Crouching Newspaper, Soaring Blog- The Future Of Journalism?

David Robbie's latest blog posting, is updated with developments at the UNESCO funded Pacific Media Freedom Forum, held recently at Apia Samoa.

What was interesting in that particular forum, is that most of discussions were centered on Fiji, as David Robie suggests:

The Fiji challenge kept bubbling to the surface, leading to a spirited debate on the future of PINA at one session and feisty calls for the regional news service Pacnews to get out of Suva at others. Fiji dominated all the speeches on the opening day with several of the region's media freedom heavyweights giving the regime a hard time - but they also warned that the young generation coming through into the industry should not be seduced by government freebies.

Ironically, while those journalists were enjoying their well-endorsed junket in Apia, oblivious to the fact that media freedom is not the central story.

It seems that, the diplomatic negotiations to the Pacific Free Trade Plan (PACER Plus) and the detrimental effects of this Trans-Tasman lobbied treaty; has somewhat not registered highly on their list of priorities; despite the notion that those negotiations affect all Pacific Island states.

Is the lack of coverage on those trades negotiations, a clear demonstration that most news published in the Pacific, is viewed through the prism of their Australian or New Zealand Publisher or Editor?

The funny thing about these Pacific media Forums is that these journalists, really don't focus much on Pacific trade negotiations with EU, US or Australia or New Zealand or even in-depth coverage of their own industry and the future trends of their profession based on the current global events like the changing landscape of the news paper business.
It's just that Freedom of the Media, is a story that elevates sales and elevated sales mean elevated circulations. SiFM fills in this lack of analytical and balanced coverage.

Last week, the Boston Globe almost filed for bankruptcy, according to New York Times article. Even the US Senate Committee on Commerce, Science, and Transportation announced the following Subcommittee on Communications, Technology, and the Internet hearing: The Future of Journalism on Weds. May 6th 2009. Video of webcast.

St Louis Today article quoted from Senator John Kerry (D-MA.)from the hearing: "The Newspaper industry appears to be an endangered species"

Another marked absence from media discussions among Pacific journalists was the story about News Corp CEO, Rupert Murdoch claiming that the era of free content on the internet is over. According to Chicago Tribune article, News Corp took a "financial beating" in the first quarter, ending in March 2009.

Guardian journalist Mark Tomasky pointed out the perceived madness of Rupert, in his blog:

Is Rupert Murdoch losing it?

Murdoch's plan to charge for access to his newspapers on the internet is a sign he's lost his touch
Comments (110)

I guess there was more important news this morning – Pakistan, the American banks – but it was Rupert Murdoch who caught my attention. I was stunned to read Andy Clark's dispatch in the Guardian this morning about Murdoch planning on charging for access to his properties on the internet.

Look, Rupe usually knows what he's doing. But this really flies in the face of common sense. He argues that the Wall Street Journal's experience proves that one can successfully charge readers for internet access to one's newspapers.

But does it? The Journal and the Financial Times, are kind of sui generis. They're financial newspapers, read by a global financial elite. You can charge global financial elites to read a tailored product of financial news.

But can you do the same with regular readers, to get them to read general-interest news? The universal experience has been that you can't.

The New York Times tried it and got hammered. It charged for so-called "Times Select" content – most prominently the paper's famous opinion columnists like Paul Krugman and David Brooks – for a little while, hoping to crowbar $50 a year out of saps like me.

It worked in my case, but there was a general hue and cry against it (not least from the columnists themselves). The paper quit charging for this premium content, and the whole experiment was chalked up a disaster.

And now Rupert thinks general readers who refused to pay for the quality New York Times are going pay for the proletarian New York Post? And the Sun and the News of the World? And for that matter the Times (your Times). If people didn't pay for our Times (the New York one – let's face it, an immeasurably better newspaper these days, such that there's utterly no comparison anymore between the two), why will they pay for yours? I just don't see it.

Maybe he's got something up his sleeve. I'm thinking about the New York Post here, a property I know quite well. I bet Murdoch would say, of the Times' experiment, that their mistake was to put the highfalutin stuff behind the pay wall. People aren't really that interested in politics.

So his bet, instead, might be on gossip and sports.

The Post has the most famous newspaper gossip page in America, Page Six. It started as, well, a page in the newspaper, and actually used to be on page six. Now it's an industry. It runs to three or four pages in the paper most days, has been moved back to page 12 or so while retaining its brand name. There's also a weekend supplement magazine under the brand, and I think there's some kind of TV deal.

It's huge. Movers and shakers in New York and Hollywood (but Washington not so much) read it religiously.

But will they still read it if they have to pay for it? With Gawker and Perez Hilton and TMZ out there? I think some will. I'm not sure tens of thousands will.

Same with sports. The Post's sports pages are terrific. But they don't strike me as being quite so terrific that people will forego several roughly-as-good free alternatives.

As for Britain, well, the only thing I can think is that he's going to put the big knockers behind the pay wall. But of course a lot of that's free on the web these days too (at least the first look).

Maybe he knows something the rest of the world doesn't. He often has. Or maybe he's just losing his touch. I was surprised also to read in Clark's piece about the jaw-dropping decline in News Corp profits. The newspaper division collapsed, and the television profits went up in smoke.

Hey, if Murdoch's right, he might introduce the rest of the world to the model that can save the newspaper once and for all. That'd be something to celebrate. Or it could be that we're getting to the end of the Murdoch era. In that case, I wouldn't cry.

On the Media(OTM), added the combined the paid online content angle, with a story that featured Associated Press's concerns about the free news stories on the internet. The OTM story feature titled "Google Me Once".

The excerpt of the story transcript:

Google Me Once
April 10, 2009

This week, the Associated Press fired a shot across the bow of news aggregation sites like Google and the Huffington Post. Without calling any site out by name, the AP said they would take legal action against websites that use their content without paying. Business Week's media columnist Jon Fine says news companies seem ready to ask consumers to pay for content again.

BOB GARFIELD: This is On the Media. I'm Bob Garfield. And now the latest on present and future business models for monetizing the newspaper industry.

GROUP SINGING: Present and future business models for monetizing the newspaper industry.

BOB GARFIELD: The past couple of weeks have been very bad for those who believe that all content wants to be free. With a glut of online advertising inventory depressing not only online ad rates but ad rates across all media, the titans who had long traded content for eyeballs were rethinking their calculus.

News Corp CEO Rupert Murdoch said, quote, “People are used to reading everything on the Net for free, and that’s going to have to change.” Jeff Bewkes, CEO of Time Warner, unveiled a plan that would let people see cable programming free online, but only if they're cable subscribers in the first place. And the Associated Press, apparently disgusted with news sites like Google for selling ads adjacent to Google News aggregated from the AP and others, said, no more free lunch. If you want AP content, you need permission and you need to pay for it.

Jon Fine, media columnist for Business Week, says this had something to do with the freefall of media revenue and something to do with negotiating tactics.

JON FINE: Google and the AP have a licensing agreement. Coincidentally enough, that licensing deal is up at the end of this year. And the thing that’s starting to rankle the Associated Press, and, indeed, newspapers and content providers, broadly, is that a lot of users are perfectly happy just to go to Google News, look at the headline and the first two sentences and decide they've basically had enough; they've gotten what they need out of it.

That is not – bad word alert - monetized for the people who are making these stories.

BOB GARFIELD: You know, back in January, on this very show, the owner of Philadelphia Media Holdings, The Philadelphia Inquirer and The Daily News, complained that he wasn't able to monetize his Web operation and said that papers have to start charging for content. Three weeks later his company was in Chapter 11 bankruptcy. And other voices have since come out to say, we have to charge, we have to charge, we have to charge. But - but just how? Is anyone doing that?

JON FINE: Some people are doing that. The Wall Street Journal is doing it. There are a couple of smaller examples elsewhere. There’s a website, I believe, called Packers Insider. If you’re an absolute, diehard, screaming, insane fan of the Green Bay Packers you pay five bucks a month and get every data point you could possibly want on them.

There’s a newspaper in Little Rock called The Arkansas Democrat-Gazette. Their site is primarily paid. The problem with that is that it’s kind of hard to extrapolate that to The San Francisco Chronicle, The Boston Globe, you know, the local newspaper in Dubuque.

I think that what we're going to see a lot of is all newspapers are going to try like sort of subsites that there’s a pay wall around. It’s not like all of a sudden you won't be able to access anything on The Denver Post. It’s rather that The Denver Post or, you know, The Salt Lake City Tribune are going to try to find little areas where they can, you know, get some money out of users.

The problem is, is that it’s kind of hard to see a way where that makes a heck of a lot of money. The newspaper in Little Rock is often pointed to as kind of a success here, but I think they maybe have, gosh, you know, 5,000, 10,000 paid users. That comes to a couple of hundred thousand dollars a year, and if you are a big city newspaper that’s just not going to get you anywhere, especially when they're facing ad losses and, indeed, just losses, period.

BOB GARFIELD: The New York Times did try at one point to wall off some of its premium content with a program it called TimesSelect, changing people extra to see certain columns and so forth, finally abandoned TimesSelect because it was depressing online traffic and they needed online traffic to generate more advertising revenue.

JON FINE: I think the problem with TimesSelect was that it was kind of a half measure. Their political columnists and their foreign policy columnists aren't necessarily content areas where advertisers were dying to get next to them. Advertisers don't love hard political content, which is a problem that someone like Arianna Huffington’s Huffington Post is going to run into. But they thought by doing it in a small way it could work out for them.

I'm not sure it was as enormous a failure as it was. I mean, they did get a substantial number of subscribers. They just decided they could get more the other way.

BOB GARFIELD: In the meantime, people like us have been trained that everything is for free. Can we be untrained to pay subscriptions for online content or, you know, some sort of micro-payments to buy content a la carte?

JON FINE: The problem is free is very hard to beat. If you go to an awful lot of newspaper classified websites, you can click through, they're easily searchable, they look pretty decent, whereas Craigslist, as we all know, is just this kind of like online bazaar that’s like, you know, the wall at your college where you used to tack up various garish flyers – but it’s free.

BOB GARFIELD: It’s a great price point.

JON FINE: And I think, you know, the danger is if, say, someone like The Minneapolis Star Tribune, another newspaper that’s in bankruptcy, decides to put all of their site behind a pay wall, well, there happens to be a local online news start-up called, MinPost.com - they'd be ecstatic with that. And, you know, they have reporters and they're doing similar kinds of stories, and you’re going to have that kind of free/paid dichotomy.

It’s really tricky. If it was easy to figure out, someone would have figured it out by now. I mean, did these guys make a mistake in making it free at the very beginning? You know, maybe. Maybe. Can that genie be gotten back in the bottle? Maybe, but I wouldn't want to have to bet on it. The problem is there’s not much else for these guys to bet on right now.

BOB GARFIELD: Jon, thank you so much.

JON FINE: Thanks, Bob.

BOB GARFIELD: Jon Fine is contributor to CNBC and the media columnist for Business Week.

Save Page As PDF

Social Bookmarking

Club Em Designs

Fiji to explore trade potentials with Egypt

In the bid to strengthen its international trade links, Fiji is expected to explore trade potentials with Egypt.This has been confirmed by Egypt’s Ambassador to Fiji, His Excellency Mr Omar Metwally Mohammed who was in the country last month to present his credentials to His Excellency the President Ratu Josefa Iloilovatu Uluivuda.

read more | digg story

Clenched Fist, Open Hand- The Curious Case Of A Faltering Forum In The Pacific.

In a follow up to an earlier SiFm posting (Jan 31st 2009), titled "Trans-Tasman Foie Gras Of Pacific Forum", which foreshadowed the suspension of Fiji from the Forum and the unintended consequences derived from the ultimatum.

The Pacific region free trade proposal and Fiji's participation in it, has been largely decided by the automatic suspension from the Pacific Forum. A spokesperson for the New Zealand Trade Minister has been quoted in New Zealand Herald article, stating that Fiji will not take part.

The excerpt of New Zealand Herald article:

Fiji will not take part in Pacific free trade talks

11:31AM Monday May 04, 2009


Fiji will not take part in talks to set up a Pacific free trade area while it is suspended from the Pacific Islands Forum, a spokeswoman for Trade Minister Tim Groser confirmed today.

Fiji has not been invited to informal talks in Auckland this weekend called to discuss ways to progress a Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (Pacer).

Trade ministers from the forum's 15 other member states were invited to the Auckland meeting, although not all of them will be able to attend. Pacer has been on the agenda for more than a decade, with the aim of helping island nations develop their economies.

New Zealand and Australia are keen to set it up but they are looking for an arrangement which benefits the small economies rather than their own. "The general thinking is that the final product needs to be tilted in favour of the Pacific, one source said.

Foreign Minister Murray McCully spoke on Friday about the trade imbalance between New Zealand and the islands. "Our billion-dollar export trade into the Pacific has been reciprocated by imports from Pacific nations so miserly that they should be a source of national embarrassment," he said.

New Zealand research and education network Arena yesterday suggested the Pacer talks be put on ice."If Fiji is excluded, what purpose do the negotiations have when one of the two largest economies in the Pacific, alongside Papua New Guinea, is not at the table," said Arena spokeswoman Jane Kelsey. The region's major powers wanted to announce the start of a formal process of consultations leading to negotiations at the forum summit meeting in Cairns in August, she said.

- NZPA

What the NZ Herald article did not mention in an obscene display of omission, that many Pacific Island States were treating the free-trade proposal as if, it were infected with Swine flu virus.

Also, the decision to join the free-trade treaty is a bi-lateral treaty between willing nations and it is not a decision that Australia or New Zealand can arbitrarily force on smaller and weaker nations. The fact is, this free-trade treaty is a concept that Trans-Tasman nations want more than the Pacific island states. Not the other way around. It has become evident that since the posting highlighting the Trans-Tasman belligerence in the region, other voices have joined the chorus highlighting this sad and serious dichotomy.

A local coordinator for the regional watch dog and advocate for Fair Trade and Globalisation in the Pacific (PANG) contributed to an article published in Feb 12th issue of Fiji Times, which illustrated how Australia and New Zealand pushed the free trade agenda through the South Pacific Forum.

The excerpt of F.T article:

Australia, NZ push trade agendas

By MAUREEN PENJUELI
Thursday, February 12, 2009

Pacific Island Countries have had a dismal experience negotiating a free trade agreement with the EU in recent years.

Next week Pacific Island Country trade officials will meet with their counterparts from Australia and NZ to discuss the structure and coverage of free trade negotiations that may get underway later this year. Under the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations, Pacific countries must begin discussions about a possible free trade agreement (called PACER-Plus) with Australia and NZ if free trade agreements are pursued with any other party.

Both Papua New Guinea and Fiji initialled a free trade agreement (covering goods trade) with the European Union in late 2007, and Australia and NZ feel that now is the time to negotiate PACER-Plus with all of the Forum Island Countries. Australian and NZ government officials have been quick to assert that PACER-Plus would be designed to benefit the Pacific - while down-playing potential negative impacts for the Islands and benefits to their own countries. However, these assurances are starting to have a hollow ring to them, as both countries pursue aggressive strategies (mainly behind closed doors) to stack the deck in their favour even before negotiations start.

Pawns in a power game

Pacific Island Countries have had a dismal experience negotiating a free trade agreement (an 'Economic Partnership Agreement' - EPA) with the EU in recent years. In those negotiations, the Pacific, along with African and Caribbean countries simultaneously negotiating similar deals, failed to secure meaningful concessions from the EU, and few countries are interested in signing a new deal. Recognising this, Forum Island Country trade ministers decided that a new Office of the Chief Trade Advisor should be established separately from the Forum Secretariat to help the Islands in negotiations with Australia and NZ.

In March 2008, Pacific trade ministers decided the Chief Trade Advisor should be "the only point of contact between ANZ and the FIC's for PACER-Plus" and that "the CTA takes responsibility for the PACER-Plus negotiations with ANZ on the basis of mandates and negotiating instructions from the FIC Trade Ministers".

However, Australian and NZ officials are resisting attempts to have in place, well before negotiations begin, a new Chief Trade Advisor to help organise the region's negotiating positions - critical, given the diversity of Pacific countries, and national-level capacity issues.

Instead of supporting the Pacific's Chief Trade Advisor proposal, Australia announced (in April 2008) a "trade fellowship program" whereby Pacific trade officials are trained by Australians to negotiate with them. Australian officials also announced money would be provided at the national level for Forum Island Countries to undertake studies on PACER - a far cry from a regional office that can guide research and establish strong negotiating positions.

At the Forum Trade Ministers' meeting in the Cook Islands in July, 2008, Pacific trade officials reported bullying tactics, a divide and rule strategy and explicit threats to remove key Forum Secretariat staff. This behaviour was exhibited by both Australian and NZ officials, who pushed for Pacific Trade ministers to agree to begin negotiations on a wide-ranging free trade agreement during 2009. Officials from several countries put up a fierce resistance to attempts to fast-track PACER-Plus - attempts made by ANZ officials and their key Pacific allies, namely Tonga and Nauru, at that meeting.

Australian officials were so disappointed with FIC Trade ministers' refusal to fast-track the negotiations that they told Pacific media Australia would not commit funds to set up the CTA office because "it did not regard the outcome of the July 2008 Forum Trade Ministers' meeting as constituting an adequate commitment to negotiations that will lead them to fund the CTA".

Having failed to get their way with the Trade ministers, Australian and NZ officials took their battle to the annual Forum Leaders' meeting in Niue to secure favourable language. During that meeting, Pacific leaders met separately from Australia and New Zealand, and issued a press release which stressed the need for "careful preparations by Forum Island Countries (FICs), both individually and collectively, before consultations began with Australia and New Zealand" and for the early appointment of a Chief Trade Advisor to assist the FICs in realising their shared objectives.

However, such caution about entering PACER-Plus negotiations with Australia and NZ was not reflected in the outcomes document of the Niue meeting - where Australia and NZ leaders were present. This reflects the position of Australia and NZ as major donors in the region, and the importance that Pacific leaders place on maintaining good relations with Australia and NZ. It is not the 'Pacific way' to confront such partners directly.

The Niue meeting indicated that Forum leaders would direct trade officials to "formulate a detailed road map on PACER Plus, with the view to leaders agreeing at the 2009 Forum to the commencement of negotiations". This is an outcome Australian officials are happy with, especially as Canberra will host the 2009 Forum Leaders' meeting.

Rigging the game?

PACER-Plus negotiations could lead to a free trade agreement that will have radical implications for Pacific Island economies and societies. Any agreement will have a much smaller impact on Australia and NZ. A bad agreement could lead to a closing off of policy options that are used to stimulate development in the Islands, increased pressure for privatisation and an undermining of access to basic services.

Certainly, PACER-Plus will lead to business closures and thousands of job losses in Pacific countries - problems that will be exacerbated because many Pacific states will lose much needed government revenue if they cut tariffs.

One study commissioned by the Forum Secretariat found that for around half the Pacific Island Countries, liberalisation will lead to government revenue losses of 10 to 30 per cent per year. It is vitally important for Pacific governments to "get this right".

Despite this, the approach taken by Australia and NZ to PACER-Plus discussions in 2008 indicates a willingness to fast-track the process (to ensure negotiations begin at the 2009 Forum Leaders' Meeting), to derail any effective regional negotiating machinery (by refusing to support the Pacific's Chief Trade Advisor proposal and funding national-level training and research instead) and to manipulate Forum Secretariat meetings to secure their priorities.

Next week, PIC trade officials will meet with their counterparts from Australia and NZ (in Adelaide, Australia) to discuss the "road map" for PACER-Plus. Discussions will cover the structure, timing and coverage of potential negotiations. Australia and NZ are keen to begin (and conclude) negotiations as soon as possible, and both countries want to negotiate as wide a range of areas as possible.

The meeting is also likely to discuss the Pacific's latest CTA proposal (which was revised on request from Australian officials). Despite the fact that this meeting will help set the structure of the Pacific's most important trade negotiations in decades, there is unlikely to be any public oversight of the meeting.

Just as concerning is the fact that many PIC trade officials are already in Adelaide this week for the second module of a 'capacity building' program at the Institute for International Trade. This capacity building program targets "upcoming negotiators" from all 14 Pacific Forum Island Countries.

During the first module of training last year, Pacific trade officials engaged in "relevant debates" with "Australian negotiators who will be part of future PACER-Plus negotiations" as well as discussing some of the Pacific's "key negotiating priorities".

It is very concerning that Pacific officials (who may be tasked with developing Pacific negotiating positions) are sitting through carefully designed training aimed at concluding PACER-Plus and are discussing key issues for the negotiations in forums where Australian officials are present. There are many alternatives for independent capacity-building for Pacific trade officials that should be explored.

In another move that could weaken the Pacific's regional negotiating power, it appears the axe has fallen on one of the region's most respected trade advisors, Dr Roman Grynberg, whose contract with the Forum Secretariat is not being extended. Dr Grynberg is not a popular figure with trade officials from developed countries, who often see him as a key stumbling block for advancing their trade priorities.

In 2003, The Guardian newspaper highlighted a letter between the NZ Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade and the British Government colluding to get rid of "unsympathetic" trade officials within the Commonwealth Secretariat.

One such unsympathetic trade official was Dr Grynberg - whose work advocating on behalf of developing countries was seen as derailing free trade discussions. Reasons for his contract not being extended with the Forum Secretariat were based on a performance review that found him to 'lack leadership' and not being 'client focused'.

The question that begs to be asked is, which client(s) is unhappy with Dr Grynberg's work? Whatever the reasons for his removal, his absence means that the PIC's have lost an important critical voice prior to going into negotiations for a free trade agreement with the Islands' most important trading partners.

Pacific Way

The late Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara coined the term the 'Pacific Way' to reflect a Pacific way of diplomacy based on conversation, respect and mutual consensus. In recent years Australia and NZ have moved from strength to strength in their quest to replace the Pacific way with their way. It appears their goal is to impose their ideology, their free trade agenda, their institutions and operatives, their economic interests, their political authority and their strategic influence on the islands of the Pacific.

If the approach taken by Australia and NZ to PACER-Plus in 2008 is an indication of things to come, then pressure is now on Pacific leaders to take back the initiative and demand an approach to trade that reflects Pacific concerns (alternatives to PACER-Plus could for example include improvements on the existing SPARTECA scheme).

PIC Trade ministers and their officials, and the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat Secretary General Neroni Slade are more than ever faced with the task of stemming the tide of ANZ influence. If they are not able to, we could see the beginning of the demise of the Pacific Way and the reign of the ANZ Way.

* Maureen Penjueli is Coordinator of the Pacific Network on Globalisation.

The FT article alluded to the murky and unceremonious manner of sidelining the former Director of Economic Governance at the Pacific Forum Secretariat namely, Dr. Roman Grynberg, who interestingly enough penned an outstanding article titled "Who Owns The Forum" published in the Fiji Times on March 9th 2009.

Grynberg also wrote an article titled "Negotiating With Friends: A Free Trade Deal With Australia and New Zealand", warned the Pacific Islands leaders in no uncertain terms, to be wary of this Free Trade Agreement being brokered by the Trans-Tasman duo. Grynberg's sentiments were echoed by another academic, Dr. Jane Kelsey in an article titled "Big Brothers Behaving Badly".

Another SiFm post, outlined the skirmish of opinions between Western Samoa's Prime Minister and American Samoa's Congressman; both issuing public comments on Fiji. Since the post, the Congressman has reiterated his view that Australia and New Zealand heavy handedness and insulting views on Fiji.

The Samoan PM later backpedalled from his earlier stance and ridicule, realizing his own tenure is at stake, after the SiFM post highlighted an online survey of Samoan readers that disagreed on the P.M's remarks on Fiji.

Subsequently, the American Samoan Congressman was quoted in another RNZ article, stating that the Forum's suspension of Fiji was no solution.

The excerpt of RNZ article:

American Samoan Congressman says Fiji suspension is no
solution
Posted at 04:28 on 01 May, 2009 UTC

American Samoa’s member of the United States Congress, Faleomavaega Eni Hunkin, says suspending Fiji from the Pacific Islands Forum will not solve anything.

Faleomavaega says it will simply add to the country’s political and
economic woes. He says New Zealand and Australia have been too punitive and should have been taking a more constructive approach such as maintaining a dialogue with Commodore Frank Bainimarama’s regime.

“I’m no more supporter of a military takeover but the fact that Fiji has
a history of three military coups and a civilian takeover with three
constitutions, that should tell anybody that they have very serious problems that you cannot just simply dismiss by saying ’let’s have an election’. That’s not going to solve the problem.”

Faleomavaega Eni Hunkin

News Content © Radio New Zealand InternationalPO Box 123, Wellington, New
Zealand

All in all, the litany of bullying outlined by PANG and the documented acts of self-dealing by Trans-Tasman policy advisers as, Dr Grynberg had alluded to, finally puts a different perspective into the Forum operations, one that is well different from the flawed narratives of Australia and New Zealand.

Fijian academic, Dr. Steven Ratuva is quoted in Radio NZ web article that, Fiji's expulsion is likely to hurt other smaller island nations.

The excerpt of RNZ article:

Expulsion from Forum likely to hurt small countries rather than Fiji

Posted at 06:10 on 04 May, 2009 UTC

An academic from the University of the South Pacific says Fiji’s suspension from the Pacific Islands Forum could hurt its small neighbours more than Fiji itself.

Dr Steven Ratuva says he has spoken with people from the interim government who believe the suspension will have minimal impact on
Fiji. But he says its growing isolation from the rest of the Pacific will
hurt small countries in the region that depend on it.

“What’s going to happen is that regional cooperation as we knew it for a
long time since 1972 is going to go through a significant and substantial shift. And the shift is going to affect mostly the small island states like Kiribati, Tuvalu and Tonga who rely significantly on Fiji for economic survival.”

Dr Ratuva says the suspension will see Fiji fall more under the influence of China, while Australia and New Zealand will lead the other powerblock in the region.

News Content © Radio New Zealand InternationalPO Box 123, Wellington, New
Zealand

Save Page As PDF

Social Bookmarking

Australia, NZ kick Fiji into the forum dead ball zone

SO THE countdown begins – the moment of truth arrives. By midnight on May Day, the Fiji military regime of Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama faces suspension from the 16-nation Pacific Islands Forum.

read more | digg story

Lay off Bainimarama, he's doing it for Fiji!

What else is he doing all this for? Certainly not the money or to make friends.Associate Professor Hugh LaracyIf anyone is used to criticism, it's Frank Bainimarama. Every day, Fiji's beleaguered military ruler is faced with a new barrage, with everyone from Hillary Clinton and Ban Ki-moon to the Queen and the European Union wading in with a call for him to change his ways.

read more | digg story

UN bans Fiji troops-yes, yes, no actually

Seems like a slap with a wet bus ticket. All rather reminiscent of one of the characters in the Vicar of Dibley really.If the Fijians were to bring their troops home from UN missions NZ and Australia are in no position to replace them. Which nations have the trained and effective troops to replace the Fijians.

read more | digg story

NZ TV1 Gutter Journalism

New Zealanders may not be the best informed people in the world but they pride themselves on their sense of decency and fair play. Over the past week or so we've had several informed and balanced programmes on both radio and TV on Fiji.

read more | digg story

The Samoan Disconnect- Ripples From Fiji.

In a follow up to an SiFM post on the US House Foreign Affairs Committee hearing, Cafe Pacific latest post addresses the same comments made by American Samoan Congressman, regarding Fiji's political situation.

Cafe Pacific also highlighted the reactions of Western Samoa's Prime Minister to the Congressman's remarks.

Perhaps [Faleomavaega] has forgotten that Fiji has been independent since 1970 and its Legislature, Judiciary and the Executive branches of Government have been functioning until the military started to meddle with the affairs of government – a responsibility it was least capable of performing…

The good congressman completely ignores the fact that the regime in Fiji is a military dictatorship. And that Bainimarama’s regime has been engaging in a ruthless crackdown on dissenting public opinion and complete suppression of the media. Is not freedom of speech, freedom of the media and engaging in free and fair elections hallmarks of American democracy?

Recently, the Samoan Prime Minister Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi's juvenile remarks on Fiji, has been quoted by several media outlets.

Matangi Tonga (MT)article cites from Samoan newspaper Savali. The excerpt of M.T article:

Samoa's PM takes jab at Fiji's Bainimarama 23 Apr 2009, 08:30 Apia, Samoa: Prime Minister Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi has a peculiar take on the recent turn of political events in Fiji. This is how Tuilaepa, who delights in pricking bubbles, describes last week's events, "It's like a puppet show and Frank (Bainimarama) is the puppet master - a ventriloquist. And among his slew of dummies and dancing string clowns is his favourite hand puppet named Iloilo. " Part of last Thursday's act, Frank asks his favourite hand puppet 'And who do you think should be Prime Minister Iloilo?'. Iloilo shouts back, 'Why of course it's you Frank." Prime Minister Tuilaepa giggles. "But one day soon the puppets will grow a brain and see Frank for the evil puppeteer he really is. It is then the curtains will fall on Frank." He adds. "The whole thing is a political charade and the whole world is watching. Nobody is fooled and no one is laughing. Frank is only fooling himself." "It's a political stick-up and Frank has all the guns." Asked what advice he'd give Commodore Bainimarama if he had a chance to sit down with him, Tuilaepa smiles. "I'd tell him to go back to his barracks. Go back to what he knows best - which is throwing salutes, beating drums and organizing marching parades. He has no business in government. He knows nothing about civilian government. Go put back on his military uniform or . . . maybe, he'd look better in a prison uniform." Tuilaepa chuckles. The three arms of State, the Prime Minister says, are no longer in existence in Fiji. "There's no Parliament, there's no Executive and thanks to Iloilo there's no more Judiciary, no law and order. He's also abrogated the Constitution. "Now my question is, who the heck is he to abrogate the Constitution? The Constitution is the supreme law of the land and the only place it can be amended, repealed or abrogated is Parliament where you have the elected representatives of the people. "The Commodore should get over his greed for power and really sit and think. Is this the road he wants to take his country? Because his actions do not augur well for the future generations of Fiji ." Prime Minister Tuilaepa believes the only way to return Fiji to democracy and "some state of political sanity" is through the actions of the people of Fiji . " The reality is, Bainimarama will try to hold on to power with whatever means necessary. Just when you thought he can't go any lower, the bottom drops. "The people of Fiji � the men women and children, young and old - will have to stand up and demand a return of their government. Pound the streets in protest marches if they have to. The Church leaders and traditional leaders of Fiji should also come out of their shells and lead the people. "It has worked in Thailand, it has worked in the Philippines , Vietnam and Indonesia . And if the Fijian people want it bad enough, peaceful and passive resistance will work in Fiji . That is how Samoa gained political independence and that's how the people of Fiji will finally be free of Bainimarama's stranglehold on power. "It's the only way you can rid yourself of such cheap idiotic dictators." Samoa government's newspaper Savali, 21/04/09. Samoan P.M's comments on Fiji were also published by Samoan news article. What was interesting was the reader's reactions to their Prime Minister's outrageous diplomatic accumen. MIA wrote: 22 Apr 2009 11:31 AM Such a hypocrite...He will see the consequences of this ridiculous road switch that will take affect this year. I think the people of samoa need to come out of their shells and run him out of office. Samoan in Samoa wrote: 22 Apr 2009 10:12 AM you people don't know anything about Samoa..for every one person who opposes the switch there are probably 50 others who support it..you forget that there are are 140,000 (western) samoans in New Zealand and another 50,000 in Australia..don't be fooled by the media or the vocal few who oppose the switch..many of those who have been gifted or bought RHDs from those two countries are first time car owners, in what has for years been an industry, dominated by afakasi and Apia-based car merchants who've been ripping off local folks with overpriced crap American cars..Stui has always been a manm for the little people, and in this case again, is right on the money..he is certainly the best leader samoa ever had and is definitely heads and shoulders over his counterparts in the region..so please don't talk about things you don't know nor understand.. stau wrote: 22 Apr 2009 10:09 AM 'aua le fai fua i tagata o fiti, ae vaai ifo oe ma si au fo'i amio lena e fai i tagata o Samoa.....vaai le upu masani....'aua e te 'eu fua le utupoto o le mata o leisi tagata...'eu muamua le utupoto i lou lava mata....aua o le mea foi lena e tatau ona fai e tagata samoa ia te oe ali'i PM Anonymous wrote: 21 Apr 2009 03:18 PM It's very encouraging to know that the PM understands the democratic process in Fiji. How about Samoa Mr. PM? It seems like our people in Samoa don't have any say so.....JUST LIKE FIJI. Mike wrote: 21 Apr 2009 03:17 PM A week or so ago I heard a report on the radio that Fiji's very own Frankie-boy was upset that Samoa's PM, whose last name of Malielegaoi can be interpreted as 'watch out (for) the thief', was upset because 'watch out (for) the thief' had said that Frankie-boy should learn from Samoa's example. Now many people would take that to mean that Samoa has a democracy that Fiji would do well to follow, but what 'watch out (for) the thief' really meant was that he had been able taken over an entire country and was now himself dictator and chief thief without needing any silly army or threatening anyone with guns, and that Frankie-boy, if he was really so smart, would learn how to do the same! Tama Samoa Moni wrote: 21 Apr 2009 01:45 PM While I appreciate PM's concern for the future of the people and government of Fiji, he has to look at his front and back yard to see that he is a hypocrite. There are so many cases including one that is shared by Anonymous concerning the right hand steering issue. It was debated fairly and there were mass opposition to this ridiculous wish from the PM, yet, he continued to stand his ground, disregard the will of the people, and now everyone has to make a 360 degree turn just to satisfy the satiating and ridiculous wish of one PM, who by the way controls the Parliament, so in essence what he says is really what the party in power will do. Look within thyself first PM Tuilaepa before you poke much about the situation in Fiji. Having said that, I believe that the situation in Fiji is pathetic and Banirama should be removed before that island nation drops flat to the ground with a Idi Amin approach of governance. I'm sure the people of Fiji are just in fear because he has all the arsenal to squash any uprising, even if it's peaceful. Anonymous wrote: 21 Apr 2009 08:29 AM A year ago, I saw this statement from above Polynesian airline, when the people of Samoa protested the right hand steering wheel for all vehicles in Samoa and changing the driving lanes. It was a scene that the people spoke of concern but the law makers did not listen even when the people march all the way to mulinu’u and protested outside the maota fono. Mr. Prime Minister, the people of Samoa spoke but you failed, you are not qualified to tell the people of Fiji how to deal with the issue when your own people “Samoa” cried out to you.

Another Samoan newspaper "The Samoan Observer" conducted an online survey, questioning their readers if they agreed with Tuilaepa comments about Frank Bainimarama. The results were 61% against the comments made by the Samoan Prime Minister.

Samoa's Prime Minister Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi should be well advised to concentrate on his own political problems; and considering the remarks from Samoan readers, it appears that Malielegaoi's own popularity is increasingly dwindling partly due to his decade long tenure at the helm.

Save Page As PDF

Zemanta Pixie">

Social Bookmarking

Club Em Designs

Political baggage, Silent commentators [On Fiji]

ONE OF the curious things about this second phase of Fiji’s fourth coup, or "Coup four and a half", as one news blog dubs it, is the limited analysis in the New Zealand press[...]but apart from one or two analysis pieces from predictable commentators far from the scene there has virtually been nothing in the newspapers.

read more | digg story

Dual Track- The New Chapter Of US Foreign Policy & The Fiji Dilemma.

US Secretary Of State, Hillary Clinton has been reported again to have commented on Fiji's situation, according to Australia Network News (ANN)article.

The excerpt of ANN article:

Democracy Please, Clinton Tells Fiji

Kim Landers, Washington correspondent

Last Updated: Thu, 23 Apr 2009 09:31:00 +1000

The American of State, Hillary Clinton, is again urging Fiji's rulers to restore democracy as soon as possible. Appearing at a congressional hearing in Washington, Mrs Clinton says the American ambassador and Australia and New Zealand are painting a picture of "turmoil and chaos and undemocratic behaviour in Fiji".

She told a hearing of the House Foreign Affairs Committee: "What we want is to restore democracy. "We want a functioning democracy in Fiji that can deliver for its people." A member of Congress from American Samoa criticised Australia and New Zealand for operating with a "heavy hand" towards Fiji.

Australia criticised

Congressman Eni Faleomavaega, who has just returned from talks in Suva, told Mrs Clinton the situation in Fiji was complex, and for too long Canberra and Wellington have been allowed to take the lead. He said: "It makes no sense, Madame Secretary, for the leaders of Australia and New Zealand to demand early elections for the sake of having elections in Fiji, when there are fundamental deficiencies in Fiji's electoral process."

Mrs Clinton then replied by saying the US administration wanted to a swift return to a functioning democracy in the Pacific nation.

According to the US House Committee website, the hearing, chaired by Howard L. Berman (D-CA 28th District) was not particularly focused on Fiji, as the ANN article frames; but was rather an invitation by the Foreign Affairs Committee to the nascent Secretary of State, to outline the new chapter of foreign policy unfolding in the Obama administration. The hearing itself was titled "New Beginnings: Foreign Policy Priorities in the Obama Administration". The video of the hearing.

History of Foreign Affairs Committee.

The House of Representatives Committee on Foreign Affairs (known as the Committee on International Relations from 1995 until 2007) traces its origins to November 29, 1775, when the Continental Congress created a committee, by resolution "for the sole purposes of corresponding with our friends of Great Britain, Ireland, and other parts of the world." Chosen for this Committee were Benjamin Franklin—who served as chairman and guiding spirit—Benjamin Harrison, Thomas Johnson, Jr., John Dickinson, and John Jay.


Save Page As PDF

Zemanta Pixie" src="http://img.zemanta.com/reblog_e.png?x-id=d867764b-3bfc-4b12-b90b-e266122c8bae">

Social Bookmarking

American Samoa Eyes Pacific Islands Forum Observer Status

Source: Xinhua | 04-22-2009 17:50WELLINGTON, April 22 (Xinhua) -- American Samoan member of the U.S. Congress Faleomavaega Eni Hunkin has asked the U.S. State Department to support the territory's application to become an observer with the Pacific Islands Forum, Radio New Zealand International reported on Wednesday.

read more | digg story

U.N Security Council On Fiji- The Dimensions Of Politics Within The Aging Institution.

The UN Security Council has compiled a joint statement on Fiji. Video of statement. The excerpt of UN web article :

Security Council, UN rights experts urge restoration of
constitutional law in Fiji


20 April 2009 – The Security Council and two human rights experts today joined Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and other United Nations figures in voicing deep concern over the abrogation of Fiji’s constitution, the sacking of its judiciary and the imposition of press restrictions.

The South Pacific archipelago’s unelected executive fired the judges, set a longer time frame for parliamentary election and declared a public emergency on 10 April, following a court ruling that declared the interim leadership unconstitutional.

“It is a step backwards and needs restoration of the democracy process that Fiji has been undertaking, in cooperation with regional and international partners as well as the United Nations,” Ambassador Claude Heller of Mexico, which holds the April presidency of the Security Council, told the press this afternoon.

Supporting Mr. Ban’s approach to the matter, members of the Council expressed hope that Fiji will resume “steadfast” progress towards democracy and that fair elections will be held at the soonest possible time.

The island chain has suffered prolonged internal tensions between its indigenous Fijian and Indo-Fijian communities, and had four coups since 1987. Commodore Josaia V. Bainimarama, who serves as Prime Minister, came to power in a coup in December 2006, sparking criticism from the UN at the time.

Also today, the Special Rapporteur on the independence of judges and lawyers, Leandro Despouy, and the Special Rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of opinion and expression, Frank La Rue, strongly condemned the suspension of rights in Fiji.

They urged Fiji’s authorities to restore the rule of law by immediately reinstating the judiciary and ending the restrictions placed on the rights to freedom of expression and assembly.

“The respect of the independence of the judiciary and freedom of expression are fundamental pillars of the rule of law and democracy,” said the joint statement of the two experts, who report to the Geneva-based UN Human Rights Council in an independent and unpaid capacity.

“Judges play a fundamental role in protecting human rights during states of emergency. It is crucial that the judiciary is immediately re-established,” said Mr. Despouy, maintaining that such states of emergency must be strictly limited.

He added that there have been deportations of foreign journalists and arbitrary arrests of others, with yet others summoned by the Ministry of information and warned to restrict the content of their reporting. “Special Procedures of the United Nations Human Rights Council as well as other neutral international observers should be allowed to visit the country in order to ensure the respect of the human rights
of the population.”

He has requested on several occasions that the Interim Government of Fiji allow him to undertake an official visit to the country, with no response as yet.

Soon as the UN Security Council issued their non-binding statement on Fiji, some segments in the Australian media, namely ABC were quick to pounce on the statement and wove in the story line, some unverified reports of shredding of legal documents and the article speculates at best that, the UN Security Council statement, was solely based on this shredding allegation, attributed to a posting on Intelligentsiya blog.


The excerpt of ABC web article:

UN calls for democratic process in Fiji

By ABC correspondent Kerri Ritchie and wires


The United Nations Security Council has renewed calls for Fiji to restore democracy.
The demand coincides with reports that the military regime has begun shredding legal documents that relate to court action against the interim government.

Fiji was plunged into a political crisis when its president reappointed military chief Frank Bainimarama as interim prime minister less than two days after a court ruled his government illegal. The Security Council says the repeal of the constitution and the delay of elections until 2014 is both undemocratic and a step backwards.

After the Security Council met, the current chairman, Mexico's Ambassador Claude Heller, said Fiji should let the people decide at the ballot box. "The members of the
Security Council are deeply concerned about the situation in Fiji, where
undemocratic decisions were made, including the abrogation of the constitution,"
he said. "The members of the Security Council hopes that fair elections will
be held at the soonest possible time."

- ABC/Reuters

Kerie Ritchie continues her misreporting on another ABC audio article, by a dynamic imbalance of interviews, from the usual talking heads. It is rather disingenuous for ABC to interview persons largely sourced from the same political segment, without any dissenting opinions.

This type of stove piping reporting by certain media outlets, resulted in the WMD excuse being propagated and parroted by oblivious journalists. It appears that the Australian media are guilty of the same offence.

MP3 podcast of Ritchie's interview. The excerpt of Ritchie's interview:

Fiji military shreds legal documents

AM - Tuesday, 21 April , 2009 08:24:00
Reporter:
Kerri Ritchie

TONY EASTLEY: There are reports out of Fiji this morning that the military regime has ordered that documents dating back as far as the 2006 military coup, be shredded.Fiji remains under emergency rule, with the interim government continuing its censorship of local journalists.The allegations that documents have been shredded have surfaced on Fiji blog sites.

New Zealand correspondent Kerri Ritchie reports.

KERRI RITCHIE: The heading on the Intelligentsiya blogsite reads 'Shredding
away justice from our courts'. Bloggers claim the military's lawyer, Major Ana
Rokomokoti, has been shredding documents. The lawyer was yesterday appointed
Fiji's chief registrar.The bloggers say the documents date back to 2006, when
the interim government took over after staging a military coup.Dorsami Naidu is
the President of Fiji's Law Society.

DORSAMI NAIDU: Like you, I hear it on the blog site.

KERRI RITCHIE: Mr Naidu has to be very careful what he says. He was arrested and kept overnight in a prison cell last week for speaking to the media.

DORSAMI NAIDU: That's what I've heard as well, that any action is pending against the interim Government, the military regime, files concerning those cases have been shredded. It's very childish and I cannot understand the reasons behind it.

KERRI RITCHIE: Australian QC Francis Douglas was one of the Court of Appeal
judges who ruled Fiji's interim government was illegal.He was sacked by Fiji's
President the next day, along with all the other members of the judiciary.This
is the first he's heard about documents being shredded.

FRANCIS DOUGLAS: It couldn't be effective in any event. I mean, the judgement at first instance is on the internet and, whilst I don't think the judgement of a Court of Appeal has yet received a number on the Osterley web (phoenetic), it is readily available in various places. I think one could obtain it from the Fiji Times, at least for a period of time, and it's also been posted on the New South Wales Bar Association's website.

KERRI RITCHIE: Eight magistrates and a chief magistrate were sworn in yesterday by Fiji's President Ratu Josefa Iloilo.No chief justice has been named and so far there haven't been any appointments to the high or supreme courts.Dorsami Naidu says yesterday was a very sad day for Fiji's justice system.

DORSAMI NAIDU: You know, they should think 10 times before they decide to
take up positions under this military regime.

KERRI RITCHIE: The United Nations Security Council says it's deeply concerned about the situation in Fiji.Claude Heller is the president of the UN Security Council.

CLAUDE HELLER: It is a step backwards. The members of the Security Council
express hopes that Fiji will make a steadfast advancement towards democracy and
that fair elections will be held at the soonest possible time.

KERRI RITCHIE: Dorsami Naidu has the same hopes.

DORSAMI NAIDU: People are scared to speak out.

KERRI RITCHIE: Are you taking a big risk by speaking out to me?

DORSAMI NAIDU: When they hear my voice over the radio, it is a risk.

TONY EASTLEY: The Fiji Law Society president, Dorsami Naidu, ending that report by our New Zealand correspondent Kerri Ritchie.

What was a relative stark omission from the Trans-Tasman media was the coverage of the UN Global Conference on Racism, currently being held in Geneva. Apparently, the conference got off to a shaky start amid the walk out of several diplomats due to comments of Iran's President on Israel. The US boycotted the conference because it could not agree to the language of the joint communique by the Conference of Racism, that was severely critical of Israel.

Perhaps the UN Security Council statement on Fiji, may not reflect the total consensus of the UN, judging from the Geneva walkout. This walkout in Geneva also a reminder of the political horse trading within the institution, by some member nations who will send smaller nations to the 'Head master's office' vis a vis Fiji; yet turn a blind eye to more egregious crimes against humanity.

The excerpt of the Irish Times article:

Irish diplomats join walkout at UN racism conference

MARY FITZGERALD, Foreign Affairs Correspondent

IRISH DIPLOMATS were among those to stage a walkout at a UN conference on racism in Geneva yesterday, in protest at a speech made by Iranian president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad during which he denounced Israel as “the most cruel and racist regime”.

Daithí Ó Ceallaigh, Ireland’s ambassador to the UN in Geneva, and three other Irish officials, left the conference chamber along with other EU delegates after Mr Ahmadinejad “crossed the line” in his tirade against Israel, according to diplomatic sources.

Several protesters, some wearing multi-coloured wigs and red clown noses, had been removed by security guards after they shouted “Shame! Shame!” and “Racist! Racist!” as the Iranian president prepared to give his address. Mr Ahmadinejad, in a rambling speech which was applauded by some delegates, railed against Israel, saying it had been established following the second World War “under the pretext of Jewish suffering”.

Speaking through a translator, the Iranian leader continued: “They sent migrants from Europe, the United States and other parts of the world in order to establish a totally racist government in the occupied Palestine . . . In compensation for the dire consequences of racism in Europe, they helped bring to power the most cruel and repressive racist regime in Palestine.” EU delegates had made “contingency plans” before Mr Ahmadinejad’s speech because of fears he might “overstep the mark”, one European diplomat said.

“As soon as he started to address the question of the Jewish people and Israel, we had no reason to stay in the room,” explained French ambassador Jean-Baptiste Mattei. French president Nicolas Sarkozy later described Mr Ahmadinejad’s speech as “an intolerable call to racist hatred”.

British ambassador Peter Gooderham condemned what he said were “offensive and inflammatory” comments. “Such outrageous anti-Semitic remarks should have no place in a UN anti-racism forum,” he added.

UN secretary general Ban Ki-moon accused Mr Ahmadinejad of using his speech on the first day of the conference “to accuse, divide and even incite”, contradicting the very purpose of the meeting. The Iranian president’s remarks make it “significantly more difficult to build constructive solutions to the very real problem of racism”, Mr Ban, who sat directly behind Mr Ahmadinejad during his speech, added.

Last night the Czech Republic, which currently holds the EU presidency, announced it was withdrawing from the conference in a national capacity. UN high commissioner for human rights Navi Pillay, however, said the best response to what she described as “objectionable” political grandstanding was to “reply and correct, not to withdraw and boycott” the conference.

“The overall atmosphere was quite sour. One now has to ask if today’s events have the potential to unravel the whole thing,” a diplomatic source said last night. “We will have a better idea tomorrow.”

Even before yesterday’s opening speeches, the conference, held to review progress on the implementation of commitments made at the 2001 World Conference against Racism in Durban, had been overshadowed by controversy.

Several countries, including the US, Germany, Canada and Australia, decided to
boycott the week-long event because of concerns that Muslim states would use it
as a platform for denunciations of Israel and calls for “defamation” of religion
to be defined as racism.

Some diplomats feared a repeat of the bitter wrangling that marred the Durban gathering, which saw delegates clash over the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and the issue of slavery reparations. The US and Israel walked out of the Durban conference following attempts – which later proved unsuccessful – by some participants to equate Zionism with racism.

Meanwhile, Israel yesterday recalled its ambassador to Switzerland in protest at a meeting Swiss president Hans-Rudolf Merz held with Mr Ahmadinejadon Sunday during which Mr Merz pressed the case of Iranian-American journalist Roxana Saberi, who has been jailed in Tehran.

Save Page As PDF

Links to NZ Over-the-Weekend Discussion on Fiji

New Zealand radio and TV gave much attention to Fiji over the weekend, and for a pleasant change some programmes presented a range of opinions.

read more | digg story

'Toxic and irresponsible' troops comment by New Zealand P.M.

UNBELIEVABLE! NZ Prime Minister John Key's statement about the military is astonishingly inflammatory, given his own remarks a few days ago about how volatile the situation was in Fiji. He said NZ would consider sending armed forces to Fiji if they were "needed to stabilise the peace".

read more | digg story

Trouble in Fiji?

They say that a week is a long time in politics, but sometimes the whole state of a nation can change in a remarkably short amount of time. Recent events in Fiji prove the point.

read more | digg story

Events in Fiji

Chris Trotter is well able to look after himself, but the recent criticism on him by No Right Turn [blog]over the Fiji situation is worth a few comments.

read more | digg story

Covering Fiji's Political Climate- Views Far & Wide.

Cafe Pacific blogger and Associate Professor David Robie of AUT's Pacific Media Centre tells Nzone Tonight's Allan Lee about the background to the current unrest and explains its huge significance to the region. (Video posted below)



David Robie also appears in TVNZ Media 7 segment on Media Censorship, that had a panel discussion with Barbara Weaver, Thakur Ranjit Singh.
Another view from across the Tasman, comes from ABC podcast.






Save Page As PDF

Social Bookmarking

Dealing With Fiji And Its Politics.

LIKE many military leaders before him, Frank Bainimarama can be autocratic[...]If that seems a ludicrous proposition when constitutions are being abrogated and the media proscribed, it's time to consider some basic truths that seem to have been overlooked in the "good guy, bad guy" narrative that invariably passes for analysis in much of the Australian media.

read more digg story

The excerpt of Australian article:

Dealing with the dictator

Graham Davis April 16, 2009
Article from: The Australian

LIKE many military leaders before him, Frank Bainimarama can be autocratic, stubborn, wilful, obstinate and disdainful of the traditional nuances of civilian politics. He may also be the best hope, albeit in five years' time, of a democratic Fiji for all its citizens and not just the amply endowed indigenous majority.

If that seems a ludicrous proposition when constitutions are being abrogated and the media proscribed, it's time to consider some basic truths that seem to have been overlooked in the "good guy, bad guy" narrative that invariably passes for analysis in much of the Australian media.

The bad guys, of course, are held to be Bainimarama and his patron, Fiji's octogenarian President, Josefa Iloilo, who have defied the courts by ruling out any popular vote until they can change the electoral system.

The good guys are those calling for an immediate election: a coalition of lawyers, human-rights activists and elements of the local media, plus the man Bainimarama deposed at gunpoint in 2006, former prime minister Laisenia Qarase.

It's time to dispense with this simplistic premise because a compelling argument can be made that, in fact, the reverse is true; that Bainimarama and Iloilo, for all their flaws, are embarked on the more worthy crusade. Or certainly more worthy than they're being given credit for by their burgeoning number of foreign opponents.

The Fiji saga, by its very nature, defies simplicity, yet stripped to its bare essentials presents the international community with a stark choice between upholding the principle of democracy now and sacrificing racial equality in the process. Wait five years - maybe less if some international agreement could be brokered - and we might get both.

Bainimarama and Iloilo have decided that the brand of democracy Qarase champions makes second-class citizens of the 40 per cent of Fiji's population who aren't indigenous, and is not conducive to the development of a thriving, modern state. Qarase and his ilk, they've determined, can only be kept at bay if the electoral system is changed from one that favours indigenous Fijians to one that gives every vote equal weight.

So that is what they intend to do before the country goes to the polls again in 2014, and no amount of hectoring or sanctions is likely to deter them.

In the meantime, the regime needs to embark on that electoral reform, behave less erratically, cease harassing the media, expelling publishers, hounding its opponents and put its case far more cogently than it has.

Australia, in turn, needs to listen, assist in the electoral reform process and do all it can to prevent the collapse of the Fiji economy, which will hurt everyone but the elite and bolster our immigration queues when we can least afford it.

Why is Australia and the rest of the international community insisting on an immediate expression of the public will when Fiji's electoral playing field is yet to be levelled? That's the question that not only frustrates and angers Bainimarama, and fuels his increasing petulance, but perplexes many Fiji-born Australians such as myself.

For all the voluble calls by Kevin Rudd and Foreign Minister Stephen Smith for "a return to democracy in Fiji", they seem oblivious to the fact that there's never been real democracy in Fiji. That's right, never.

Certainly not the brand of democracy taken for granted in Australia, New Zealand, the US and in the European Union, those now casting themselves as righteous crusaders against Bainimarama's supposedly despotic rule.

There's no one-man, one-vote in Fiji but a contorted, distorted electoral system along racial lines that was always designed, in practice, to ensure indigenous supremacy.

This was a parting gesture of the British at independence in 1970 to their loyal Fijian subjects, along with guaranteed indigenous ownership of more than 80 per cent of Fiji's land area. It's certainly in stark contrast with the colonial dispossession of the native populations of Australia and NZ, and may account for the fact that many homes in republican Fiji still sport photos of the Queen.

No non-indigenous Fiji citizen can become the country's president, and just one,

Mahendra Chaudhry, made it to the prime minister's office before he was removed at gunpoint in 2000.

Nor is the president elected. He is chosen by an unelected hereditary body called the Great Council of Chiefs, the apex of a social order that insists indigenous rights are paramount.

Fiji citizens of Indian, European, mixed race or other island heritage are disadvantaged comparatively in everything from land rights to "positive discrimination" programs in employment and education that solely benefit the indigenous majority. They even have to suffer the apartheid-style humiliation of listing their race on immigration arrival documents.

Would Australians and New Zealanders accept this? Not on your nelly. So why the chorus of regional disapproval when an indigenous Fijian, Bainimarama, finally decides enough is enough?

Forty per cent of the population not only lives daily with this disparity of rights but, in the main, accepts it. Why? Partly in the spirit of acknowledging the importance to indigenous Fijians of their vanua (land and traditional ties) but mainly as the price of ensuring racial harmony. It's this largely unspoken consensus that's underpinned whatever success Fiji has had as a functioning multiracial nation to date.

Yet it also depends on indigenous Fijians displaying their own generosity of spirit or, more pertinently, not being too greedy in sequestering all the spoils for themselves.

What Qarase, Bainimarama's chief political opponent, did before he was overthrown in the 2006 coup was to cross an important line.

By insisting that indigenous Fijians gain coastal rights as well as land rights, and be paid cash by other citizens to swim in, fish in and even cross their seas, he demanded more from the other races than many regarded as equitable and fair.

By doing so, he recklessly jeopardised the delicate consensus on which Fiji's future as a viable independent entity depends.

Just as bad, in Bainimarama's eyes, Qarase's coastal bill raised the spectre of envy and conflict between Fijians themselves, for those living in remote areas would never be able to glean the riches available, for instance, to those holding the tourist industry to ransom.

For all their comparative advantages, many ordinary indigenous Fijians still maintain a barely disguised sense of grievance against other races, perpetuating the myth of a threat to their way of life.

This was the big lie of Fiji's first coup in 1987, the preposterous spectre of then military strongman Sitiveni Rabuka claiming indigenous interests were threatened because an indigenous Fijian, Timoci Bavadra, was surrounded by a brace of Indian cabinet members.

Ordinary Fijians should be asking their own leaders why they're still disadvantaged, because if they are being fleeced, it must be by their own elite who have been in control since independence. The political instability of recent years is all part of a crude tug of war between competing Fijian chiefs, career politicians and (mostly) wannabe business types for the spoils that come with government: patronage, leverage, the dispensing of contracts and the accumulation of wealth.

The apotheosis of this was the 2000 coup led by the strutting George Speight, who was merely a puppet for a gaggle of opportunistic chiefs and commoners who used the Indians as scapegoats in a sordid lunge for power.

In an obscene echo of their atavistic past, the Speight clique trashed the supposed citadel of local democracy, the parliament, took hostage then prime minister Chaudhry, and proceeded to engage in an eight-week orgy of drunkenness and sex.

Enter the hero of that hour, but the man Rudd and much of the international community now casts as a villain nine years on.

Bainimarama, as military chief, tricked Speight into surrendering, and turned him over to the courts to be dealt with for treason. He also had to contend with a bloody mutiny in his own ranks in which he barely escaped with his life. Yet no one seems to ask a simple question. If he really wanted to be Fiji's dictator, why didn't Bainimarama impose his will then, when a grateful nation would have strewn garlands at his feet?

Instead, history tells us, he handed over power to Qarase, a one-time merchant banker whom he trusted to stabilise the country, lay to rest the racial bogey once and for all and return Fiji to a semblance of democracy.

What did Qarase do? Not just extend indigenous supremacy but bring some of the key players in the 2000 coup, who Bainimarama wanted punished, into the heart of government. Qarase got plenty of warnings to back off but didn't. It was only a matter of time before Bainimarama's fiery temper snapped.

Qarase never believed one of his own would oppose him, but it was a grave miscalculation based on his own ignorance of Bainimarama's background and attitudes.

Most of the Fijian elite come from exclusively Fijian schools but Bainimarama grew up with other races at Suva's Marist Brothers College, where the emphasis was on multiracial tolerance and nation building. His friends say the relationships he forged there are real and enduring.

He's said to be gripped with a sense of destiny yet has some glaring blind spots, such as a tendency to shoot his mouth off when theoccasion calls for at least a modicum of diplo-speak.

More serious for even Bainimarama's staunchest supporters are some appalling lapses of judgment, including the latest, muzzling the local media and expelling foreign journalists such as the ABC's Sean Dorney.

The most glaring was when he reinstated his brother-in-law, Francis Kean, as head of the navy after Kean spent nearly two months in jail for killing an uncle of the groom at the wedding of Bainimarama's daughter.

"What's wrong with that?", Bainimarama has testily asked interlocutors. Plenty.

Yet for many Fijian citizens, the military chief remains their best hope for a meaningful stake in the future, and if he can deliver on his promise of equal rights, all will be forgiven.

It's certainly a striking paradox that having forged vibrant, multicultural nations from their own monocultural origins, Australia and NZ should be condemning Bainimarama for trying to do the same in Fiji.

Graham Davis is a Fiji-born journalist who reported successive coups for the Nine Network's Sunday program and is now a principal of Grubstreet Media.

Earth Sharing.org's Radical Reaction has a posting on Fiji's political arena, including two podcasts, recording an interview that, includes Fiji's role in the Pacific geo-strategic sphere and geo-political environment.

Radical reactions: we talk to Mosese Waqa (Pacific Islands Network) on the Fiji coup. We provide the full extended interview detailing the 4 coups, australian vis chinese diplomatic styles and future war games. Close to 55 minutes in 2 parts. Compelling listening for anyone interested in the Pacific.

Podcast Part 1.
Podcast Part 2.

Expats Guide Towards Surviving a Fijian Coup [& Rumours, Sensationalised Media Reports]

(From Oceanic Fiji Blog)The doomsday headline "Fiji military given OK to shoot civilians." called out to me from UPI.com. I'm not sure what was more jarring, actually. Was it that fear-mongering, sensationalist headline or the fact that UPI.com's tag line is "100 years of journalistic excellence"?

read more | digg story