first the military were open about that. "He was resisting arrest, that's why he got the beating," Lieutenant-Colonel Mosese Tikoitoga said.

Mr Khan survived but, in other incidents, Tevita Malasebe, Nimilote Verebasaga and Sakiusa Rabaka were beaten to death by the RFMF.

Behind Fiji's tourist bula-smile image lurks an explosive violence. I'd seen it up close during George Speight's 2000 coup when a group of rebel soldiers mercilessly pounded a man sitting beside me.

It's the irrationality of it that makes Fiji so dangerous.

My first experience of Fiji's self- declared leader Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama came when, during Speight's coup, he declared martial law.

A Melanesian from the chiefly island of Bau, he had, earlier that day, forced President Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara – a rival Polynesian chief – out of office. A couple of weeks later he hand-picked banker Laisenia Qarase as premier. The elected prime minister, Mahendra Chaudhry, then a hostage of Speight, was not allowed back.

Commodore Bainimarama has risen through the ranks from seaman in spite of his rather basic education. His military career was modest, the high point his serving as a sub-lieutenant on the Chilean sailing ship Esmeralda, circumnavigating South America. Unlike 1987 coup leader Sitiveni Rabuka, Commodore Bainimarama never served under fire, till the day in 2000 when his own soldiers tried to kill him. Humiliatingly, he survived by jumping out a window and scrambling down a bank.

Eight soldiers died that day, five of them after they had surrendered to loyalists. They were tortured to death.

In 2001 elections were held and Mr Qarase was sworn in. Commodore Bainimarama felt betrayed, believing Mr Qarase had promised not to become a politician. It was the start of bitter personal animosity that was as much to do with the later coup as any declarations over corruption and cleanups.

Just before elections in March 2006 the commodore was talking of "Qarase and his cronies" and saying indigenous politics was "dirty politics – at its worst it is cannibalistic". When Mr Qarase won again Commodore Bainimarama called a press conference to say democracy wasn't about numbers of votes on election day. He was so angry when I questioned his view that I feared he might hit me.

Commodore Bainimarama seldom takes questions now, feeling threatened by the insubordination of the lower castes. Tensions grew, in part over a couple of parliamentary bills that would have given indigenous villages control over the seabed and foreshore and another that would have given amnesty to those behind Speight's coup.

Toward the end of last year he flew to Wellington for a reunion with part of his family serving with the New Zealand Army. At Auckland airport, acting as though he was still in Fiji, he gave Mr Qarase two weeks to quit, or else. He was good to his word and, citing rampant corruption and the "doctrine of necessity", he took over, announcing a "cleanup" of government.

Two days before, late at night, soldiers had driven through Suva residential streets to fire mortars into the harbour in a surreal operation to fend off Australian warships and special forces soldiers they believed threatened them.

The coup came on a brilliantly mellow morning; suddenly the green, flak- jacketed soldiers were everywhere downtown. Oddly though, few had magazines in their weapons.

A YEAR ON, Commodore Bainimarama is yet to bring any corruption prosecutions and his doctrine has yet to be tested in court. Fiji's economy has dived, the court system plunged into disarray, people have been detained and beaten and media freedoms curtailed.

The intellectual bankruptcy of the coup was illustrated at the recent Pacific Forum in Tonga where Commodore Bainimarama, under pressure from Australia and New Zealand, agreed to elections by March 2009. He then told Fiji media that he would not let Mr Qarase's people stand. Commodore Bainimarama's single riskiest move since his coup has been to send his soldiers to close the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC), crushing traditional leadership.

Suva is an intimate town: Commodore Bainimarama lives right next to the official residence of the New Zealand high commissioner. But the relationship is not neighbourly and on June 14 high commissioner Michael Green was expelled.

At an All Blacks v Fiji game a couple of weeks earlier the military strongman had been outraged when Mr Green was given guest of honour status. "The rugby union has done this country a disservice. Out of 800,000 people in Fiji, they went and nominated the enemy of the day in a Kiwi to be chief guest."

I flew to Nadi to cover the expulsion, only to be detained for the night in what they called the "black room" at the immigration detention centre. Immigration Director Viliame Naupoto told local media I "wanted to resist", something Mr Khan was supposed to have done.

Previous Fiji governments had also banned me. Several sources have said this ban followed a story outlining how Commodore Bainimarama's coup had been a Muslim coup. Those who have done the best out of the regime overthrow all belong to a small Suva Muslim group, and the key intellectuals behind it include one advocating the removal of indigenous land protection.

Former vice-president Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi warned that among the indigenous there was "a sense of festering resentment" building. Though the coup was multi-ethnic in character, it looked like a counter-coup staged by Mr Chaudhry.

"The government is unfortunately perceived by many in the Fijian heartland as the handmaiden of Mr Chaudhry. Many Fijians are convinced this was an Indo-Fijian coup. Still others think it was a Muslim coup because of the association with a few prominent Muslims. These perceptions, even if mistaken, pass for reality from which conclusions are drawn," Ratu Madraiwiwi said.

Mr Khan is Muslim and, as the coup has worn on, it has become clear that the minority groups who at first prospered are discovering revolutions, even Fijian ones, tend to eat their own.

The indigenous majority has been alienated by the coup. The RFMF is almost completely indigenous but it has always claimed its training removed the vanua or clan from soldier. Ratu Madraiwiwi says Fijians have realised that the best place for the military in future is in the barracks.

"There being no external security threats as such, the military is now a law unto itself. Any meaningful attempt to prevent any further coups must deal with this issue. If not we are destined to travel this weary path repeatedly in the future, periodic hostages to the messianic ambitions of one military officer after another."

Fiji is afflicted with a sense that more is to come. Everything seems incomplete and many a scenario is offered; very little is optimistic.

* Fairfax correspondent Michael Field has covered Fiji politics since 1976 and wrote Speight of Violence: Inside Fiji's 2000 coup. He is barred from entering Fiji.

The other opinion article published by the New Zealand Herald, appears to be exceedingly fair and balanced in comparison and quotes from a wider spectrum of people than Field.

This is the excerpt of Angela Gregory's opinion piece:

Time to rebuild bridges
5:00AM Saturday December 01, 2007
By Angela Gregory


Mahesh Prasad lives in a tin shack with 6 members of his family.

Photo / Dean Purcell
Fiji coups

Shalesh Vinay has met Helen Clark, has even had his photo taken with her, and thinks she's a nice person. But he can't stand her politics. The 33-year-old hotel worker from Fiji's Coral Coast, north of Suva, has lost half his income since last December's coup.

He accepts coup leader Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama should take some of the blame. But the focus of his resentment is the ongoing travel advice maintained by New Zealand of security risks to tourists in Fiji. "The travel advisories have been too harsh. To be honest, I blame Helen Clark. I think she is punishing ordinary Fijians, the poor people, when it is a government-to-government issue."

Vinay served Clark when she attended a 2002 Pacific Forum retreat at the Lagoon Resort in Pacific Harbour, operated by New Zealand couple Jim and Heather Sherlock. The resort has had only about 19 per cent occupancy this year compared with an average 65 per cent occupancy in previous years.

The Sherlocks have had to cut back staff hours, with some workers getting only $75 a week. They say they weren't as severely affected by the 2000 coup, as the travel warnings were not maintained for so long.

Like the Sherlocks, Brad Johnstone, a former All Black and former coach for the Fiji national rugby side who runs the Funky Fish budget resort in the Mamanuca Island group, also blames the ongoing travel advisories and "continuing negative press for a big drop in business". He says the Fijian Backpackers' Association normally runs at 80 to 100 per cent capacity all year but in the past year occupancy has fallen off to 40 per cent at times.

Johnstone says New Zealand should be helping to get a political system in place in Fiji where elections are not based along racial lines. "The country will not be able to prosper until Indians living here feel Fijian ... I'd love to see my country get in behind Fiji."

The Sherlocks' staffer Vinay lives in the rural area of Nakaulevu where he supports his wife, daughter, parents, grandfather and uncle. He has worked in tourism since he was 21 and has skills as a barman, cook and waiter.

Before the coup he used to pick up extra jobs, but they have now dried up. His wife, Irene Resma, had worked as a cook in the Pacific Harbour village but the restaurant closed after the coup because there were too few customers.

Vinay has to pay the mortgage on the family land, electricity and water bills for three houses, groceries for seven and medical expenses for his father who is a heart patient. "It's too much for me ... we are really struggling. I have to do my budget carefully - I can't spend one dollar unwisely, so no new clothes or presents."

Vinay reads the newspaper every day but says there is no good news in it for him. "We don't understand politics. All we understand is money in our pockets to feed our family." Despite the bleak outlook he supports Bainimarama who has "done some good things", like moving towards a multi-racial Fiji.

In the slums of Suva, dogs rummage through roadside rubbish not cleared for weeks, children who should be at school play on water pipes crossing polluted streams and taro grows between tin shacks and old car wrecks. A man sits behind a car wash sign with a bucket and hose but no customers.

There are about a dozen squatter settlements scattered around Suva, many populated by Indians displaced from the sugarcane-growing areas after the Native Land Trusts Board discouraged the renewal of land leases.

Living in a tin shack perched on an unstable mud bank is Mahesh Prasad with five of his children - the youngest aged 12 - and a grandchild. Up rickety wooden steps he sits on patchy linoleum with a bowl of kava, ready to serve his visiting brother.
[Prasad]once worked the sugarfields at Rakiraki but "the natives" took back the land. Only his two daughters have jobs, both working for the Government. Prasad has had odd jobs like tiling and building maintenance but it's been hard to get work since the coup.

New Zealand should be more understanding, he says. He wants his sons to work in New Zealand to boost the family income. "Can you help us?" he asks, unaware the New Zealand Government has taken Fiji off a list of Pacific countries that can use a new temporary visitor workers scheme.

About a kilometre away down Ratu Dori Rd, "no squatting" and "no planting"signs have been erected in anticipation of a new housing development.

Living at number 17 is indigenous Fijian Fulori Sicinilawa who has been squatting there for seven years with her brother, aunt and husband. Her husband has a job doing deliveries, the others are unemployed. Now all the residents have been told to get out with just a week's notice. "There are not enough jobs in Suva,"she says.

"This land is going to be vacated for new housing, we have to pull out our cassava and taro ... we don't know where we are going." A friend, Akisi Lewatu, says she has no job and stays at home and looks after her two children aged five and 16. "I blame the Government."

Another woman says she knows nothing about the Government and is nervous sharing her views with a reporter. "I only eat and rest. I don't know anything." She votes in national elections but claims to have no interest in politics. "I don't feel I know enough. Sometimes I listen to the news but I don't want to think about it. We mind our business."

Mark Hirst, president of the Fiji-New Zealand Business Council in Suva says jobs in construction and tourism have declined dramatically. Hirst believes tourism might not have been hurt so much but for the reaction from New Zealand and what he calls misleading media portrayal of soldiers on the streets eight months after the coup.

"They made it look worse than it was ... you'd have had to come to Fiji before to know there is no risk."

His vice-president, Bevin Severinsen, is also disappointed at how New Zealand is treating a close trading partner to which it sells far more than it imports back.
New Zealand should try to repair relations and start building bridges, he said.

"It's now a year on. It's time we sat down and start to find ways to get the show on the road."

Severinsen sees New Zealand adopting a hardline, black and white foreign policy to Fiji "yet other things we do are grey". Though not supporting the coup Severinsen believes the end result is the "best thing that could have happened".

"It is probably the first time in Fiji's history that the country has seriously committed to trying to rid itself of all things which affect a developing country ... like corruption, a massively oversized public service and poor performing infrastructure."

Whether the new administration succeeded remained to be seen "but at least they show resolve". "Frank [Bainimarama] is a dictator but he should be applauded for trying to do the right thing. I believe a lot of people are warming to him."

Severinsen concedes the beating by military and police of Ballu Khan, a New Zealand citizen, over an alleged assassination plot was unhelpful but that such behaviour went on before the coup. He is critical of the travel blacklists imposed by countries including New Zealand against those in the interim Government and their families.

The travels ban were extended, following the expulsion of the New Zealand High Commissioner Michael Green in June, to cover all those appointed to head government departments and agencies, or placed on statutory boards, and their immediate family members.

Severinsen says it is putting off genuine people with good intentions to help get Fiji back on its feet. He says the business council has had dialogue on many levels with the new administration and found it very accessible, more so than the former regime.

Caz Tebbutt, president of the Fiji-Australia Business Council, has no issue with sanctions but says some can be counterproductive. "What we like to ask is for politicians overseas to understand the punitive impacts on the private sector ... businesses here have taken a battering this year."

He said Fiji's neighbours should adopt the 24-hour rule. "Stop and think, because once sanctions are put on, they are hard to take off." But Ulai Taoi, president of the Fiji Indigenous Business Council, believes the stance of New Zealand and Australia is correct, although many Fijian-owned businesses have been badly hurt. Turnover has halved at his office supplies company.

Taoi, who was roughed up in a military cell after being accused of creating anti-Bainimarama blog sites, says: "This is the fourth coup. I am concerned this will never end, it is something the military has picked up and will wield every now and then."

Local media tried to position Fijians against New Zealand but he believed grassroots Fijian resentment remained targeted on the military takeover.

Gregory's other article "Post Card from Fiji" is also a good read.




Seed Newsvine









Club Em Designs

The Whole Nine Yards - US Foreign Policy in Fiji.

The US House of Congress Sub-Committee on Foreign Affairs, chaired by the Democratic Gentleman from American Samoan, Honorable Eni F.H. Faleomavaega recently held a hearing named: The Impact of Section 508 Sanctions on Thailand and Fiji: Helpful or Harmful to U.S Relations?. Faleomavaega opened the meeting with a comparison of Pakistan with Fiji, in terms of sanctions and also continued to reiterate that aspect, as a counter-point to the State Department's own perspective on the issue.

Although, Glyn Davies of the State Department's Bureau of East Asian & Pacific Affairs, raised the concept of Fiji & Thailand being cajoled in returning to democracy; Davies and the US State Department ignores Pakistan's 6 years of dictatorship under General Musharraf because it suits their global interest.

The calls for Pakistan's return to democracy seems to have fallen on deaf ears in the US State Department, judging from their blatant double standards especially when US exports latest F-16 fighter jets to Pakistan and plans to diversify their exports to Saudi Arabia with more modern weapon systems, reported by an article in THE HILL which is currently receiving bi-partisan opposition in the US House.

Congressman Mark Steven Kirk, when describing Fiji's situation, used hyperbole liberally and callously declared that, "Fiji was competing with North Korea, for the worst economy in the Asia Pacific region".

Ironically, Kirk's House voting record has been tainted with questionable choices. Among the most recent, Kirk voted against H Amdt #378 the description:

H.AMDT.378 (A028)
Amends: H.R.2764
Sponsor: Rep McGovern, James P. [MA-3] (offered 6/21/2007)

AMENDMENT DESCRIPTION:
An amendment to prohibit use of funds for programs at the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation(formally School of the Americas)located at Fort Benning, Georgia.

AMENDMENT PURPOSE:
An amendment to prohibit use of funds for programs at the Western Hemisphere Institute for Security Cooperation (formally School of the Americas) located at Fort Benning, Georgia.

Obviously the School of the Americas needs no introduction in the minds of people familar with their role in Latin America.



The video source on the hearing.

The transcript excerpt:

Statement of Glyn T. Davies
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State
Bureau of East Asian and Pacific Affairs


Before the House Committee on Foreign Affairs
Subcommittee on Asia, the Pacific, and the Global Environment

August 1, 2007

The Impact of Coup-Related Sanctions on Thailand and Fiji: Helpful or Harmful to U.S. Relations?


Mr. Chairman, Ranking Member Manzullo, and Members of the Subcommittee, like my colleague Deputy Assistant Secretary John, I would like to thank you for the opportunity to testify before you today. In my case, I will briefly address Fiji and the impact of Section 508 sanctions on that country.

Traditionally, Fiji has been a close and valued U.S. ally in the Pacific. It has a long history of contributing troops to multilateral peacekeeping missions, including those in Lebanon, the Sinai, the Solomon Islands, Kuwait and East Timor. Fiji was quick to condemn the September 11th terrorist attacks on the United States and has been a staunch supporter of our efforts to build an international coalition against global terrorism.

The military coup of December 2006 leading to the overthrow of the lawfully elected government of Fiji has strained our relationship. Unlike in the case of Thailand, Fiji’s coup leaders have taken no credible steps to quickly restore democratic rule, other than a vague promise to hold elections in 2009.

The United States responded to the Fiji coup by publicly denouncing the military’s actions and imposing a number of sanctions, including a cessation of military and other assistance to the Government of Fiji in accordance with Section 508 of the Foreign Operations Appropriations Act, visa bans against coup leaders, suspension of lethal military sales, and restrictions on bilateral engagement. Australia, New Zealand and the EU have authorized similar sanctions.

We are working to ensure that a legitimate government is restored in Fiji. The United States supports the initiative by the Pacific Islands Forum to help Fiji return to democracy at an early date. The U.S. has consistently called for the immediate restoration of human rights protections and civil liberties, and early elections.

I would like to emphasize that our sanctions are targeted against the coup government. The United States, however, continues to provide assistance to the people of Fiji. For example, the Department of State approved a $25,000 grant to support a program designed to strengthen Fiji’s democratic traditions. We are also looking at ways in which we might provide assistance to Fiji in support of a return to democracy, including by supporting early elections.

Fiji continues to participate in UN and multilateral peacekeeping operations, including the UN Assistance Mission to Iraq (where Fiji troops provide security for UN headquarters). Although the United States decided that it will not impede Fiji’s continued participation in ongoing deployments, we have made clear to the interim government, and announced publicly, that we will not support any new military deployments absent measurable progress in returning Fiji to democratic rule. Moreover, legally mandated restrictions on U.S. military assistance to Fiji preclude the United States from providing training, equipment, and other material support to the Republic of Fiji Military Forces to assist any overseas missions until a democratically elected government has taken office.

The U.S. announced sanctions against Fiji on December 5, 2006. Since then progress toward democracy has been unsatisfactory. However the interim government has said that it supports “in principle” the recent Pacific Islands Forum-Fiji Joint Working Group report stating that elections could be held by March 2009 or even as early as November 2008 if the international community provided assistance to help prepare for elections.

The U.S. is willing to support the interim government in this effort if the interim government takes concrete steps to hold elections according to the Forum-endorsed timetable.

We continue to maintain full diplomatic relations with Fiji and have made exceptions to our visa restrictions to allow senior officials of the Fiji government to come to Washington to meet with U.S. counterparts. We believe that sanctions offer the clearest message that restoration of military assistance and closer relations between the U.S. and Fiji can only resume when democracy returns to that country.

Thank you Mr. Chairman. I would be happy to answer any questions you might have.

Seed Newsvine









Club Em Designs

Foreign Flower or Foreign Policy?

Fiji Sun published an interesting opinion article written by a local promoter of social issues, regarding the subject of Democracy and the remote cat-calls for Fiji to return to it, voiced by some egalitarian nations.

Democracy in many disguises-Sham or genuine, the demand for a quick return to democracy solution

By Aisake Casimira

One of the predominant, if not central demands made of the interim government since the military ousted the Qarase government on the 5th of December 2006, was the “quick return to democracy” and, in the same breath “show us the road map to democracy”.

This demand was made not only by some local NGOs, lawyers, political parties and ousted politicians, but also from governments, organisations and NGOs outside the border. From Fiji’s closest neighbours - the Australian and New Zealand governments - to the farthest of governments and organisations - the US, EU, the Commonwealth, and at least one Human Rights organisation in the US have being singing the same tune.

From their point of view, it makes ‘democratic’ sense to legitimately re-establish ‘overnight majority rule’. This will ensure the resumption of bilateral aid, the release of project grants, the restoration of investor confidence and, hence, hasten economic recovery.

But, in a developing country like Fiji, it is not as simple as what these governments and organisations assumed. The “quick return to democracy” solution, in the form of holding general elections, for example, barely one year after the 1987 and 2000 coups respectively, if any thing, did not solve much of Fiji’s governance problems.

Rather, it left many issues unattended, in particular, the assessment of whether it was wise to pursue democracy at the same time that it was adopting a free market economic model.

One thing to note in this regard, as Amy Chua (2004:195) says, is that none of the western countries, including Australia and New Zealand ever adopted or implemented democracy and the free market or laissez-faire economic model at the same time.

[Chua](ibid) added that what helped these countries to implement democracy gradually (and not overnight, although overnight democracy is what has been touted by the western countries around the world through conditions on aid, objectives of governmental funding agencies and through bilateral and multilateral trade agreements), was the strong social welfare system they had.

This helped to cushion the worst impacts of the free market. The argument of the interim government, however, is that once the tasks set before them by the President - to review the electoral system, conduct the national census, revive the economy, etc - are achieved, then general elections can then be held.

The intention to care for the worst off in our society, the low income earners and the needy may not only be a necessary policy choice but may also be a wise one. If, in the meantime ‘democracy’ is suspended so as to ensure a stronger ‘democratic’ foundation for the future, then pursuing free market policies as well as solidifying and expanding our social welfare schemes may make a lot of sense, than simply a “quick return to democracy” with little substance to the process, with a weak social welfare system to cushion the impact of the free market.

The triumphalism view of the governments of New Zealand, Australia and the EU about democracy and their near fanatic insistence on a “quick return to democracy” solution rests in part on a certain hypocrisy. If universal suffrage were a reality rather than a sham, one might wonder whether most of today’s professed free marketeers, foreign investors and international financial organisations would be supporting it.

Indeed, even today, there are many within these countries and international organisations who, at the first sign of a possible trade-off between the free market and genuine democracy, make it clear that their first commitment is to the former.

A clear example of this is the New Zealand government’s recent commitment to continue talks with Fiji on the free trade agenda. Moreover, as one US economist said just after Venezuela’s democratically elected president Hugo Chavez was deposed in a military coup (and before he was reinstated), “Democracy is not necessarily the most efficient form of government.

It is better to be an open advocate of the priorities of the free market, (note here New Zealand’s ‘no problem attitude’ on continuing free trade talks with Fiji), than to be a self-congratulatory advocate of sham democracy.”

The difficulty that Australia, New Zealand and the EU seem to have with a genuine commitment to majority rule in Fiji is that genuine democracy could produce anti-market results such as justice, fairness and the application of democratic principles to the conduct of free trade and the free market, and the engendering of ethnic harmony in countries that have experienced ethnic tensions and violence in the past such as Fiji.

Instead, one would suspect that what New Zealand and Australian governments, in particular, really want by their call for a ‘quick return to democracy’ is sham democracy. Far from committing themselves to helping and assisting Fiji (and the Pacific Island countries) develop a genuine democratisation process, they seem to advocate a kind of democracy that will not interfere with their free market agenda and one that encourages ethnic dislike.

Being Fiji’s closest western neighbours, one would expect that Australia and New Zealand governments would have learned the lessons of history and not promote overnight majority rule (a form of democracy that even they have repudiated a long time ago) by their demand for a “quick return to democracy”.

Their assessment should have taught them that what is needed is their help in assisting Fiji (and the Pacific Island countries) to rethink the democratisation process over the past 2 or 3 decades. If genuine democracy and the free market are to be peacefully sustained and mutually beneficial, the process of democratisation cannot be reduced to carting ballot boxes and voting in national elections.

It has to mean more than overnight democracy, majority rule or merely freedom to vote and elect governments, although these are necessary factors. These countries seem to forget that there are many different models of democracy, even among themselves. Democracy can vary along a large number of axes: for example, the U.S style presidentialism versus the U.K style parliamentarism; first past the post electoral systems versus proportional representation; bottom up democratisation (starting with local village elections) versus top-down democratisation (starting with national, presidential elections).

These different versions of democracy can have significantly different effects on how the Pacific Islands govern themselves and their politics. The western countries one-sided view of democracy is quite revealing in the case of China. While China is fundamentally autocratic at the national level and has a bad human rights record, it has, according to politics professor, Minxin Pei (1998:68), been undergoing political reforms since the 1980s that are not even known to most western countries.

These political reforms have far reaching effects. He went on to add that throughout China, there are semi-open local village elections, which despite their limitations, offered a nontrivial measure of political participation, and more critically, legitimate competitive elections as an important part of the political process (ibid).

But the reason, says Minxin Pei, why these and other reforms happening at the local and national levels went unnoticed by the western countries is because their “… politicians and news media measure the progress of political reforms in other countries against a single yardstick - the holding of free and open elections at the national level.” (ibid) Indeed, democracy comes in many guises and it maybe neither the pakeha nor the kaivalagi’s road map to democracy that Fiji needs but one that is born out of the learnings of her recent and past experiences, however limited and ‘un-western-like’ it may be.

Note: Aisake Casimira works at the Pacific Conference of Churches. The views expressed here are his own and do not represent the views of the organisation where he works.

Club Em Designs

Old Score- New Rivalries

(Above image: Fiji Sevens player in action against the USA team).

Fiji Sevens team may be shouldering a different kind of pressure this weekend in Wellington, for the inaugural Rugby seven aside tournament. Interim Fiji Prime Minister has urged the nation to show their support for the Waisale Serevi coached team.

Fiji Times article reports that the gladiators of rugby, are ready to make their nation proud especially in the wake of the political events in Fiji.
Fiji's coach and Rugby sevens legend, Waisale Serevi modestly downplayed the grandstanding diplomacy served by the New Zealand Government, by banning a parade that was suppose to pass in front of the Parliament building, reported by Fiji Times article.

Fiji Times feed back avenue: "Have Your Say" was focussed on this sticky issue of the parade ban in Wellington.

This is the excerpt of the F/T article:

NZ bans rugby parade over Fiji participation

1538 FJT
Tuesday, January 30, 2007

Update: 3.38pm FIJI's participation at this weekend's Wellington 7s has forced the New Zealand government to ban the planned parade from the front of Parliament Buildings, where it traditionally starts.

A Pacnews report says Sports Minister Trevor Mallard confirmed yesterday that Parliament was a no-go zone for the parade and that he would not attend any games involving the Fiji team.

In most of the previous seven Sevens tournaments in Wellington, the Government has hosted the teams in Parliament and Mr Mallard has spoken before a parade through Wellington streets, but not this year.

The Government is not hosting the start of the Sevens parade as it was felt that it was inappropriate to do so, given the participation of the Fijian team in the tournament, and our Government's serious concerns over the military takeover of Fiji and the ousting of its democratically elected Government by the army.

He added that the Fijian Government and military officials would not be granted visas to enter New Zealand to watch the tournament.

He said the same approach had been taken in 2001 after the 2000 coup in Fiji. The circumstances of that coup were, ironically, different.

The Fiji military chief and interim Prime Minister, Commodore Frank Bainimarama, was instrumental in ending the siege of Parliament and capturing the 2000 coup leaders before installing an interim prime minister pending fresh democratic elections.

He was regarded as having played a positive role in helping to restore democracy and was able to attend the 2001 Sevens tournament in a private capacity.

Foreign Minister Winston Peters, who hosted the commander socially at the 2001 tournament, would give a speech in Orewa tonight that is expected to criticise his former friend.

The Fiji team arrived in Wellington yesterday.

This parade ban of Fiji's team set off another series of tit-for-tat maneuvers, made by the Fiji interim Government by issuing a similar styled ban on any visits, made by the New Zealand and Australian Prime Minister along with other notable individuals. ABC podcast analyzes this brinkmanship in bans and counter bans, a political frustration which may carry over into the Wellington's annual international rugby tournament.

Fiji's opening matches in the tournament, described by Fiji Times article and confirmed by International Herald Tribune article have set the team on the right course for another title win.

This Youtube video captures the fun and tense atmosphere in the 2006 Wellington 7's at WestPac Stadium and also the award ceremony. It is also a reflection of the stakes involved in this Rugby contest between New Zealand and Fiji, which was foreshadowed by the diplomatic stand off between the two Governments.



Club Em Designs

Community Policing.

(Above image-The Peninsula of Suva, the large tracts of developed and undeveloped lands claimed by Suvavou villagers. Suva's central business district also falls into the claim).



The legal case of the Suvavou landowners, may be one of the most significant precedence in Fiji's legal system, because of the land's value, estimated to worth more than $F1 Billion and because the case is a legal wrangle between the State and an indigenous landowning unit. A Fiji Times article, covers their legal claim, now being debated in Suva's High Court.

Although the GCC Chairman is considering getting back to the habit of endless and fruitless meetings described in an article by Fiji Village. This particular Suvavou case, also reminds the indigenous landowners in Fiji of the inadequacies of the Great Council of Chiefs in solving such a major land claim, in addition to the delayed justice and due processes stonewalled by native institutions who have ignored the plight of the claimants. This case also underscores the validity of landowner's complaints against the Native Lands Trust Board.

Niu FM podcast interviews Fiji's interim Attorney General, who had requested the comments made by the Governments of New Zealand and Australia; to use the Pacific way of respectful dialogue. Not snide comments, which ridicule the sovereignty of a nation; like the idiosyncratic comments made by the New Zealand Foreign Minister, Winston Peters recently.
It appears that the talking points of the New Zealand Government have entered the echo chamber of NZ talk radio, outlined in an interview of academic (WMA), Robert Patman, a seemingly unbiased and unilateral expert of Fiji politics.

Although, quoted in a International Herald Tribune article and corroborated in a Fiji Times article, Peters had inquired into the evidence to the corruption charges, levied at the SDL Government by the interim Government's newly formed Corruption Agency headed by former Police officer, Nasir Ali who was interviewed in this Fiji Times article. Fiji's interim Prime Minister has also responded to Winston Peter's inquiries of corruption evidence, with a scathing denunciation, reported by Fiji Live article.

This is the excerpt of Fiji Live article:

I don't need to show proof: Bainimarama
Wednesday January 31, 2007

Fiji's Interim Prime Minister and army commander, Voreqe Bainimarama says there is no need for him to justify the coup to New Zealand's Foreign Affairs Minister, Winston Peters.

Peters had earlier asked Bainimarama to provide evidence to back up allegations he used to justify his coup.

Speaking to Fijilive this afternoon, Bainimarama hit out at Peters saying it was about time he realized that Fiji could manage its own affairs and did not rely on New Zealand as a 'big brother'.

"Who is he to interfere in our affairs, because we are a sovereign state and will not be pushed around by people who think they are too smart," said Bainimarama.

"He should stop spitting venom and leave this country alone."

Bainimarama added that Peters and New Zealand Prime Minister, Helen Clark were being vindictive in their approach towards resolving the current impasse between the two countries.

"They should take sometime to think and try and map out a way to end the bitterness between New Zealand and Fiji," he said.

Peters also said that Bainimarama had become a judge, jury and an investigator for his country.

Fijilive

Fiji Live article questions why, the New Zealand Government is yet to dispatch experts in forensic accounting, to assist the interim Fiji Government in completing such investigations into the allegations of high level corruption. Such a delay, inextricably reflects on the reluctance of New Zealand's Ministry of Foreign Affairs to get involved, in spite of their lofty diplomatic ambitions to uphold law and order within the Pacific.

This is the excerpt of Fiji Live article:

NZ to consider Fiji request for help
Wednesday January 10, 2007

Fiji has asked for New Zealand help in investigating corruption allegations against the ousted government.

According to a report on TVNZ, Ministry of Foreign Affairs spokesman, Rob Hole, says they are considering the request in light of the wider issues in Fiji and will decide how to respond by the end of the week.

Interim Prime Minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama says a special military task force has begun sifting through dozens of files from various government departments and there is a pressing need for forensic accountants.

He says he will also be asking Australia and the United States for assistance.

Fijilive

The over-interference in the Pacific affairs by the New Zealand Government, was defended by Winston Peters in a speech to the Rotary Club reported by an article by Radio New Zealand.

In that speech, the Foreign Minister claimed that the Government is the absolute champion of democracy-a serious and noble role which they won't shirk! A role that was not consented to, by the voters of New Zealand, nor was this role approved by the citizens of the Pacific.
The egalitarian intentions by New Zealand was perceived as posturing rhetoric, by a senior officer in the Army, quoted in an article by Fiji Village.

New Zealand Foreign Minister, Winston Peter's speech was made available with an article by Scoop.

This is the excerpt:

Rt Hon Winston Peters
Minister of Foreign Affairs

Speech Notes

Putting New Zealand values to work in the Pacific

Delivered to the Orewa Rotary Club,
War Memorial Park,
Hibiscus Coast Highway
Embargoed until 7.30pm, 30 January 2007


Thank you for the invitation to address you this evening.

A New Year address at Orewa carries with it a degree of expectation.

While not being one to court controversy, it is hoped that today's address will none the less stimulate discussion. You have asked for an address on New Zealand's role in the Pacific, but before that here are a couple of observations about domestic politics in 2007.

If New Zealand has any hope of dragging itself up the OECD ladder, it must address some extraordinarily longstanding problems this year.

One is an outdated obsession with the monetary policy of the Reserve Bank of New Zealand. This year is Export Year, and yet the perverseness of New Zealand's monetary policy operates disastrously against export interests and encourages New Zealanders' obsession, not with the corporate sector or our still-strong primary sector, but with consumerism and multiple house buying.

You who live in Orewa should know this most keenly, given the Rodney Council is a recipient of numerous applications for further high rise development along the beach in some mindless attempt to replicate Queensland's Gold Coast.

But it is not these well-worn, well-tried and decades-old failed policies by themselves that are causing New Zealand's present economic dilemma of a banana republic current account balance (that is nine per cent of GDP in deficit). Although they do have an effect on our woefully falling home ownership rate.

One of the principal reasons for the low home ownership rate is our now three decades old inability to obtain bipartisan political agreement for a New Zealand savings strategy -- one of the principle reasons for the huge gap in living standards between New Zealand and Australia.

The Cullen Scheme is working because at least it is an attempt at a savings strategy. But much more should have been done and needs now to be done, and I hope in 2007 that Parliament will put aside its petty arguments on this issue and agree to give New Zealand earners a chance to enter the competitive economic world with a savings strategy to back it up.

Such a strategy will have a very serious effect. It will disincline the Reserve Bank Governor to keep ramping up interest rates, further vacuuming our economy and increasing business costs, and it will be a sound addition to the saving steps that many New Zealanders have made already.

There will be a huge debate on welfare-ism in 2007 but most of it will be to disguise the failing of the New Zealand economy, and that is that we are nationally not exporting enough, and therefore not individually earning enough.

Turning now to the Pacific, on the surface it would be easy to have a pessimistic outlook in the region.

From unrest in the Solomons, Timor Leste, Tonga, and finally the December coup in Fiji, the Pacific in the last year has at times resembled a wayward ping pong ball, with crises presenting themselves at regular intervals, bouncing from one part of the region to another.

While these recent crises have generated public and media attention, they stand alongside longer and deeper economic and social trends in the Pacific.
Pacific watchers over time will know that many of the issues confronting the Pacific are not new – some are decades old.

However we can, and we should, approach this year with guarded optimism. Not because we will solve all the Pacific's problems – we won't – but because we will play a constructive part in the region, strengthening key relationships and bolstering our own national interests.

This assessment is based on several decades of close association with the Pacific and its people.

In May 1989 I gave a keynote address to CEDA (Committee for Economic Development of Australia) focussing on the challenges confronting the Pacific. This occurred in the aftermath of the assassination of Kanak leader Jean-Marie Tjibaou and his deputy Yiewene Yiewene in New Caledonia -- events which sent shockwaves throughout the Pacific and beyond.

The backdrop at that time was further coloured by the first coup in Fiji and the instability that followed. It is somewhat bemusing, therefore, when hearing some commentators assessing my recent views and efforts in the Pacific as if they are a new development.

They are not – they have been shaped over the better part of three decades of informed engagement with the region. The Pacific is after all our neighbourhood and home, and its strategic relevance in global terms should have always been self-evident.

A brief perusal of nations that border the Pacific, and the fact that it accounts for nearly one quarter of the globe, highlight why countries with no direct connection with the region wish to remain actively engaged.

This has obvious implications for New Zealand. What we do in the Pacific matters more than just in the immediate sphere in which we operate, because partners such as Australia, the US, the EU, Japan, China and the UN among others, watch and value what we do.

Indeed much of our activity in the Pacific occurs in partnership with other nations and organisations. This brings us to a critical dimension of our work in the Pacific. Our partnerships and collaborative efforts are critical – particularly those with Australia and the United States.

Yet there seems to be an irrational, and growing, sense of sport among some quarters in New Zealand where it is considered a perverse badge of honour to take cheap shots at the Australians and Americans. These groups are quick to criticise what they disagree with and so so slow to acknowledge the huge effort that both nations put into the Pacific and beyond.

Let me make this as clear as possible. We need the United States, as well as Australia, to be intimately engaged in the Pacific if we are to be successful in our own endeavours. We also believe the EU has a positive role to play.

We need to work closely with the US and we need to have a positive forward-looking relationship. And there are significant efforts being made on both sides to achieve that.

All too often commentators in this country are quick to gnaw at American vulnerabilities, lashing out hardest when the United States is confronting difficulties, rather than being more understanding, as friends should be at such times.

Our areas of difference are well known. Less attention is given to the broad range of policy positions and interests that we have in common with the United States – our similar outlook is underpinned by shared values and a commitment to democratic principles.

The issues of democratisation, good governance, and stability, which the
United States is grappling with in a number of regions of the world, are similar to those we are grappling with in the Pacific. Our officials are in regular contact on these issues, sharing ideas about what has worked and what hasn't.

To this end, we are pleased that officials are currently looking at areas where we can maximize cooperation both bilaterally and in support of Pacific island states.
We work closely with Australia in the region. They are our nearest neighbours and closest friends. We have many mutually shared objectives in our combined efforts.

So while some in New Zealand are keen to see us jettison these relationships, these people need to grow up, shed their jingoistic baggage about the US and Australia, and start to address the serious reality in which we operate, rather than their fanciful fabrications.

Let's confront a simple question. How do you get a sound business relationship with someone or some nation who does not know you, or worse, does not like you? The media at times have regrettably tried to reduce these attitudes to a deep-seated form of anti-Americanism and anti-Australian sentiments.

This premise is false. New Zealanders are not by nature anti anybody. We have friendly rivalries – particularly on the sporting field – shared histories and sometimes even significant policy differences with other nations.

But we are not anti or opposed to any nation or people. From time to time we vigorously oppose particular policies, and occasionally disagree with various decisions made by governments, but it is not the New Zealand way to outright oppose a nation or its people.

This is because of who we are as New Zealanders. What we have embraced over time is a form of civic nationalism – bound by shared values and a common commitment to the institutions of democracy, the rule of law and the pursuit of a decent society.

This goes hand in hand with an underlying pragmatism, tolerance and an essential good-heartedness as the late historian Michael King put it.

Our disposition embraces the rule of law, including an inherent fairness and sense of natural justice in how we engage with others.

And it increasingly involves a respect and care for the sustainability of the environment – which all New Zealanders can commonly value as a legacy we seek for our children.

The understated character of our nationalism ensures we would rather get in and do the work than chase the limelight. We don't need to wear our nationalism on our sleeves, and we have charitable inclinations – it is in our nature to help.

We do have a sense of patriotism, often inconspicuous and less overt than other countries, but it is real none the less and it is strong. Sadly, however, we lack tangible touchstones – significant events we can point to which unite and bind us as a nation.

The signing of the Treaty of Waitangi could and should have filled this role as our equivalent of Bastille Day in France, or the 4th of July in the United States.

It should be recognised and celebrated as the significant and unique document it is. Instead, the Treaty has too often been sullied as a document based on grievance and division, just as Waitangi Day has been notable for protest and sadly the broad indifference of much of the population.

There are some indications that we can move beyond this as a nation. Thankfully this lack of a touchstone has not inhibited New Zealanders from embracing the core values that bolster our sense of identity.

Unlike New Zealand however, most Pacific nations have been in a post-colonial phase of development for only a brief period. Consequently, few of the institutions and democratic foundations of our Pacific neighbours have had enough time to mature since they embarked on the pathway to independence and sovereignty.

Just two years ago our parliament celebrated its 150th anniversary – making us among the world's oldest parliamentary democracies.

By comparison, Samoa's parliament was established in 1961, the Cook Islands in 1965, Fiji in 1970, PNG in 1975, and the Solomon Islands in 1976.

New Zealand is by no means perfect. Our institutions have evolved over many decades, which have seen constitutional changes such establishing the Maori seats, embracing universal suffrage, removing our Upper House, and more recently the shift to MMP. All these changes have created a distinctive form of New Zealand democracy.

Our Pacific Island neighbours, however, have not had the luxury of time. They have also, quite legitimately, sought to meld western styles of government with traditional indigenous structures.

Taken together, these elements have at times resulted in new institutions being vulnerable to influences that can undermine the foundations of democracy, the rule of law, and security.

In contrast, there is much that we take for granted in New Zealand because of the legacy of our Westminster system of government, and this has significant implications for our sense of identity.

Our society is underpinned by robust values that are stable and strong. However there are often different forces at play in parts of the Pacific, just as there are in other regions of the world.

Violence, or the threat of violence, is too frequently employed as the means of resolving domestic matters. The value of democracy is often subverted by a misguided sense of ethnic nationalism.

Ethnic nationalism emerges when the search for identity is couched solely in a traditionalist cultural context, devoid of the core values of democracy and rule of law. But these values need not be mutually exclusive – there can be cultural expression and democratic foundations.

In places such as Tonga, that is what the average Tongan wants – to give voice to their political preferences.

They do not want to abandon their cultural traditions, but they do see the inherent value in citizens having the right to express themselves in an organised and structured way.

In some parts of the Pacific ethnic nationalism can manifest itself at an even more rudimentary level – wantok tribalism – where historical tribal and extended family loyalties have at times overridden democratic values.

But we should never confuse ethnic nationalism with outright corruption and greed.

Corruption and greed are not cultural or ethnic based conditions – they are human phenomena. As the British parliamentarian and philosopher Edmund Burke once wrote, "Among a people generally corrupt, liberty cannot last".

We have heard the term corruption hypocritically bandied about in New Zealand over the past year. Those who have cried it the loudest have suffered the most, because New Zealanders know hypocrisy when they hear it.

In comparison, a lack of strong institutions of state to buttress vulnerable nations against corruption has left parts of the Pacific region in flux, and its future uncertain.

So while much of the internal struggle within Pacific nations has been cloaked in nationalistic fervour and the struggle for independence, the underlying cancer of corruption has too often been allowed to take root and spread.

New Zealand must never shirk its role as a champion of democracy in the region– it is after all what our heritage is built on.

The checks and balances of constitutional democracy are fundamental to the promotion of equitable development and respect for human rights and freedoms. Where these fail – as they have most recently in Fiji – the consequences are all too obvious.

We are seeing in Fiji a regime that has systematically suppressed freedom of speech, created a climate of fear, and abuse, and undermined confidence in key institutions of state whose role is to protect the rights of its citizens.

A detailed roadmap towards the restoration of democracy is urgently needed if further degradation is to be avoided. New Zealand's belief in the importance of constitutional democracy, strong institutions of state, and responsive government underpins our approach throughout the Pacific.

We are active supporters of democracy in Tonga, and are working as a partner within the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands to support the institutions of state in that country.

And consider the issue of the most recent Fiji coup and why New Zealand, among many other nations, has taken the stance it has. It was only mid 2006 when Fiji last held democratic elections, overseen by independent election observers.

Indeed New Zealand put significant resources into promoting democracy and ensuring the smooth running of the elections as much as was possible. On election night no one claimed the election was not fair.

We therefore cannot sit idly by as Fiji's military leader, who did not stand for election and does not have a democratic mandate, first through thinly veiled threats and then through the clear threat of violence, usurps office and then claims some perverse legitimacy.

Equally we will not be swayed by his threats of retaliation simply for voicing our outrage at his actions, and for taking the measures we warned him well in advance that we regrettably would take.

But the situation has become far graver in Fiji. We now have the dehumanising stories of those who voice concerns over the coup having bags put over their heads and being locked up with no sense of natural justice.

This is simply not acceptable at the most rudimentary level of human rights and we will continue to say so.

There was always a simple solution to any concerns that Commodore Bainimarama had over Fijian government policies. It is a solution that remains the most salient now. He should simply resign his military role and contest transparent democratic elections.

If he has the will of the people, then rather than having to appoint himself Prime Minister, he could hold the title legitimately – and be recognised by the international community as such.

As noted previously, we do not always agree with what other governments do, and sometimes we voice this publicly. However we respect their right as democratically elected governments to make independent choices.

We are also weary of those who seek to exploit the economic vulnerability of the Pacific. Organised trans-national crime, including money laundering and drug making, are already a reality in the Pacific, and require concerted international cooperation to be tackled effectively.

Fortunately the Pacific can draw on international best practice when confronting such challenges, and New Zealand plays a crucial role in this.
We will continue to rally our friends, who share our core democratic values, to help support legitimate Pacific island governments in their endeavours.

Despite its many challenges, the Pacific is not without hope. Our work is about incremental steps and long-term solutions. There is no magic wand or silver bullet that will fix the Pacific's diverse woes.

Over half New Zealand's aid budget goes to the Pacific, and our development initiatives extend across a range of government and business agencies and groups.

However we do not provide unaccountable largesse for Pacific leaders. We offer targeted aid where it can make the most difference over time.

The aid programme continues to transform to recognise new realities in the Pacific. It is focussed on addressing real poverty and hardship in the region. It is directed to the most needy and supports the region to lift its economic performance.

But many of the decisions that need to be taken for the Pacific to progress must be taken by Pacific nations themselves. We cannot and should not impose such decisions on them.

New Zealand's efforts in working in the Pacific are based on our own core values. This is why we can be optimistic that our efforts in our neighbourhood will be valued.

It is the nation in the mirror that shapes how we look in and how we look out in the Pacific.

Thank you.

ENDS

Winston Peters' Rotary club speech, also came under fire from the New Zealand MP and Green Party Foreign Affairs Spokesperson, Keith Locke published in an article from Scoop.

Locke rebuts Peters' accusations
Wednesday, 31 January 2007, 9:49 am
Press Release: Green Party
31 January 2007

Green Party Foreign Affairs Spokesperson MP Keith Locke has rejected Foreign Minister Winston Peters' accusation that those who criticise the Bush administration are motivated by feelings of anti-Americanism.

"It is not 'cheap shot' anti-Americanism to criticise George Bush's war in Iraq. It is a 'cheap shot' however, for Mr Peters to accuse those who disagree with Mr Bush of wanting to 'jettison' relations with the United States," Mr Locke says.

"It is hardly 'anti-American' to side with the tens of thousands of patriotic Americans who are marching against the war, or to back American lawyers who are trying to help the people detained at Guantanamo Bay.

"New Zealand will earn a lot more American friends by telling the truth about Iraq, and by standing up for justice, than it will by keeping a cowardly silence."

"If Winston Peters was to be acting as a real friend of America he would, in our name, be cautioning the US government from proceeding further down its destructive path in Iraq, " Mr Locke says.

"Once a populist politician, Winston Peters has lost his ability to read the Kiwi mood, which is strongly opposed to the selfishness and the bullying of the Bush administration. It is sad to see our Foreign Minister choosing to go in to bat for George Bush, the most war-mongering American president in recent times.

"It is simply not acceptable for Mr Peters to say, as he did this morning, that we shouldn't 'go on' about Iraq.

"People here and around the world are alarmed that George Bush is adding fuel to the fire by sending more troops to Iraq, and by threatening Iran into the bargain. We have a responsibility to speak out, rather than just watch the death toll rise," said Mr Locke.

ENDS

Club Em Designs