X-Post- Harvard Political Review: Papua New Guinea’s Great Power Conflict

By John F.M. Kocsis

In one of the coming decades’ most important developments, tensions between the United States and China have begun to escalate on a whole host of new fronts. Prospects for the presidency have soared to new heights of monetary nationalism, the Obama administration has announced plans to station 2,500 marines in the Pacific, and Chinese diplomats have turned up the heat on American allies in the South China Sea.

As in all great rivalries, China and America both have proxies whom they support, provided the junior partners act in their interest.  One such proxy nation is Papua New Guinea, the resource-rich Pacific nation whose domestic political instability has made it a surprising focus of American and Chinese geopolitical maneuvering.

John F.M. Kocsis

"As in all great rivalries, China and America both have proxies whom they support, provided the junior partners act in their interest[...]
A surface-level reading of this scenario focuses on an internal struggle within government leadership over political control and resources, a common occurrence in developing nations. However, a broader and perhaps more accurate view of the situation requires putting it in terms of American and Chinese interests[...]
Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admonished Somare for getting too close to his neighbor to the north. She warned of a “resource curse,” insinuating that he would fail as leader if he lacked commitment to good governance, transparency, and accountability. Clinton has taken a Kissinger-esque stand when it comes to the nation, urging the U.S. Congressional Foreign Relations Committee, “Let’s put aside the moral, humanitarian, do-good side of what we believe in and let’s just talk straight, realpolitik[...]"

Of potential flashpoints for conflict in the Pacific arena, Papua New Guinea is generally less studied than its regional counterparts, such as the Philippines and Vietnam.  New Guinean history is primarily viewed through the lens of Jared Diamond’s Guns, Germs, and Steel.  This ignores the island’s long history on the world stage.  A battleground between Allied and Japanese forces in World War II, the country was restored to Australian ownership at the campaign’s end.  Sir Michael Somare, a perennial leader of Papua New Guinea, finally won his people independence in 1975 – but ever since, the Melanesian state has been fraught with conflict.

Despite recent military developments, Papua New Guinea is ostensibly in the throes of a petty constitutional crisis.  Sir Michael Somare, in his fourth nonconsecutive role as prime minister until this past August, has returned from his convalescence in Singapore claiming to be the country’s rightful legislative chief.  The person serving in that position now, Peter O’Neill, toppled the placeholder Somare who appointed in August and was voted by the parliament as the rightful prime minister.  The small nation’s supreme court ruled that because Somare left for heart surgery with full intention to reclaim his seat, he is legally entitled to the role of prime minister. By and large, parliament disagrees – and Papua New Guinean ministers strongly support the new prime minister, Peter O’Neill.  This vehement disagreement at the highest levels of government led to a mutiny attempt to remove O’Neill and restore Somare.

The rebellion was successful at first.  Hired by Michael Somare, the Indonesian colonel Yaura Sasa and his troops seized control of the military barracks in Port Moresby, the capital, and captured Brigadier-General Francis Agwi, the Commander of the PNG Defense Force.  After days of escalation, soldiers surrendered their weapons on January 30.  They promised to stand down instead of facing prison time.  The colonel was jailed but later released on the grounds that he was merely operating under government commands.  The government of Sir Michael Somare, which the Supreme Court deemed legitimate, had, after all, executed the order.

A surface-level reading of this scenario focuses on an internal struggle within government leadership over political control and resources, a common occurrence in developing nations. However, a broader and perhaps more accurate view of the situation requires putting it in terms of American and Chinese interests.  Papua New Guinea is an attractive destination for investors due to its untapped 22.6 trillion cubic feet in natural gas, not to mention its copper and gold wealth.  Exxon Mobil is working on a $15.7 billion liquefied natural gas project that should due to be completed in 2014.  The China Metallurgical Group Corporation (MCC) is developing China’s largest overseas mining investment, a $1.6 billion attempt to exploit 140 million tons of nickel.

As is typical of situations in which foreign investment is involved, outside nations require government compliance in forging ahead with their designs.  China had an easy time injecting itself in the nation when Somare was in charge.  The once and perhaps future prime minister supported Chinese interests in his Environment Act, which amended the law so that landowners could no longer contest damaging activities on their land – a move that authorized the MCC’s plan to dump toxic mine waste into the Bismarck Sea.  This provision was repealed by the O’Neill government, which claimed to look out for both the environment and the rights of its constituents.

The acts of Peter O’Neill are not necessarily so principled.  While Somare instituted a “look north” policy during his tenure, O’Neill has increasingly conducted his primary business with Julia Gillard and her Labor government in Australia.  Sir Michael Somare saw China as the country to emulate.  He invited members of the People’s Liberation Army to train the Papua New Guinea Defense Force.  He also established a program for PNG officers to undertake military training in the People’s Republic of China for up to three years.  Historically, since Papua New Guinean independence, training aid had been under the aegis of Australia, New Zealand, and the United States.  In the past couple of months, O’Neill has attempted to revert to those days, inviting Australian troops back to the island.

Last spring, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton admonished Somare for getting too close to his neighbor to the north. She warned of a “resource curse,” insinuating that he would fail as leader if he lacked commitment to good governance, transparency, and accountability.  Clinton has taken a Kissinger-esque stand when it comes to the nation, urging the U.S. Congressional Foreign Relations Committee, “Let’s put aside the moral, humanitarian, do-good side of what we believe in and let’s just talk straight, realpolitik.” She bluntly claimed that China is trying to “come in under us” regarding “Papua New Guinea’s huge energy find.” As if there was any doubt, she strongly asserted, “We are in a competition with China.”

U.S. diplomats aren’t the only ones to recognize the recent skirmish’s implications on the Chinese-American divide.  Resentful PNG citizens have circulated text messages claiming, “The Somare regime existed through Asian mafia’s funding.” Papua New Guinea has experienced the rapid rise in Chinese immigrants to which the entire Pacific region has become accustomed.  Nativist anti-Chinese riots ulcerated in 2009; accordingly, most citizens strongly prefer America to China. However, as America’s unipolar moment fades into a period of increased Chinese assertiveness, it is not hard to imagine a future of Chinese dominance in Papua New Guinea.  Pacific Islanders might not like their new neighbors, but many established politicians have a tendency to get along with Beijing just fine.  As China’s aggression continues, its influence is unlikely to go anywhere but up. .

Club Em Designs

X-Post: Strategic Culture-Checkbook Diplomacy Doesn’t Apply to the United States

Wayne MADSEN | 07.02.2012 | 15:29

The United States, Australia, and New Zealand and their ally in Tbilisi, Mikheil Saakashvili, are upset that Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov recently visited Fiji. The fear from Washington, Canberra, Wellington, and Tbilisi was that Lavrov was going to offer Fiji lucrative financial assistance in return for the South Pacific nation’s recognition of the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. The two countries broke away from Georgia, triggering a war between Georgia and Russia in 2008

While the Obama administration is cautioning Fiji about recognizing the independence of the two secessionist republics in return for economic aid from Moscow, something Washington calls Taiwan-style “checkbook diplomacy,” it is more than happy to reward other countries with special incentives if they recognize the independence of America’s creation in the Balkans that was severed from Serbia, Kosovo.

The United States has complained, along with its two surrogate “sheriffs” in the Pacific region – Australia and New Zealand – that Russia’s offer of economic perks to Nauru, Vanuatu, and Tuvalu, three nations that have never managed to fully break free of Western colonialist dictates, resulted in those nations’ decisions to recognize the independence of Abkhazia. While Vanuatu recognized only Abkhazia during a government crisis in Port-Vila, the Vanuatu capital, Nauru and Tuvalu recognized both Abkhazia and South Ossetia. Previously, only Russia, Nicaragua, and Venezuela recognized the two breakaway nations, with Washington charging that Russia offered military and other deals to Nicaragua and Venezuela in return for their recognition of the two emergent nations.

Australian Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd lived up to the Australian Labor Party’s total subservience to the United States by calling for transparency in Russia’s dealings with the South Pacific states. Yet Australia’s and New Zealand’s policies to the small Pacific nations has often been based on secret intelligence agreements between the United States, Australia, and New Zealand, including the signals intelligence alliance between the three nations that makes the diplomatic communications of the South Pacific states and all telecommunications in the South Pacific subject to eavesdropping by the U.S. National Security Agency (NSA).

Georgia has argued that the cases of Abkhazia/South Ossetia and Kosovo are un-related. However, the United States has cajoled a number of nations into recognizing Kosovo, the latest being Ghana. In return for recognition, Washington has granted countries recognizing the organized crime-imbued regime in Pristina, the Kosovo capital, with the same sort of perks that the United States has accused Russia of providing the South Pacific and Latin American states that have recognized Abkhazia/South Ossetia. While the United States condemns the “checkbook diplomacy” practiced for years by Taiwan and China to gain and swap diplomatic recognition from mostly poor and small nations, it has practiced the same sort of “checkbook diplomacy” with regard to Kosovo.

A State Department cable divulged by WikiLeaks points to the hypocrisy of U.S. foreign policy and how Washington has pressured countries into not recognizing Abkhazia/South Ossetia by exerting pressure directly or via its allies.

On February 22, 2010, a cable from the U.S. embassy in Quito, Ecuador cited the visit by the Abkhazian Vice Foreign Minister to Quito and referred to U.S. concern that Ecuador’s Multilateral Affairs Under Secretary Arturo Cabrera had met the Abkhazian official in preparation for the announcement of diplomatic relations. The cable states:

“Cabrera said that the MFA too was surprised by the Vice Foreign Minister's visit, and indicated that nothing materialized from it. He gave the impression that he considered it unlikely the GOE would recognize South Ossetia or Abkhazia as independent states, although he did not say so directly. Cabrera also informed us that the issue was handled by Bilateral Affairs rather than his office. When the opportunity arises, the Embassy will raise the issue also with the MFA's Bilateral Affairs office.”

Previously, on January 26, 2010, the U.S. embassy in Peru ensured that a Peruvian official would raise Washington’s objections with Ecuador over Abkhazia/South Ossetia at a South American defense meeting:

“Charge raised reftel points regarding the Government of Ecuador's potentially recognizing the Georgian separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia with MFA Under Secretary for the Americas Ambassador Javier Leon January 25. Leon said he planned to travel to Ecuador this week for a UNASUR meeting of Vice Ministers of Defense, and would raise the issue with his GOE [Government of Ecuador]
counterparts at that time.”

Wayne Madsen

"The fear from Washington, Canberra, Wellington, and Tbilisi was that Lavrov was going to offer Fiji lucrative financial assistance in return for the South Pacific nation’s recognition of the independence of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. "

The same day, the U.S. embassy in Chile tried to use Chile to pressure Ecuador not to recognize the two secessionist nations but with little success:

“Poloff [Political Officer] delivered reftel demarche to Eduardo Schott, Deputy Director for European Affairs at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs. Schott was unaware of Ecuador's potential decision to recognize the independence of the Georgian separatist regions of Abkhazia and South Ossetia. He will consult with colleagues about the possibility of raising the issue with Ecuador. He said that Chile is comfortable sharing its reasons for not recognizing the regions, but other countries are free to make their own decision.”

Nauru’s decision to recognize Abkhazia/South Ossetia was seen as a “comedy” according to a December 16, 2009, cable from the U.S. embassy in Tbilisi:

“Georgian officials downplayed the significance of Nauru's apparent December 14 recognition of Abkhazia's "independence," which Russia reportedly encouraged with an offer of $50 million to the island nation. Although officials are discussing with Australian counterparts whether the recognition is actually final, Reintegration Minister Yakobashvili joked in public about Russia's apparent purchase of the recognition, calling it a "comedy," while Deputy Foreign Minister Bokeria told us privately the step was not so important, even if it was true. The relaxed approach represents a welcome shift from Georgia's more manic reaction to previous recognitions by Venezuela and Nicaragua, an approach that we have actively encouraged with our Georgian counterparts. Georgia has also recognized and expressed appreciation for successful U.S. efforts to discourage additional recognitions from Latin American countries . . .”

Perhaps the most draconian use of U.S. pressure regarding recognition of Abkhazia / South Ossetia was the pressure Washington, London, and Paris applied on four poor African states, Burundi, Guinea-Bissau, Central African Republic, Guinea-Bissau, and Mali, that signaled a willingness to establish relations with the secessionist states. The information is contained in a September 1, 2009, cable from the U.S. embassy in Tbilisi. The relevant sections of the cable are as follows:

“Foreign Minister Grigol Vashadze called in the U.S. and UK ambassadors August 31 to request urgent assistance on two matters. First, the Georgians learned that four African countries -- Burundi, Central African Republic, Guinea-Bissau, and Mali -- are seriously considering recognizing Abkhazia and South Ossetia, and the Georgians want help dissuading them from doing so . . . Vashadze told the ambassadors that the Georgian Embassy in Paris learned from the Quai d'Orsay that Burundi, the Central African Republic (CAR), Guinea-Bissau, and Mali were seriously considering taking the step of recognition. He considered this information quite reliable. He expressed great concern that such a step would undermine many of Georgia's diplomatic successes over the past year. He was especially concerned that Russia will orchestrate an announcement of these recognitions at the UN General Assembly, saying that such announcement would be an absolute catastrophe, especially if it occurred when President Saakashvili was in New York. ”

The four African nations were pressured into not recognizing Abkhazia/South Ossetia.

Other leaked State Department cables illustrate Washington’s pressure on various nations, including Spain, Bangladesh, Mauritius, Zambia, Guatemala, South Africa, Brunei, Djibouti, and even the tiny Maldives through the same sort of financial incentives and diplomatic “sweeteners” Washington accused Russia applying on the South Pacific states in return for recognition of Abkhazia/South Ossetia.

When it comes to hypocrisy, there is no greater world center for it than the U.S. Department of State. However, thanks to the leaks of State Department cables, the hypocrisy of the State Department and the Obama administration in foreign policy can be read in their own words.

Club Em Designs

X-Post from Grubsheet: The Politics of Hate

 Most countries have laws that prevent religious and racial vilification. Most responsible media outlets – including those on the internet – excise comments designed to inflame religious and racial hatred.  Read more - THE POLITICS OF HATE

X-Post Whale Oil:The job ad the Law Society banned

by Whaleoil on February 4, 2012

I contacted Christopher Pryde, the Director of Public Prosecutions in Fiji via email. I asked about the ad that the NZ Law Society banned and the details of the position. His reply:

There is only one at this stage but it is fairly high level. I had intended to advertise some more junior posts in a few weeks. I’m still always interested in hearing from anyone who might be interested in working in the office.

This position, as with my position and all positions in the office are non-political which means we look only at whether there is sufficient evidence for a reasonable prospect of conviction in court. As Director, the decision to prosecute (or withdraw charges) is mine alone and I receive no directions from any government minister and certainly not the military.

Here is the job ad the NZ Law Society banned:

The Job Ad the NZ Law Society banned


The Job Ad the NZ Law Society banned

The Jet article

NZ Law Society refuses Fiji ads

The New Zealand Law Society (“NZLS”) has refused to allow the Fijian Director of Public Prosecutions (“DPP”) to advertise legal positions in its magazine, Law Talk.

An email to the Office of the DPP this morning (3.2.12), said “The New Zealand Law Society Board has decided unanimously that the NZLS will not accept advertisements for legal positions in Fiji under the current interim military regime”.

The Director of Public Prosecutions, Mr Christopher Pryde, said it was unfortunate that the NZLS was involving itself in politics and preventing New Zealand lawyers from hearing about job vacancies in Fiji.

He said: “It is unfortunate that New Zealand lawyers are being denied the opportunity to decide for themselves whether they wish to take up legal positions in Fiji. By refusing to allow us the right to advertise, the NZLS is effectively censoring what New Zealand lawyers know about Fiji.”

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions in an independent office and the Director of Public Prosecutions has the sole responsibility for criminal prosecutions in Fiji. This is without recourse to any Government minister, including the Attorney-General. The Office in that regard is non-political.

Mr Pryde said he remains concerned that the NZLS continues to have an inaccurate picture of the Fijian situation, in particular of the judiciary and the courts. “People charged with offences by the Police need to be prosecuted through the courts. What shall we do with people charged with rape or robbery or murder? Send them to New Zealand?” Mr Pryde said.

“My invitation to the NZLS still stands. They are welcome to visit Fiji and meet and talk to anyone without restriction so that they can obtain for themselves a first-hand appraisal of things in Fiji. In the meantime, we would appreciate the NZLS allowing lawyers to decide things for themselves and allow us the right to advertise,” he said.

Club Em Designs

Russian Foreign Affairs Minister Touches Down In Fiji.

 

Russian Federation’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergey Lavrov  and

Fiji Foreign Affairs Minister Ratu Inoke Kubuabola (Images: MoI)

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov arrived in Fiji on Wednesday to pay his country's first high- level visit to the Pacific island nation. Braving heavy storms, Lavrov was warmly welcomed by Fijian Prime Minister Josaia Voreqe Bainimarama with a traditional ceremony. 

Lavrov expressed his thanks and pleasure for the Fijian " hospitality" and "warm welcome", saying "as far as I understand, during my words with Mr. Prime Minister, this ritual goes back to ancient times when the natives of the island met sailors coming from far away. We have felt the sincerity of your hearts in this ritual. It will be forever enshrined in our memory."

Lavrov will meet individually with Bainimarama and his Fijian counterpart Ratu Inoke Kuabuabola on ways of promoting economic cooperation between the two nations. "I look forward to very interesting and meaningful and promising talks today on the hospitable land of Fiji," Lavrov said.

Story: China Radio International 

Club Em Designs

X-Post:: Blak and Black -Lost Sovereignty; a disgraced judge and a kidnapped Attorney-General

Posted on January 31, 2012 by Bakchos

 

Carl Schmitt’s Political Theology: Four Chapters on the Concept of Sovereignty is both famous and obscure. A twentieth-century political theory, containing two canonical sentences: “Sovereign is he who decides on the exception” and “All significant concepts of the modern theory of the state are secularized theological concepts.” These statements are regurgitated by contemporary political and legal theorists time and again. Standing alone, Schmitt’s statements are both puzzling and shocking.

Schmitt’s claim of a theological origin for political concepts stands against the common faith view that Western political theory as advocated by figures such as Locke, Hume, and Smith, not to forget Machiavelli and Hobbes, laid the groundwork for the modern theory of the state. The social contract, not the divine covenant, is at the centre of modern political theory. The concept of a single sovereign, deciding on rules and exceptions, is similarly inconsistent with current thinking about the rule of law, separation of powers, and judicial review.

Blak and Black

"Corruption not by an indigenous people living on a remote island in the Pacific, but corruption in the very seat of power in Australia, corruption that Australia has subsequently exported to our Pacific neighbours."

Today, if somewhat naively, we are prone to ask “what exception?” rather than who decides the exception; how, after all, can we reconcile Schmitt’s definition of sovereignty with the accepted maxim of Western jurisprudence, “extraordinary conditions neither create nor enlarge constitutional power”? In a system of popular sovereignty, we do not know a “he” who can claim to be the sovereign; in our system of constitutional law, we do not know a state of exception.

In reality there are exceptions, there always have been. In Australia the exceptions are usually decided by the police or the Director of Public Prosecutions (“DPP”) and are generally, if not exclusively, based on race. I have written at length on Blak and Black and elsewhere about organisations such as the Australian Federal Police (“AFP”) and the Australian Capital Territory Department of Public Prosecutions making decisions about whether to investigate or prosecute a crime based solely on race. In these situations, the decision almost always goes against the person of colour. This is unabashed racism. This racism becomes more pronounced if the person of colour is an Indigenous Australian or Pacific Islander. This unabashed racism is currently being exported to Australia’s Pacific neighbours via the Australian directed Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands (“RAMSI”) and the AFP.

“We went into the Solomon Islands in order to restore the rule of law. What happened on 27 December [2007] did not involve the Australian government participating in a process of restoring the rule of law.” (Patrick O’Connor, Australian High Court concludes hearing into Julian Moti appeal)

Indeed, Australia did claim to go to the “… Solomon Islands in order to restore the rule of law …”, but far from restoring the ‘rule of law’ Australia stripped the Solomon Islands of its sovereignty and imposed in its place a form of neo-colonial rule far more oppressive than anything the European powers of the nineteen century could have dreamed up. What happened on 27 December 2007 is that the Australian Government kidnapped and unlawfully brought to Australia the former Attorney General Mr Julian Moti of the Solomon Islands to stand trial on what the former Prime Minister of The Solomon Islands Manasseh Sogavare described as “a sham and malicious conspiracy to indict an innocent man.”

In fact, in a media release dated 7 August, 2007 then Prime Minister Sogavare stated that and I quote this document in full:

Prime Minister Sogavare, with the full support of Caucus, has decided today to table in Parliament a questionnaire containing 666 questions addressed to the Australian Federal Director of Prosecutions, Damian Bugg QC, for his independent examination of the Moti case.
The questionnaire deals with the unsuccessful and unmeritorious Vanuatu prosecution of Moti, the shameful and politically motivated Australian investigation of Moti, and the violations of human rights, international law, and the national laws of the Solomon Islands, Papua New Guinea and Vanuatu. 

Sogavare says: “Our forensic and legal advisers have told the Solomon Islands Government that the Australian Federal Police investigation of Attorney General Moti QC is a sham and malicious conspiracy to indict an innocent man. Moti is a target of a vicious campaign to topple a democratically elected Government concerned about the protection of sovereignty.”
 “My Government will not enter into any further debate on the Moti case until DPP Bugg QC complies with our legitimate request under Solomon Islands and international law”, says Sogavare.“We know that DPP Bugg QC has not personally looked at the Moti file, yet his name is being used to authenticate the Australian prosecution of Moti.”
(My emphasis)

The entire Solomon Islands ‘666 questionnaire’ together with the Australian Governments responses can be read on Blak and Black by following this link.

“Our forensic and legal advisers have told the Solomon Islands Government that the Australian Federal Police investigation of Attorney General Moti QC is a sham and malicious conspiracy to indict an innocent man. Moti is a target of a vicious campaign to topple a democratically elected Government concerned about the protection of sovereignty.” Strong words from a democratically elected Prime Minister, but nonetheless true.

“There are other areas in which public confidence in the administration of justice is said to be relevant. One is… the abuse of process which arises when legal processes are used for purposes alien to their proper purposes.” Heydon J Moti v The Queen [2011] HCA 50.

If Carl Schmitt is correct and the “Sovereign is he who decides on the exception”, then based on what happened on 27 December 2007 RAMSI is sovereign in the Solomon Islands. Make no mistake, it was RAMSI in the form of the AFP who targeted Moti and engaged in “a vicious campaign to topple a democratically elected Government”. It was also RAMSI in the form of the AFP who engaged in conduct that had the potential to diminish public confidence “in the administration of justice” by using legal processes for “purposes alien to their proper purposes.” The final attack on the sovereignty of the Solomon Islands by Australia came in the form of the immunity provisions contained in the RAMSI Treaty.

The effect of these immunity provisions is that the AFP officers responsible for undermining the sovereignty of the Solomon Islands are immune from prosecution both in the Solomon Islands and in Australia. The immunity clause in the RAMSI Treaty is an ‘exception’, an ‘exception’ which makes RAMSI sovereign in the Solomon Islands.

An act of hubris, a loss of sovereignty

In August 2006 a car owned by former Federal Court judge and current barrister, Marcus Einfeld, was photographed speeding in Mosman. Einfeld said that his silver Lexus was being driven by Teresa Brennan, a visitor from the United States. But when it was found that Brennan had died three years earlier, Einfeld was soon in trouble over other traffic offences and faced serious charges including perjury.

This extraordinary act of hubris by former Australian Federal Court Judge Marcus Einfeld not only resulted in him being sentenced to a term of imprisonment of two years for lying under oath and perverting the court of justice in relation to a $77 speeding fine, but had consequences for the sovereignty of one of Australia’s near pacific neighbours.

A scandal in Australia, and an engrossing matter within legal circles, had its impact on the Solomon Islands where Einfeld had been appointed to chair an inquiry into the April 2006 riots in Honiara. When Einfeld withdrew, Solomon Islands Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare moved to replace the Attorney-General Primo Afeau with Julian Moti, a Fiji-Indian by background and an Australian lawyer by training and citizenship. Sogavare was seen by his opponents in the Solomon Islands and some Australian observers as attempting to use Moti to oversee the terms and conduct of his riot inquiry to shift blame to RAMSI and away from the two members of parliament (Charles Dausabea and Nelson Ne’e) who were jailed for their involvement in the riots and have subsequently sued the Solomon Islands Government over their jailing.

After Sogavare announced the appointment of Moti as Attorney-General, the AFP issued a warrant for Moti’s arrest for an alleged child sex offence in Vanuatu in 1997. Sogavare saw a deliberate plan by Australia to frustrate his attempts to set up a separate inquiry and he appealed to arguments about Solomon Islands’ sovereignty and prejudice against a big and distant Australian bully.

Acting on an Interpol alert triggered by Australia, the Port Moresby police arrested Moti on 29 September 2006 in the transit lounge of Jackson’s airport when he was flying from Singapore to Honiara. After his arrest Moti was released on bail and decamped to the Solomon Islands High Commission in Port Moresby. As reported by the National Broadcasting Corporation and the two national dailies, the Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare advocated the release and transfer of Moti and punishing the police who arrested him. Somare’s reported words were explicit:”Let Moti go” and “my view was to make sure that he gets past our system and goes through [to Honiara]“. On Monday 9 October the only operational PNGDF CASA aircraft took off from Jackson’s airport and dropped Moti and other Solomon Island officials at a disused airstrip on Munda Island.

Had Einfeld not been forced to withdraw as chair of the inquiry into the April 2006 riots in Honiara, Sogavare might not have found himself in a position to appoint Moti as Attorney-General of the Solomon Islands. Likewise, if Australia had not been so paranoid about one man who was determined to defend the rights of his indigenous public for whom he was a servant, his appointment would not have mattered.

A former Judge caught lying under oath and perverting the court of justice cannot be seen as anything other than a form of corruption. Corruption not by an indigenous people living on a remote island in the Pacific, but corruption in the very seat of power in Australia, corruption that Australia has subsequently exported to our Pacific neighbours. Was Einfield’s fall from grace simply a matter of justice prevailing over corruption or were there more sinister forces at play?

In any event the results for the Solomon Islands have been profound in terms of its national sovereignty. One of the first national sovereignty issues we encounter when considering the role of RAMSI in the Solomon Islands is that of national or sovereign accountability. Under the FIAA the Participating Police Force (“PPF”) is accountable to the Deputy Police Commissioner who is a senior Australian Police Officer. The FIAA is silent on whether the Deputy Police Commissioner should resign his/her Australian commission before acceding to the post of Deputy Police Commissioner of the Solomon Islands.

If the Deputy Police Commissioner is allowed to accede to that post without first resigning their Australian commission, a parallel line of accountability is created within a sovereign state. Is this constitutionally sound?

This parallel line of accountability in turn gives rise to the question of immunity. Under the Solomon Islands Constitution, an aggrieved party may apply to the High Court for redress for the contravention of his/her fundamental rights. Section 18 (1) provides:

…if any person alleges that any of the [human rights provisions] of this Constitution has been, is being or is likely to be contravened in relation to him for, in the case of a person who is detained, if any other person alleges such contravention in relation to the detained then, without prejudice to any other action with respect to the same matter which is lawfully available, that person (or that other person) may apply to the High Court for redress.

If a situation arises where a member of RAMSI is alleged to have violated the fundamental rights of a citizen of the Solomon Islands, the courts would be powerless to act unless RAMSI waives its immunity, which in turn raises the question: are the immunity provisions con tained within the FIAA consistent with Schmitt’s test of Sovereignty?

On the point of Schmitt’s test of Sovereignty, it is worth quoting from the Memorandum of Advice written by Mr Julian Moti QC in his capacity as Attorney-General of the Solomon Islands dated 27 August, 2007. In this advice Moti argues that if it is the intention of the Solomon Island’s Parliament to:

…incubate a permanent state of exception in Solomon Islands by retaining the presence of the visiting contingent here indefinitely, it might simply achieve that by delegating its plenary legislative power to “make laws for the peace, order and good governance of Solomon Islands” to the head of the visiting contingent. Assuming that would not be acceptable, it is necessary to enter into dialogue with all affected parties to reconcile identified problems before legislating future amendments to the existing FIAA regime.

As Carl Schmitt reminds us “Sovereign is he who decides on the exception” therefore if RAMSI personnel and support corporations are exempt from the equal application of Solomon Islands national registration and revenue laws and are further entitled to privileges and immunities which FIAA grants only to individual members of the visiting contingent, which as Moti argues can amount to nothing less than a permanent state of exception can the Solomon Islands Government still be seen as being sovereign in its own territory or has it, as Moti has suggested ceded its sovereignty to the Australian controlled RAMSI?

Club Em Designs 
 

X-Post: The Australian - Fijian Progress Muddied By The Media.

RATU INOKE KUBUABOLA

From: The Australian

January 27, 2012 12:00AM

AUSTRALIA is not simply a neighbour of Fiji. It is a part of our family. 

As such, Fiji will always hold Aussies close, same with Kiwis. But as Richard Herr and Anthony Bergin wrote earlier this month: "Fiji is getting on with new relationships that are less and less connected with Australia's interests in the Pacific islands region."

The reasons are practical, as well as personal. Just this week, the World Bank has again warned developing countries such as ours to begin preparing for another global economic shock as a result of the debt crisis in Europe and weakening growth in other emerging economies.

This underscores Fiji's move to grow and diversify its economy and relationships, which is what the Bainimarama government has been doing despite - and in light of - sanctions and restrictions imposed by Australia and New Zealand.

Our economic and diplomatic ties are now greater than they have ever been, an example of which is the first high-level visit to Fiji by the Russian Foreign Minister, Sergey Lavrov, in the coming weeks.
So while many in Australia and New Zealand have become solely focused on personalities and the past, they have lost sight of the future and the bigger picture, and with what Fiji has been up to.

I. Kubuabola

"Australian or New Zealand media or policymakers view Fiji. To them, we are a land of coups, failed institutions and a military dictator. There exists a condescending and patronising tone to most every statement and media report that comes out of Australia and New Zealand - whether lack of acknowledgement about the divisive politics, ethnic and religious strife and corruption that Fiji faced over the years or the full dismissal of international context when viewing Fiji's laws and governance."

Standard & Poor's recently upgraded Fiji's sovereign debt rating. We have a net deficit position of 1.9 per cent (ahead of the IMF's recommended target of 2 per cent). We are aligning more closely with free-market principles, and for 2012 have cut or eliminated taxes for 99 per cent of taxpayers (putting about $53 million back in the pockets of Fijians) and have significantly cut taxes across the board for businesses.
As a result, this year our economy is projected to grow, supported by traditional sectors and now enhanced by telecommunications, ICT, audiovisual and mahogany, among others.

Enabling this growth has been our focus on eliminating waste, fraud and abuse. Fiji unreservedly ratified the UN Convention Against Corruption in 2007, for which we have volunteered and undergone peer reviews by countries such as the US and France. New transparency rules will soon be put in place to ensure that all government officials disclose their assets and investments.

Sound fiscal policies and anti-corruption practices have helped encourage new trade and investment, which we have seen from private sector enterprise in Australia and New Zealand, but also China, India, Indonesia, Japan, Korea, Malaysia and the US, among other countries, and with new ones ahead.
In all of this we have sought to ensure that all levels of society are looked after: new roads, electricity, clean water and unrestricted internet access, most of which is being brought to places that never had them before; first-ever food voucher programs; subsidised bus fares; free textbooks; free public transport for the disabled; more legal protection for women and children; anti-discrimination laws; equal distribution of land lease monies; and more.

But none of this is representative of how the Australian or New Zealand media or policymakers view Fiji. To them, we are a land of coups, failed institutions and a military dictator. There exists a condescending and patronising tone to most every statement and media report that comes out of Australia and New Zealand - whether lack of acknowledgement about the divisive politics, ethnic and religious strife and corruption that Fiji faced over the years or the full dismissal of international context when viewing Fiji's laws and governance.
Fiji is under no misguided assumption that if oil or gas was found off Suva tomorrow our neighbours would be singing a different tune. But because Fiji's economy is based on tourism and sugar, the serious steps we are taking to realign our economy and re-establish our independence politically are not taken seriously by our historical allies.

The Bainimarama government has laid out a vision for what we seek to accomplish and a clear timeframe for getting it done. Our first priority, however, is to Fiji - ensuring Fijians have safe food and clean water, electricity, access to education and jobs, and the ability to take advantage of the opportunities afforded by our unique country. And so far the Bainimarama government has been able to deliver these services more efficiently and effectively than any previous one.

As Fiji continues to move forward to consultations for the new constitution and our first truly democratic elections, we would welcome the encouragement and participation of Australia and New Zealand.
Fiji is engaged more fully with the global community, and we aim to uphold our place as a "vital element" of regional affairs.

Ratu Inoke Kubuabola is Fiji's Minister for Foreign Affairs

Club Em Designs

Landlubber diplomacy won't work in Fiji - The Hill's Congress Blog

Eni Faleomavaega (Image source: House.gov)

U.S Congressman Eni F.H. Faleomavaega  recent opinion piece "The Hill's Congress Blog" titled: "Landlubber diplomacy won't work in Fiji" 

 Rep. Eni F.H. Faleomavaega (D-American Samoa) is the Ranking Member and former Chairman of the U.S. House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Asia and the Pacific.
 

In Samoa, when a tauta (landman) advances an opinion about fishing or navigation, he is met with the reply "O le va’ai le tauta" – or, "that is the opinion of a landlubber."

In response to Fiji’s 2006 coup, Australia and New Zealand have advanced a policy to force Fiji back to democracy. Based on a Eurocentric mindset that fails to take into account Fiji’s colonial history, complex ethnic mix and chiefly, provincial, religious and family rivalries, Australia and New Zealand imposed a wide range of sanctions on Fiji and cut off diplomatic channels.

Having no policy of its own, the U.S. marched in time, applying section 508 sanction law which severed U.S. aid to Fiji. U.S. sanctions, however, have had no consequence because U.S. aid to Fiji was less than $3 million per year.

Of consequence is Pakistan. In 1999, when General Pervez Musharraf overthrew the democratically-elected government of then Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif, the U.S. waived 508 sanction law, despite the fact that for nearly ten years General Musharraf never made good on his promise to resign his military commission and hold free, fair and transparent elections in Pakistan. 

The U.S., like Australia and New Zealand, cooperated with Pakistan’s regime – even providing billions in aid – because we understood then like we should understand now that engagement is vital to our interests and necessary if our long-term objectives are peace, stability and democracy.

Do Australia, New Zealand and the U.S. consider Fiji vital to our interests? If not, I believe we should given China and Iran’s growing presence in the region. If so, we need a new way forward.The U.S. can no longer rely on landlubber diplomacy which seeks to force democracy by isolation. Every tautai (navigator) knows – democracy can’t be forced. Force is contrary to the order of democracy and contrary to our innate desire to choose.

To succeed in Fiji, we must start from the beginning. The legacy of Fiji’s colonial past has never been fully resolved since Fiji gained its independence in 1970. To date, Indians control many of the small businesses. Australia and New Zealand control major banking and commercial enterprises, and indigenous Fijians control much of the communal land and military establishment, with serious divisions existing between traditional leaders and lower-ranking Fijians.

So far, no resolutions have been established to provide balance and fairness to both Fijians and ethnic Indians. In the past 20 some years, Fiji has had four coups and three constitutions. In the two coups of 1987 and the political crisis of 2000, ethnic tensions played major roles.

Until we understand this beginning and begin to converse about it, democracy will not get underway. Having had several discussions with interim Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama and dozens of others during my visits to Fiji, I believe U.S. leadership can help strengthen bilateral ties and improve regional conditions. 

By employing smart diplomacy in Fiji – which has been the hallmark of President Obama and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s foreign policy initiative even in Myanmar – I have every hope that we can achieve equal suffrage and other political, economic and social reforms targeted under the “Strategic Framework for Change,” just as the interim Prime Minister seeks.

 

Club Em Designs 

X-Post from Land Destroyer: Australian Militarism in the Asia-Pacific Century

Land Destroyer: Australian Militarism in the Asia-Pacific Century: Nile Bowie NileBowie.blogspot.com January 22, 2012 For a nation who has historically subordinated itself to larger powers, Australia’s Labour-led foreign policy shows little divergence away from being wholly complicit to American full spectrum dominance in the region.

Club Em Designs

CSIS Interviews Winston Thompson.

Ernest Z. Bower of Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) interviews Winston Thompson, Fiji Ambassador to the United States.

(Video posted below)




Club Em Designs

Russian Foreign Minister Visit To Fiji & The Bigger Picture.

Fiji-Russia relations have significantly been buoyed with the news of a proposed visit from Russia's senior diplomat: Foreign Minster Sergey Lavrov. The state visit was discussed between Fiji Prime Minister and Russia's Ambassador to the region.

Fiji PM and Russia's Ambassador, Vladimir N Morozov.

Lavrov will be considerably the most highest ranking Russian official to visit Fiji, to date and is a historic occasion and as well as a unique geopolitical one as well.
While Australia stonewalls any serious engagement with Fiji, inextricably it also exiles itself to the 'endless steepe' and watches in mute frustration as the regional architecture re-calibrates to the events in flux. As a result, other meaningful diplomatic partners have reached out and cemented their relationships within the region.
Australian Foreign Minister, Kevin Rudd commented in a recent Radio Australia interview, on the non- removal of sanctions against Fiji.
Undoubtedly, it certainly appears that Australian Government are definitely quite insecure with other larger players stepping into the diplomatic sandbox and have long considered the Pacific region as their own sphere, to be influenced and exploited by any means necessary.
Last November, Australia lashed out at Russia's resourceful diplomacy in the South Pacific region and the reaction only under girds the index of insecurity within the circles of Australia's foreign policy establishment; who not only are out of touch, but out of answers.

Bloomberg article highlighted the regional aspects in Russian diplomacy.

Strategic Spotter blog post authored by Alexey Muraviev, outlines the geo-strategic abilities of Russia in the Pacific region. The macro view of Eurasian geopolitical events have been succinctly described in an opinion post by Pepe Escobar and may also have some bearing in the Pacific region and vice-versa, considering the volatile events in Syria and Iran.

Club Em Designs

X-Post: Strategic Culture Foundation :- China – USA: Struggle for Control of Pacific.

China – USA: Struggle for Control of Pacific

Vladislav GULEVICH (Ukraine) | 10.01.2012 | 00:00

Asia - Pacific region is attracting the increasing attention of Western politicians against the backdrop of Chinese growing military and economic might. For instance the US influence had been indisputable until recently but today China’s intensifying efforts to raise its profile in the geostrategic area is something seen with the naked eye. US analysts sound the alarm saying the Chinese simply “pick up” the countries the US administration failed to build relationships with.  No doubt the Washington’s many years old human rights rhetoric, grown to become a foreign policy dogma, failed it. By ostracizing the ruling regimes in the Asia – Pacific for their incompatibility with “democratic values” in the US perception, it has involuntarily pushed them into China’s embrace. That’s the way it happened in case of Myanmar (Burma). Till the USA criticized the Myanmar leadership for lack of freedom the Chinese promoted their interests there while cooperating with the powers that be of this poorest country at all levels. The Myanmar’s economy and infrastructure received from China dozens of billion of US dollars, about the same amount was rendered as military aid. Myanmar President U Thein Sein’s visit to China in 2011 became an evident prove of the growing bilateral cooperation. Then the China’s leadership said very important things about Beijing and Rangoon sharing strategic vision of international problems, the fact that couldn’t go unnoticed by the White House and not put it on guard.  The Myanmar’s geographic position has an important military strategic advantage – common border with India, China. Thailand and Laos. Myanmar is a good platform to exert pressure on China and exercise control over the strait of Malacca, passed by about 50 thousand ships yearly (one fifth or one fourth of the world commodity turnover). 11 millions barrels of oil are shipped through the strait daily. One of the oil consumers is China. Moreover Myanmar is rich in resources: oil, tin, tungsten, zinc, lead, copper, coal, precious stones, gas. It allows to easily win influential neighbors favor. Under the given circumstances Washington’s calls for the country’s international isolation will hardly produce any results. Myanmar will always find someone instead of the US. Vladislav Gulevich: "The United States and Australia have an agreement on US military presence on Australian soil. No new bases are envisioned but the US servicemen have a right of permanent access to the Australia’s military infrastructure and the US naval presence in adjacent seas is to grow. Having military facilities in South Korea and Japan the United States is able to boost its influence in Western and Southern Asia-Pacific, including the South China Sea considered to be sovereign territory by the Chinese. The Sea control presupposes obvious geopolitical advantages once this waterway is the shortest and the most safe one for shipping from China, Japan and Russia to the Singapore strait and back. New Zealand watches the Chinese Asia-Pacific diplomatic expansion closely, especially after China became close to the island nation of Fiji, situated in Southern Pacific, 1170 km from it. There is an apprehension that the very pace of Chinese – Fiji cooperation development may lead to one of the Fiji island becoming a place of China’s permanent naval presence. Here – the Chinese in Fiji, there – the Chinese in Timor. " The same story takes place in case of a small island nation called Timor-Leste. The island enjoys an advantageous geographic position. It’s situated at arm’s length from neighboring Australia and Indonesia, the bottom of the Timor Sea is rich in oil and gas. For instance, the Bayu - Undan’s oil reserves are estimated to be $ 3 billion. The vicinity of the strait of Vetar is important too. It’s a deep water strait and is ideal for submarines passage from the Pacific into the Indian ocean. In contingency submarines effective activities will require control over it, that, in its turn, requires control over Timor-Leste. In 2002 this former Portuguese colony eyed by Indonesia became independent. Since then the Washington and Beijing have been vying for influence there, the last one doing much better. The Chinese have already received a $ 378 million contract for two power plants construction. Light arms, uniform and other military equipment are bought in China. There is a 4000 Chinese diaspora on the island. A $ 3 billion credit from China was agreed on in January 2011. Before the career open Timorese used to get education in Australia or the USA to be promoted to high positions in politics or economy. Now it’s not the case anymore, they prefer to go to China for the purpose.  As the situation dictates, Washington strengthens its military strategic ties with Australia and New Zealand. An Australian military delegation headed by Stephen Smith, minister of defense, visited the US in July 2011 on the occasion of the 60 anniversary of the bilateral alliance. Afghanistan and growing might of India and China were among the issues topping the agenda. Australia confirmed its resolve to go on being the US “south anchor” in South-East Asia (1). US State Secretary Hillary Clinton made public the Washington’s intent to make the XXI century a century of the US Pacific policy (2). Australia is the major US ally in this part of the globe, its army strength is 51 thousand and it has over 19000 reservists. The country’s mobilization reserve is 4,9 million men. Canberra’s military expenditure is 2% of its GDP.  There are 16 US military facilities on its territory, including a missile test site and a navy communication station for nuclear submarines. Timor-Leste, Indonesia and Papua – New Guinea are situated to the North. The distance between Papua – New Guinea and continental Australia is only 145 km, narrowing down to just 5 km in case of the Australian Boigu and Papua – New Guinea. Vanuatu, New Caledonia and the Solomon Islands lie to the North- East of the Australian continent. New Zealand is situated to the South-East. Among the countries listed here only New Zealand is a staunch and unambiguous ally of Australia, be it economy or policy. The others are attentively (and not without results) viewed by Beijing.  The United States and Australia have an agreement on US military presence on Australian soil. No new bases are envisioned but the US servicemen have a right of permanent access to the Australia’s military infrastructure and the US naval presence in adjacent seas is to grow. Having military facilities in South Korea and Japan the United States is able to boost its influence in Western and Southern Asia-Pacific, including the South China Sea considered to be sovereign territory by the Chinese. The Sea control presupposes obvious geopolitical advantages once this waterway is the shortest and the most safe one for shipping from China, Japan and Russia to the Singapore strait and back.  New Zealand watches the Chinese Asia-Pacific diplomatic expansion closely, especially after China became close to the island nation of Fiji, situated in Southern Pacific, 1170 km from it. There is an apprehension that the very pace of Chinese – Fiji cooperation development may lead to one of the Fiji island becoming a place of China’s permanent naval presence. Here – the Chinese in Fiji, there – the Chinese in Timor.  Moreover, there is a chance the Chinese would have a foothold in the Seychelles. China’s Defense Minister Liang Guanglie said so in September 2011 in response to the Seychelles president James Michael’s proposal to host a China’s naval base on his country’s soil. Situated between Asia and Africa to the North of Madagascar in the Western part of the Indian ocean, the Seychelles is a country of great strategic importance. Control over a significant part of the Indian ocean, as well as the waters adjacent to the shore of East Africa (Kenya, Mozambique, Somalia) becomes possible once an adequate naval force is based there. The Seychelles signed a military cooperation agreement with China in 2004 that includes 50 Seychellois servicemen getting training in China (3). Besides the Chinese rendered significant aid to the Seychellois navy. In turn the Seychelles openly declared adherence to the principle of “One China” that is refused to recognize Taiwan. The Chinese navy ships already patrol narrow waters of the Indian ocean where the pirates threat is high. They need logistics resupply and maintenance facilities. May be that’s what the Seychelles may provide them with. Once the Chinese economy depends on external trade to great extent, Beijing has vital interest in eliminating piracy in this waters. Washington fears then there will be no way to push the Chinese navy out (2). In 2004 Booz Allen Hamilton, US government consulting firm, reported the substance of the Chinese tactics is to acquire a “necklace” of naval basing facilities in the Indian ocean (3). The Chinese interest towards the Seychelles evokes apprehension on the part of Washington keeping in mind there is a US unmanned aerial vehicles facility on the islands destined to tackle mysterious Somali pirates and exercise control over the territory of Somalia.  Still there are weak points of China’s position in the Asia-Pacific. Some experts say Beijing has no clear blue water strategy at the state’s level. Defense and promotion of economic interests is one thing, but a full-blown doctrine of strengthening its presence in the whole Pacific is something else.  A blue water strategy is something of a larger scale than just strategy and tactics adopted by a navy. It should comprise coordinated multifunctional activities of special state institutions – from major staffs and military experts to oceanographic institutes and economists. That’s why China will avoid sea conflicts as long as it can to upgrade its naval potential and implement its strategy towards Pacific countries including those in the immediate vicinity of the two major US allies – New Zealand and Australia. Beijing needs time. China relies on diplomacy (inexpensive means of taking care of its interests) and economy.  In case of economy China’s advancement into Africa is a good example: in 2003 the bilateral trade turnover was $10 billion, it was already $20 billion in 2004. China signed agreements on cooperation in the field of natural resources extraction with Angola, Nigeria, Zambia, Congo, Zimbabwe etc. Asia-Pacific is still only third China’s aid recipient – after Australia and the USA but it strives to get a foothold in as many strategically areas as possible, so that at the moment the US becomes critically weak it could start a dialogue with it not from the position of weakness but rather the position of strength.  1. Edi Walsh «America’s Southern Anchor?» (The Diplomat August 25, 2011) 2. “Clinton says 21st century will be US`s Pacific century” (Xinhua/Wang Fengfeng, 12.11.2011) 3. Jody Ray Bennett «Seychelles: An Open Invitation for China» (ISN Insights, 27. 12.2011)

Related SiFM posts


Club Em Designs

The End Crowns The Work.

L
owy's Institute blog "The Interpreter" featured a post titled"Fiji: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back", authored by Jenny Hayward Jones, who remarked about the
amendment (PDF) to the Public Order Act of 1969:

It is too early to know the impact of this new decree or indeed the real impact of the Media Industry Development Decree, both of which appear to be aimed at enshrining in law most of the temporary powers available to the Fiji Government under the Public Emergency Regulations.

Jones continued later in the same post, arguing that the new found accolades for the recent removal of the Public Emergency Regulations (PER) in Fiji, were incompatible with the new amendments to the Public Order Act:

However, the fact that [Bainimarama] felt he could shun the plaudits he won from lifting the Public Emergency Regulations through(sic) the new restrictions on freedoms promised by the Public Order Decree suggests he continues to have little regard for the opinion of the international community.

While, it has been widely accepted that Fiji is still trudging in its own pace, on the road towards democracy; it would be rather naive at best for observers to assume that Fiji had arrived in its moment in the sun and claimed the status as described in former US President Reagan's historic speech of "city on a hill".

SiFM

"On one hand, Fiji is not a democracy; yet the shortfalls in media freedom is to be expected. On the other hand; the United States has been fully fledged member of the democracy club; yet the lack of media coverage of such mega erosion of civil liberties; does point to some degree of censorship in their newsrooms.

Is it the same international community that welcomed Fiji's removal of PER; have hypocritically acquiesced to the erosion of civil liberties in America?"

Comparatively, when considering the fore-mentioned amendment to the Public Order Act in Fiji (an infant in terms of democracy) and contrast that with America (hundreds years of being a democratic republic); the news of  the recent passage of the NDAA bill, now signed into law by US President Obama only highlights such a dichotomy in democratic ideals and those who profess them incessantly.

The Guardian newspaper article underscores such hypocrisy:

President Barack Obama rang in the New Year by signing the NDAA law with its provision allowing him to indefinitely detain citizens. It was a symbolic moment, to say the least. With Americans distracted with drinking and celebrating, Obama signed one of the greatest rollbacks of civil liberties in the history of our country … and citizens partied in unwitting bliss into the New Year.

In the same "City on a hill" speech in 1974, Ronald Reagan highlighted the uniqueness of the US Constitution:

The culmination of men's dreams for 6,000 years were formalized with the Constitution, probably the most unique document ever drawn in the long history of man's relation to man. I know there have been other constitutions, new ones are being drawn today by newly emerging nations. Most of them, even the one of the Soviet Union, contain many of the same guarantees as our own Constitution, and still there is a difference. The difference is so subtle that we often overlook it, but it is so great that it tells the whole story. Those other constitutions say, "Government grants you these rights," and ours says, "You are born with these rights, they are yours by the grace of God, and no government on earth can take them from you."

The world certainly knows fully well now, how things have changed in America.
The Guardian article further illustrates the scale and magnitude of how such civil liberties have been eroded and also points fingers at the mainstream media for not highlighting such major assaults on the U.S Constitution:

The almost complete failure of the mainstream media to cover this issue is shocking. Many reporters have bought into the spin of the Obama administration as they did the spin over torture by the Bush administration. Even today, reporters refuse to call waterboarding torture despite the long line of cases and experts defining waterboarding as torture for decades.
On the NDAA, reporters continue to mouth the claim that this law only codifies what is already the law. That is not true. The administration has fought any challenges to indefinite detention to prevent a true court review. Moreover, most experts agree that such indefinite detention of citizens violates the constitution.

It was even suggested in Jones' latest blog post in "The Interpreter", which ironically has the image of Ronald Reagan on its website, that the International Community were willing to look past the sins of Fiji:

Nevertheless, there are still opportunities for the international community to look past the sins of Fiji's Prime Minister and help the people of Fiji achieve their aspirations for democracy.

Regardless of Jones' authority to speak on behalf of the International Community,  it is highly questionable if the same international community Jones speaks of, routinely outlined the important role of the media in society and welcomed the PER removal in Fiji.

Jones also did point out the fact in a previous post that, during Fiji's PER had censors in the newsrooms:

Although Government censors may no longer patrol news rooms in Fiji after next week, it would be a brave editor who published overt criticism of the Government, given the strict punishments outlined in the Media Decree. Importantly, the Fiji Government now feels secure enough to commence discussions on a new constitution.

Unfortunately, the dichotomy which was highlighted earlier, does seem to widen and become much more embarrassingly apparent, in the context of Fiji and the U.S.

On one hand, Fiji is not a democracy; yet the shortfalls in media freedom is to be expected. On the other hand; the United States has been fully fledged member of the democracy club; yet the lack of media coverage of such mega erosion of civil liberties; does point to some degree of censorship in their newsrooms.

Is it the same international community that welcomed Fiji's removal of PER; have hypocritically acquiesced to the erosion of civil liberties in America?

In fact, other commentators have pointed other misuses of the fourth estate in the U.S.

Posted below is a video of such manipulations in the media, that the ubiquitous international community, mainstream media outlets and think tanks like Lowy Institute have silently tolerated. While Fiji is understandably moving one step forward and two steps back, as pointed out by Jones; it is not moving in circles and preaching that democracy is the be all and end all to everything.





Club Em Designs

X Post- Croz Walsh's Blog : Fiji has moved on and Australia must play by the n...

Croz's blog post:  highlighted an opinion piece by Michael O'Keefe published in 'The Australian' December 29, 2011.

Some of the points raised by Michael O'Keefe do echo the sentiments raised by Matthew Hill in a 2010 paper titled: "A Velvet Glove? Coercion, and the Australian Response to the 2006 Fijian Coup".

 

Club Em Designs

Qorvis Questions.

Huffington Post Article from Ann Lenzer raised some interesting and pertinent questions about trust and the dissemination and the consumption of the media (mainstream or otherwise) in Fiji, be that intersects with a recent On The Media show discussing Payola in the news.

http://www.onthemedia.org/2011/dec/16/morning-show-payola/

Club Em Designs

X-Post from WSWS: Julian Moti Case

The excerpt:

Australian High Court blocks frame-up charges against Moti

By Patrick O’Connor
8 December 2011

The Australian government suffered a significant blow yesterday, with a High Court ruling in favour of former Solomon Islands’ Attorney General Julian Moti. In a 6-to-1 majority decision, the court permanently barred any criminal prosecution of Moti on trumped-up statutory rape charges. It found that further prosecution of the charges would amount to an abuse of judicial process, because the Australian government had consciously colluded in Moti’s illegal removal from the Solomons in December 2007.

The judgement marks the collapse of Canberra’s protracted legal vendetta against Moti. Successive Liberal and Labor governments—working with the Australian Federal Police and the Australian diplomatic corps in the South Pacific—attempted to destroy Moti’s professional standing and political influence in the region and have him imprisoned for years because he was regarded as an impediment to the interests of Australian imperialism. From a Melanesian nationalist standpoint, Moti, an expert in international and constitutional law, had worked to uphold the national sovereignty and international legal rights of the small South Pacific states. This came into conflict with Canberra’s aggressive drive, backed by the US, to maintain its regional hegemony amid China’s rising influence.

Patrick O'Connor On Julian Moti Case

"The judgement marks the collapse of Canberra’s protracted legal vendetta against Moti. Successive Liberal and Labor governments—working with the Australian Federal Police and the Australian diplomatic corps in the South Pacific—attempted to destroy Moti’s professional standing and political influence in the region and have him imprisoned for years because he was regarded as an impediment to the interests of Australian imperialism [...]
The Australian government feared that Moti would use his legal experience and expertise to mount a challenge in the Solomons’ and international courts to RAMSI, exposing its highly dubious legal underpinnings."

In 2004, Australian authorities dredged up fabricated sexual assault allegations against Moti that had already been dismissed by Vanuatu courts. The Australian government’s interest in the charges was politically motivated from the very beginning. Internal memos, diplomatic cables, and emails—only made public because of Moti’s subsequent fight in the Australian courts—revealed that the then Australian High Commissioner to Solomon Islands, Patrick Cole, demanded an Australian Federal Police (AFP) investigation to assist his efforts to prevent Moti’s appointment as the Solomons’ attorney general. Cole was desperate to prevent any challenge to Australia’s neo-colonial intervention force, the Regional Assistance Mission to Solomon Islands (RAMSI).

The initial allegations were levelled against Moti in 1997 in Vanuatu. Charges were quickly thrown out of court in the pre-trial stage, due to the contradictory and demonstrably false evidence presented by the alleged victim and her family. Last March, the father of the alleged victim confessed, just three days before he died of a heart attack, that the allegations were false and maliciously motivated. He accused the AFP of intimidating his family and offering financial inducements. These allegations have never been investigated. The Australian media has maintained a blackout on the confession—with the exception of SBS Radio, not a single outlet has referred to the father’s statement.

The AFP’s investigation into Moti, named “Operation Rouge”, became the vehicle for his removal from the Solomon Islands in December 2007, after Prime Minister Manasseh Sogavare was finally removed from office following a protracted destabilisation campaign mounted by the Australian government. Moti has always maintained that his extraction from the Solomons was illegal—amounting to a kidnapping or rendition—and that the Australian judicial system was therefore bound, in accordance with established precepts of international and common law, to refuse to permit the further prosecution of the charges.

The High Court has now agreed. It noted that the so-called deportation was executed in violation of Moti’s right to appeal the order within seven days of its issuance and also in defiance of a specific order issued by a Solomons’ magistrate prohibiting Moti’s detention and removal from the country. Australian authorities knew this, but nevertheless issued Moti with the necessary travel documentation, without his knowledge or permission.

The High Court explained: “First, Australian officials (both in Honiara and in Canberra) knew that the senior representative of Australia in Honiara at the time (the Acting High Commissioner) was of opinion that the appellant’s [Moti’s] deportation was not lawful. Second, the Acting High Commissioner’s opinion was obviously right. Third, despite the expression of this opinion, and its obviously being right, Australian officials facilitated the unlawful deportation of the appellant by supplying a travel document relating to him (and travel documents for those who would accompany him) at a time when it was known that the documents would be used to effect the unlawful deportation.”

On this basis, the court concluded that the maintenance of proceedings against Moti would constitute an “abuse of process of the court” and therefore had to be permanently quashed.

Justice Dyson Heydon issued a minority opinion, arguing against the established legal principle that courts ought to refuse to prosecute someone who has been kidnapped or illegally removed from a foreign jurisdiction by government authorities. Heydon insisted that prosecutions ought to be permitted regardless of how the defendant is brought before the court. The chilling opinion effectively sought to sanction rendition. It pointed to the deeply anti-democratic conceptions that are widely held in the legal and political elite and promoted under the banner of the so-called war on terror.

The majority High Court decision overturned the previous judgements of the lower courts that adjudicated on the Moti case.

In December 2009, the Queensland Supreme Court issued a permanent bar on the attempted prosecution, on the basis of the extraordinary AFP payments to the alleged victim and her family. Between February 2008 and November 2009 about $150,000 was paid—a sum far in excess of regular subsistence witness payments. Payments were repeatedly escalated as the alleged victim threatened to withdraw from the case and go to the media to expose how she was being used to advance the Australian government’s political interests. The Queensland Supreme Court said these payments had brought “the administration of justice into disrepute”—but at the same time insisted that it could not adjudicate on the legality of Moti’s removal from the Solomons’ because this was a foreign jurisdiction.

In July 2010, the Queensland Supreme Court of Appeal reinstated the charges against Moti, dismissing concerns over both the AFP payments and the legality of the lawyer’s removal from the Solomons.

The High Court has now insisted that the so-called witness payments were not illegal and had not been used to procure evidence from prosecution witnesses. It added that any improprieties could be raised in the course of a trial to challenge the credibility of witness testimony, but did not warrant a stay of proceedings. This finding appears to establish a dangerous precedent. Permitting a trial even when enormous sums of money are provided by the AFP to procure testimony, if not evidence, creates a potential incentive for individuals to fabricate allegations against Australian citizens visiting or living in the region, especially those identified as opponents of the government.

The High Court ruling on the illegality of the Australian government’s actions in December 2007 is nevertheless very significant. Canberra’s unlawful targeting of the Solomons’ attorney general points to the fraudulent basis for the entire RAMSI intervention. In 2003, the Australian government deployed soldiers, police, and government and legal officials as part of an indefinite takeover of the Solomons’ state apparatus. This was promoted as a “humanitarian” mission, centrally aimed at re-establishing the rule of law in the country, following years of low-level communal conflict. Yet the Australian government has repeatedly demonstrated contempt for the law in the Solomon Islands and across the South Pacific.

The High Court made no attempt to answer the obvious question raised by its assessment of what happened in December 2007: Why did the Australian government so blatantly break the law in order to get Moti out of the Solomons?

The illegal extraction was the culmination of a 20-month campaign waged by Canberra against the Sogavare government and its attorney general, Julian Moti. By December 2007, the Australian government was desperate to get Moti out of the Solomons, using whatever means at its disposal. After becoming prime minister in May 2006, Sogavare attempted to lessen RAMSI’s control over the country’s public finances, and he also called on the intervention force to outline its “exit strategy” from the country. Both moves were furiously denounced by the then Howard government, and the destabilisation campaign began.

Moti’s close relations with Sogavare were another factor in Canberra’s drive to force “regime change” in Honiara. The Australian government feared that Moti would use his legal experience and expertise to mount a challenge in the Solomons’ and international courts to RAMSI, exposing its highly dubious legal underpinnings. Moti was also an important participant in the Solomons government’s efforts to convene an official Commission of Inquiry into rioting that destroyed much of Honiara in April 2006, just before Sogavare became prime minister. There is substantial evidence indicating that the violence was instigated by RAMSI forces, which were then deliberately stood down in order to allow the destruction to unfold. Canberra denounced the proposed investigation and witch hunted everyone involved in it. Former Australian Federal Court Justice Marcus Einfeld had been appointed chairman of the Commission of Inquiry—but was forced to resign after becoming subject to a well-timed government and media vilification campaign over a perjury incident related to an unpaid speeding fine.

Unsurprisingly, none of these issues was canvassed in the High Court’s judgement. Even in its focus on the illegal facilitation of Moti’s extraction from the Solomons in December 2007, the court dealt only with the issuing of travel documents. The High Court insisted that it was “not necessary” to examine the activities of AFP agent Peter Bond. The police officer played an extraordinary role in Honiara immediately prior to Moti’s expulsion to Australia. Bond, according to the evidence presented by Moti’s counsel, participated in high level Solomons’ government meetings convened to organise the so-called deportation, personally fast tracked visas and travel documents for everyone involved in the Moti flight, assured the Solomons’ police commissioner that the lawyer’s removal was legal, directed a Solomons’ immigration officer to “do it quickly because the plane would be waiting”, and finally made sure that AFP officers would be waiting to arrest Moti in Australia the moment his plane landed.


In a statement to the World Socialist Web Site after the High Court judgement, Moti said: “The rule of law has finally prevailed over Australian executive lawlessness. The sole objective of the Australian government and its prosecuting authorities was to discredit, demonise and humiliate me. It was in Australia’s ‘national interest’ that I be removed from my official post—and continuing influence in the Pacific region—at any cost. ‘Operation Rouge’ was the codename devised for the Australian government’s mission to criminally accuse, capture, kidnap, remove, eliminate and silence a dissident Australian who dared to challenge Australian imperialism in the South Seas.”


The High Court ruling is an important vindication of Moti’s determined struggle against the Australian government’s vendetta. Enormous pressure has been brought to bear on him and his family. For the last four years he has been unable to work or claim any form of income support. He has lived without a passport or driver’s licence, and been forced to comply with unnecessary and onerous bail conditions, including regularly reporting to the local police station. He has nevertheless waged an expensive and protracted legal battle to expose the unlawful acts committed by the Australian government against him. In doing so, he has brought to light important documentation exposing the filthy operations of RAMSI and the Australian government in the Solomons that would otherwise never have been made public.

Moti is now reportedly considering his options in pressing for compensation from the Australian and Solomon Islands’ governments. He is also, according to barrister Roger de Robillard, considering calling for an official inquiry similar to those into the illegal deportation of Australian national Vivian Alvarez Solon to the Philippines in 2003 and the unlawful detention of Cornelia Rau in a refugee detention centre in 2004-05.

Archive video interview of Julian Moti by Sarah Ferguson from Channel 9.


Related posts

Club Em Designs