A Perspective On Fiji.

Thought provoking opinion article from Rajendra Prasad, appeared in Indian Newslink.


The excerpt:

At crossroads of chaos and prosperity

14/02/2010 05:26:00 Rajendra Prasad


Three years have gone by since Commodore Josaia Voreqe Bainimarama deposed the Qarase Government.

Much water has passed under the bridge and there is room for conjecture and introspection. Around Fiji, there is calm tinged with uncertainty but not fear or anxiety, as in the past.

People have taken it in their stride. The Interim Government has defied the world and its detractors and has identified a path to accomplish its mission, as specified in the People’s Charter. No one can dispute that the intent and content of the Charter is commendable, more so because it is a product of a military-comprised government. It also promises to re-invent democracy for Fiji that is strong, resilient and fair to all the people of Fiji, removing every trace of racism that was one of the dominant features of the past constitutions.

Vital decisions

In these three years, the Interim Government has taken some vital decisions that no democratically elected government could have in the past.

The banishing of the Great Council of Chiefs and Methodist Church from the political landscape augurs well for the restoration of democracy.

The Great Council of Chiefs and the Methodist Church had become integral part of the political network and were avid sponsors of racism. They were the voice of Fijian ethno-nationalism, where importance was given, not to what was good for the nation but what suited their own ethnic agenda. For 39 years since independence, their influence on Fiji politics was real and toxic.

A historic perspective

On reflection, the chiefly rule and democratic rule, as structured in Fiji was incompatible.

The chiefly rule, as reconfigured during the colonial rule, suited the colonists, who used them to propel the ideals of the colonial government.

In this endeavour, Fijians were enticed to protect and maintain their culture, customs and traditions, as the colonists posed as great protectors of the Fijian race.

The Chiefs were convinced and as the community was neutralized, it facilitated the colonial plunder. The Fijian Administration was established and the Chiefs were at the forefront to keep their people herded within the confines of their tribal areas, eking out a living on subsistence farming.

The Chiefs had their reward for their services, but it did incalculable harm to ordinary Fijians who could not individually or even collectively articulate their future, maintaining rhyme and rhythm with the emerging world for their own good.

Simply, those cultures that remained static, averse to change had embraced poverty and want while those that evolved with times, needs and desires became progressive and prosperous. Fijians were duped by the great colonial lie and the community is still hounded by its negative impact.

The curtain over this period of Fijian history needs to be removed, allowing truth to reveal itself. It was a clever British ploy for ease of governance that left a race of people socially and economically disadvantaged but it escaped censure, as Indo-Fijians were touted by the colonists as the cause of Fijian privation.

This lie gave vent to racism in Fiji to entrench itself. The British hastily left Fiji, leaving Indo-Fijians to suffer the Fijian backlash since independence, which intensified following the coups of 1987 and 2000.

Administration decried

Interestingly, once the elective system expanded and Fijians given the right to franchise in 1963, the role of the Chiefs diminished, as power and authority devolved on the elected leaders.

Dr Rusiate Nayacakalou, a Fijian academic, warned in 1964 (in his book, Leadership in Fiji) that the greatest obstacle that faced them was to realise that there was a contradiction and challenged them to make that momentous choice between changing and preserving their way of life.

He warned them that the belief that they could do both was a monstrous nonsense and, prophetically claimed that its eradication may not be possible, as they had been saddled with it for long.

Dr Tupeni Baba, a Fijian academic and politician, echoed similar sentiments, referring to reports of the Burns Commission (led by Sir Alan Burns) and the Spate Commission (led by Oskar Spate), which criticised the system of Fijian Administration.

Cyril Belshaw, in his Social Change in Melanesia (1954), claimed that the Fijian Administration was archaic and operating in a world of unreality, and that it was a major factor holding the development of Fijian people.

Despite successive reports decrying Fijian Administration and claiming that it was inhibiting Fijian participation in the social and economic advancement, every government rejected the recommendations and shelved the reports.

In essence, the reports favoured ordinary Fijians but disadvantaged their political leaders and Chiefs who felt that the removal of the Fijian Administration would liberate Fijians, ending their domination and harvest.

Conviction, not consent

Understandably, with such advantage and backing from the Chiefs, Fijian Administration and Methodist Church, the Fijian leaders could not be expected to change the status quo.

Yet, the change was vital for the good of ordinary Fijians, Indians and the nation.

The Bainimarama mission is seen by many as the medium for that vital change.

It is accepted that conviction and not consent is the best course for the nation and all citizens of Fiji. To most people, the means justify the end and to others the end justifies the means. Politicians rarely make hard and difficult choices for the greater good in contemporary politics.

Commodore Bainimarama can do it because he does not need anyone’s vote or favour. Establishment of true democracy is his magic mantra, eliminating racism. Bravo!

Some observers say there was no other way for a quick fix to Fiji’s terminal democracy because forces of instability had dug deep into its structure and those that should have removed or kept them out, had embraced them.

While they relished the power and perks that went with it, ordinary citizens of Fiji were left to grapple with poverty, unemployment and bad governance. This cycle had to be broken as Fiji’s political system was self-destructive.

Some have said that it positive changes cannot be brought about by the Indo-Fijian initiative but by Fijian initiative.

But no one could have prophesied five years ago that the military would play such a decisive role. Indeed, in rebuilding the edifice of democracy in Fiji, it requires careful preparation of its foundations to ensure that it remains relevant, resilient, robust and in the safe hands of those who would promote and defend its ideals and not in the hands of those who, by default, exchange prison cells to being members of Parliament.

Divergent views

I had written in similar vein earlier and had the privilege to share briefly views of some friends who differed with my views. I reconsidered my views in light of what they said. I respect their views but remain unconvinced. Some have taken refuge under the slogan, “No coup is a good coup!”

I wonder if people with such belief truly hold that every democracy is a good democracy, when rogue democracies litter the political landscape of the world. I was rightly asked as to what guarantee I had that Commodore Bainimarama would fulfill his promise. I cannot give any such guarantee but I, like many, hope and wager our trust in him and the Interim Government to fulfill its promises.

I do admire the courage, conviction and passion of the Interim Government to pursue an onerous task against difficult odds. The world opinion is stacked against it and there is a simmering discontent among those who have been displaced, their beneficiaries and supporters.

Misused freedom

In its desire to achieve its objectives, media freedom has been curtailed and the judiciary reconfigured and is claimed to be pro-establishment. These ripples are more noticeable now but were always there in Fiji’s so-called democracy.

Further, the law fraternity is peeved at losing its right for self-regulation of the profession and is now subject to scrutiny by the Government-appointed Registrar. Some have been disciplined and some are awaiting their fate with understandable anxiety.

The Fiji media has problems with the past governments and the last Qarase Government had substantially applied the muzzle on the media to make it pliant.

I believe that freedom of the media is one of the most abused rights in world where good, robust and genuine democracies have been its greatest victims. Slanted, biased and skewed editorials feature everyday in every part of the world and yet the media escapes censure for its imprudence.

Freedom is the unfettered right of the media but the proverbial pen has the might of the sword to cause irreparable damage, death and destruction. I hold that the Interim Government should be assisted in its endeavour to restore a true democracy in Fiji.

A challenging journey

Interestingly, New Zealand and Australia are now conceding and realise that little else can be done. There are positive signs and credible evidence that corruption, inefficiency, lethargy and incompetence within the civil service are on the decline in Fiji.

Citizens are gradually coming to terms that the Interim Government is working towards making Fiji a better place for everyone. Some knocks and setbacks unfortunately, are inevitable in that journey.

However, the greater picture must not be lost. The Interim Government has generally ruled with understanding and compassion where it was seen as fair and just to people of all races, contrary to the post-coup ‘democratic governments.’

Opportunity beckons and Fiji stands at the crossroads, lured to the highway to reconstruct the edifice of democracy that gives shelter to everyone, irrespective of race, religion or culture.


Rajendra Prasad is a thinker, author and columnist. His views may be contested but seldom discounted.

Email: raj.prasad@xtra.co.nz

Save Page As PDF

Social Bookmarking

Club Em Designs

Croz Walsh: Radio NZ Interview.

Croz Walsh continues his dialogue with "Nights With Bryan Crump" 1/25/2010.

Posted on MP3 player below.







Save Page As PDF

Social Bookmarking

Club Em Designs

Letting The Cat Out Of The Bag- Gross Media Bias In The Pacific & Geo-Politics.

Happy New Year to SiFm readers.

As a indication of the power of blogs, this interesting posting from Bronte Capital, reveals its role in uncovering a Ponzi scheme lurking deep within Australia's privatized Social Security (Superannuation) fund.

To start off the 2010 blog sesssion with a bang, SiFM will re-visit subjects and concerns raised from 2009 posts. The starting point of 2010 posts will be from an earlier SiFM post titled "Clenched Fist, Open Hand-The Curious Case Of A Faltering Forum In The Pacific".

The coverage of Fiji media restrictions has drawn a lot of criticisms from regional news organizations lately, clamoring on to the media veneer of independence. This particular issue was raised by a recent posting by Croz Walsh's blog with respect to a NZ Dominion Post editorial.

SiFM has repeatedly pointed out the collusion between some Trans-Tasman media organizations and their respective Governments, pro-actively skewing, slicing and dicing facts to suit their given agenda in the region, at the given time.

The outcome of the 2009 Copenhagen climate negotiations and the recent legal tribulations of Julian Moti; has now become the embarrassing crown jewel of this Trans-Tasman belligerence; forever squandering the trust built up over past decades.

Based on this postulation of Trans-Tasman media collusion, it does not surprise many regional watchers, that this subject of media bias(out of bounds for some) have been pointed out, alluded to, outlined by many objective and independent regional researchers. Sadly, the mainstream media outlets have buried the lead on these insidious developments within the Pacific.

Sanjay Ramesh's recent opinion piece does touch on that segment. Partly related to the media bias, is the use of Australian and New Zealand radio broadcasts to the Pacific region. Unfortunately, the Trans-Tasman radio outreach, is perceived in the region, as an extension of these re-occurring themes of neo-colonialism.





Radio Australia's F.M transmission were touted in a blog posting from Radio Netherlands. It appeared that Radio Australia had used Tebutt Research, a firm based in Suva, Fiji to measure the local weekly audience listenership of ABC’s Radio Australia, across 5 Pacific capitals- a feather in their proverbial cap.

No Money, No Funny

Tebbutt Research was also once used extensively by the Fiji Times to gauge public perception on the issue of the day.

This controversial practice had raised many eyebrows and is similar to the issue of credit ratings agencies colluding with Hedge Funds to ensure a favorable rating. The poll or rating company are paid to provide a service.

As a service provider, the polling organization or ratings agencies are well aware of who the pays the pied piper. To guarantee that this revenue stream is kept intact, these ratings/polls seek blessings of their client, whoever that may be, prior to its publication.

First, Tebbutt is not a scientifically based opinion poll because it fails to highlight the margin of error of their surveys. Salon posting offers a basic explanation for Polls and Margin of Error.

Creatively and deceptively enough, it was these same skewed talking points, initially raised in a Fiji Times article; which are then polled on by Tebbutt.

The following excerpt is a Fiji Times article, using a Tebbutt poll published in 20 November 2006.

The excerpt of the FT article:

Fiji impasse to be solved without trouble: Poll

Monday, November 20, 2006

Tebbutt/Times Opinion Poll

Dates: 14-15 November

Sample: 1018

Method: Personal interview

Question: Which of these statements is closest to how you feel about the current situation?

1. - I am very nervous, and it worries me a lot that there will be trouble;
2. - I am somewhat nervous, and have some concerns that there might be trouble;
3. - I am not worried at all, and I am confident it will be resolved without any trouble.

Conducted by: Tebbutt Research on behalf of Fiji Times

The majority believes the current standoff between the military and Government will be resolved without trouble, according to the latest Tebbutt Times Poll.

A total of 1018 adults were surveyed for the latest Tebbutt Times Poll on 14 and 15 November 2006 and were asked which of three statements they most identified with either I am very nervous, and it worries me a lot that there will be trouble, or I am somewhat nervous, and have some concerns that there might be trouble, or I am not worried at all, and I am confident it will be resolved without any trouble.

Overall the Tebbutt Times Poll showed that 54 per cent believe there will be no trouble in the resolution of the standoff and are not worried at all.

Of the remainder, 28 per cent feel somewhat nervous and are concerned there might be trouble, and 18 per cent claimed they were very nervous and worried there will be trouble.

Fijians are the least likely to be nervous, and the most likely to have confidence in a trouble-free resolution.

A total of 62 per cent of all Fijians surveyed claimed they were not concerned at all, while 26 per cent of Fijians were somewhat nervous and 12 per cent were very nervous.

In contrast, one in four Indo-Fijians (25 per cent) were very nervous, 29 per cent were somewhat nervous and 45 per cent were not worried at all.

Digging further into the Tebbutt Times Poll data revealed that there was no difference in any segment of the Indo-Fijian sample but there were differences in the Fijian sample.

Among Fijians, an inverse relationship is seen between nervousness and age, meaning that as age goes up nervousness goes down.

Specifically, while 18 per cent of Fijians aged 18 and 29 years are very nervous, only 11 per cent of 30 to 44 year old Fijians are very nervous and just 5 per cent of 45+ year old Fijians are very nervous.

The Tebbutt Times Poll data also showed that those living in Suva were more concerned and nervous overall than those living in the West.

Overall, while 50 per cent of Suva residents are not worried at all, this confident group is 63 per cent of the sample in the West.

Interestingly those in the West were also more polarised in their views, with 22 per cent being very nervous and 63 per cent being not worried at all, leaving just 16 per cent sitting in the middle claiming to be somewhat nervous.

The Tebbutt Times Poll is collected in strict accordance with the global polling guidelines published by ESOMAR the world association of professional market research organisations.

Question	Total	Fijian	Indian	Other	Suva	West
I am very nervous, and it worries me a lot that there will be trouble	18%	12%	25%	17%	17%	22%
I am somewhat nervous, and have some concerns that there might be trouble	28%	26%	29%	28%	33%	16%
I am not worried at all, and I am confident it will be resolved without any trouble	54%	62%	45%	55%	50%	63%

The issue of Radio Australia transmitters closure and subsequent removal, were zealously covered by the Australian and New Zealand outlets; playing the innocent victim, as well as the used and abused media freedom card.



Psychological aspects like false scarcity, social proof, perceived value are intrinsically related to the use of opinion polls, skewed news articles, which share a common thread used by pitch-men in TV infomercials. The industry of "Pitching" was covered in a recent "On The Media" (OTM) article. The podcast of the OTM program is posted in MP3 player below.



A recent opinion article by Australian academic and former Fiji resident, Sanjay Ramesh, actually underscores that particular point of biased media in Fiji and dove tails with US academic Bruce Buene de Mosquita's ideas featured later in this post.

The excerpt of Ramesh's article:

Lament over Democracy in Fiji

Sanjay Ramesh
January 4, 2010

A recent wave of articles, mostly from New Zealand and Australian media, criticized the direction taken by the Fiji authorities following the abrogation of the 1997 Constitution in April 2009.

These articles should be seen as yet another example of "parachute journalism," where journalists are sent to political trouble spots to compile informed analysis when they have little understanding of the socio-cultural context. On the face of it, it is claimed that Fiji is under a dictatorship, but Fiji had gone through this path before, so why overseas media and their willing interviewees are surprised and shocked by the unfolding political events in Fiji begs belief.

In 1987, the democratically elected multiracial government led by an indigenous Fijian doctor, Timoci Bavadra, was deposed in a bloodless coup by Lieutenant Colonel Sitiveni Rabuka, who was quickly promoted to the rank of Brigadier General by the late Governor General of Fiji, Ratu Penaia Ganilau. In 1987, Indo-Fijians were a majority in Fiji, and they complained to the international community that an elected government was ousted at gunpoint and democracy was destroyed by indigenous nationalists.

However, the same international community, including Australia and New Zealand, remained silent, and policy makers in these countries actually accused the Indo-Fijians of undermining indigenous interests, thus supporting the nationalist position.

At best, both Australia and New Zealand allowed skilled Indo-Fijians to emigrate, and this trend has continued since. Fast forward 20 years later, and the indigenous Fijians who benefitted from the 1987 coup suddenly found themselves, like their Indo-Fijian counterparts in 1987, under the gun of an indigenous military leader Frank Bainimarama, who became fed up with indigenous nationalism and the associated cronyism and patrimony.

The very people who supported the destruction of democracy in favor of indigenous rights in 1987 are now champions of democracy and rule of law, while Indo-Fijians—reduced from close to 48 percent of the population in 1987 to just little under 37 percent in 2006—have transformed into avid supporters of the "undemocratic" actions of the commander.

The contradictions in both these communities are caused by the complex trajectories of history that Australian and New Zealand media are refusing to comprehend and policy makers overseas are adamant to acknowledge.

Hot on a mission to sensationalize and exaggerate Fiji's political situation, regional media played a major role in the 2000 coup where anti-Indo-Fijian arguments were published in the local press, unchallenged by the Australian and New Zealand journalists, as indigenous thugs held an elected government hostage for 56 days and unleashed unprecedented terror and violence against Indo-Fijians living in rural Fiji.

With unrestricted access to the 2000 coup leader, George Speight, local media created a misguided view that indigenous nationalists were once again reacting to the tyranny of Indo-Fijians and, in particular, their leader, Mahendra Chaudhry.

In 2000, indigenous Fijian traditional institution—for example, the Great Council of Chiefs—was divided along indigenous confederacy and provincial lines because indigenous cultural logic dictated that chiefs from the provinces involved in the Speight coup supported them, despite the fact that rule of law had been effectively compromised.

The Australian Government, which has now taken a moral position on democracy and is deeply worried about the impact of a coup culture in the South Pacific, remained an impotent regional observer, along with its counterpart New Zealand, as Fiji descended into anarchy.

The political establishment that came into power following the Speight coup continued with the agenda of the indigenous nationalists. In 2003, reports surfaced that the commander of the Fiji Military Forces, Frank Bainimarama, had become increasingly uncomfortable with the elected government, in particular with its policies to appease indigenous militants.

A series of events started over a three-year period resulting in the December 2006 coup. Initially, the military government attempted to work within the 1997 Constitution, but this position became untenable following the judgment by the Fiji High Court that the 2006 political order established by the 2006 takeover was illegal.

Overseas media alleged on many occasions that Commander Bainimarama executed the coup to scuttle the investigations into the deaths of eight Counter Revolutionary Warfare Unit soldiers who were allegedly involved in a mutiny at the Queen Elizabeth Barracks in Suva in November 2000. These allegations, while sounding quite serious, ignored the fact that there was a bounty on the head of the commander in 2000 for refusing to acquiesce to the demands of the indigenous chiefs who supported the Speight coup.

It was a dangerous situation of kill-or-be-killed. Supporters of the commander rounded up and interrogated the mutineers and their associates, and some interrogations resulted in death. Human rights conventions abhor deaths in custody, but following the events of 2000, there were deep divisions within the army that had the potential for prolonged violent internal conflict.

Moreover, following the 2006 coup, the military discovered a number of irregularities in the manner in which the Native Land Trust Board (NLTB) conducted its business with respect to indigenous land. Much has been written and discussed on the rate of return on indigenous land leased by Indo-Fijian farmers, but a greater and a more interesting story relates to the way elected indigenous nationalist governments conducted business with overseas commercial interests with total disregard for indigenous land rights.

As a result, the military government "cleaned up" the NLTB. There are endless volumes of information compiled by the Fiji Islands Independent Commission Against Corruption that point to past indigenous Fijian leaders exploiting indigenous Fijians and their resources for personal gains. The details of official corruption in Fiji make for very dry reading and do not fit into the agendas of Australian and New Zealand media and, as a result, we never hear about them, except claims that "corruption and mismanagement is often overstated by the military to support their own agenda."

Overseas media are interested in understanding the resilience of indigenous Fijians who have yet to rebel against the Bainimarama regime. The media hopes to overturn an authoritarian system and in its place establish a nationalist indigenous government based on ethnic division as it existed from 1970 to 2006. There is no choice for the Indo-Fijians who are currently supporting the Bainimarama Government because, on the face of it, the Bainimarama regime has offered a "non-ethnic political solution" while the indigenous nationalists want continuation of "positive discrimination," as stated in the deposed government's political manifesto of 2006.

The question is still asked as to why the Fiji regime has suspended freedom of the press indefinitely in Fiji. The answer is quite simple.

The press has, in the past, attempted to instigate ethnic hatred and destabilize the Fiji government. Overseas-owned newspapers in Fiji have continuously emphasized the need for quick elections and democratic rule, but they have yet to make a case for addressing deep-rooted institutional and ethnic problems in divided communities.

What could be done to cement multiethnic democratic values does not fit within "commercial parameters" of contemporary journalism. Overseas media have little idea of the socio-cultural history of Fiji, including the emphasis on communal politics established by the British colonial rulers to support their indirect rule of the colony.

While many indigenous soldiers have sacrificed themselves for the Commonwealth and the empire and continue to volunteer to fight in failed states like Afghanistan and Iraq and replenish war-weary soldiers from "democratic" nations, there is lack of appreciation on the part of Australia and New Zealand journalists for the complexity of Fiji's multidimensional problems.

Past indigenous Fijians as well as Indo-Fijian leaders have failed Fiji because they were interested in protecting their own communal hive. Since independence of Fiji in 1970, Fiji has oscillated between ethnic conflict and conflict between elected and appointed entities, and these conflicts are yet to be resolved.

To argue that democracy is a "magic bullet" that will solve Fiji's problems is naïve. Previous initiatives to move Fiji towards a non-ethnic model were comprised by indigenous nationalist assertions, and the current regime should be allowed to implement its reforms without interference.

Sanjay Ramesh is an adjunct research associate in transforming cultures at the University of Technology in Sydney and is currently completing a research degree on inter-group conflict in Fiji at the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Sydney.

Send comments to sanjay.ramesh@uts.edu.au

The contenscious issue of regional media bias and false reporting addressed in the above opinion piece by Sanjay Ramesh, among other notable moderate opinions, is buttressed by a revealing Broadcasting Green Paper on Radio transmissions to the South Pacific region by New Zealand and Australia and their 5 year spectrum outlook 2010-2014 (posted below).

Letter_PM_AU-NZ_RA-RNZI_v301 (PDF)



The following images (posted below) are screen shots from the above mentioned paper, that features technical and geo-political issues; undoubtedly a pitch to increase the respective government budgetary allocations to Radio NZ and Radio Australia.















One particular interesting concept of game theory in geo-political forecasting, raised by a US Academic Bruce Bueno de Mesquita was presented in a recent World Affairs Council program. (video posted below).

Bruce Bueno de Mesquita at the World Affairs Council 10 26 09 from Its Your World on Vimeo.

Much of the ideas presented by Bruce Bueno de Mesquita, have wider regional applications, or had been demonstrated recently by one form or another. Particularly, when these issues dove tail neatly into alternative academic perspectives from the Pacific area.

Save Page As PDF

Social Bookmarking

Club Em Designs

Dangerous Liaisons? - Copenhagen Leak & Trans-Tasman Double Dealings In The Pacific. (Updated)

In a follow up to the November issue of Island Business (I.B), featured in a SIFM post; the article in question irked an official (Johnson Honimae)in the Forum Secretariat, who penned a response letter accusing the Island Business of misrepresenting the facts.

The excerpt of the response letter published by (I.B):

Letter misrepresentation

I refer to your “Letter from Suva” titled “Officials Make a Strong Stand,” which appeared in the November issue of your magazine.

Your LETTER FROM SUVA affirmed that Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat officials present at the recent Forum Trade Officials Meeting (Brisbane, October 2009) were asked to leave by islands officials in an “unprecedented” manner.

Your editorial is a complete misrepresentation of the facts. The Forum Secretariat takes its responsibilities to all Forum Members very seriously. As part of providing its services professionally, Forum Secretariat Officials at the meeting in question sought to excuse themselves from deliberations in order to avoid a potential conflict of interest.

At the time, island officials were discussing Forum Islands Countries’ position on appointing a Chief Trade Adviser and the framework for PACER Plus negotiations as a lead-up to the meeting with Australia and New Zealand. Because the Forum’s membership consists of both parties involved in negotiations (ANZ and Forum Islands Countries), it was only appropriate for our officials to excuse themselves from the proceedings.

A similar request was made by the Forum Secretariat at the subsequent Forum Islands Countries’ Trade Ministers Meeting (Brisbane, October 2009). After discussion, this request was not accepted by Ministers. Forum Secretariat Officials therefore remained in the room for the duration of that meeting.

Your failure to report accurately, act professionally and uphold expected standards of journalism is unacceptable. The Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat remains accessible to you and your reporters should you wish to seek facts and clarifications on the work of the Forum Secretariat.

Johnson Honimae
Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat
FIJI

EDITOR’S NOTE:

The Forum Secretariat is entitled to its views. We are, as always, happy to publish them. As an experienced former journalist, Mr Honimae would know LETTER FROM SUVA is a viewpoint, or opinion, column, not a news report.

It is clearly designed as such. However, the views in this LETTER FROM SUVA column were based on information supplied by trusted senior Pacific Islands officials, These officials are well aware of what actually happened and briefed LETTER FROM SUVA.

Island Business continues to unravel the layers of manipulation, coercion within the confines of the Forum Secretariat, by those who take their marching orders directly from Canberra and Wellington.

FORUM SECRETARIAT UNDER HEAVY FIRE


Laisa Taga
Editor-in-Chief
Islands Business
DECEMBER 2009


The two biggest Pacific Islands countries have come out firing. Fiji and Papua New Guinea have criticised the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat for including the Office of the Chief Trade Adviser (OCTA) for funding under EDF (European Development Fund) 10.

Twelve programmes have been proposed by the Forum Secretariat for funding under the Aid for Trade for EDF-10 RIP funding which was circulated to all Forum member countries.

Twenty six million Euros (approximately A$36 million) is available to the Forum member countries of the ACP (African, Caribbean, Pacific) group. The Pacific ACP countries were required to submit their five priority areas.

The establishment of the OCTA for PACER Plus Related Activities is priority number eight and the Forum Secretariat is seeking 7 million Euros (A$11,402,443) for this.

OCTA was established to assist Forum Islands Countries (FICs) in their negotiations with the Australia and New Zealand under the Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER Plus) Agreement.

Fiji is opposing the use of such funds to fund the Office of the Trade Adviser and Pacer Plus Negotiations.

A source within the Fiji Government told LETTER FROM SUVA: “Why should EDF funding fund OCTA and PACER Plus negotiations when that has got nothing to do with EPA? The Europeans are giving money in relation to the EPAs, so Australia and New Zealand should cough up for the PACER negotiations.”

Fiji’s opposition was made known to the Forum Secretary-General Tuiloma Neroni Slade, in a letter dated November 18, 2009.

The letter signed by Fiji’s Roving Ambassador Ratu Tui Cavuilati said: “Fiji wishes to register our concern that the EDF facility should not be used to fund OCTA and PACER Plus negotiations, rather, funding for those activities should be separate and should not divert the much needed resources away from EPA related activities.” Fiji is not alone. Papua New Guinea has also written to the Forum Secretariat expressing its concern.

Acting Foreign Secretary Lucy Bogari said in her letter to Mr Tuiloma: “Papua New
Guinea is very concerned that PACER Plus related activities especially in the form of assistance to OCTA featured prominently in the proposed allocations.

“Papua New Guinea’s position is that the great portion of the assistance towards PACER Plus activities for the deepening of trade and economic relations between FICs and Australia and New Zealand should be committed from a more neutral source other than ANZ but not necessarily through EDF sources.

“As such the Government of PNG does not support the proposed allocation for OCTA and requests the revision of the proposed allocation in EDF 10 to match the financial commitment by ANZ, which should be an equivalent of 1.5 million Australian dollars only,” Ms Bogari also used the opportunity to rebuke the Forum Secretariat on the state of play regarding OCTA.

“The OCTA should have been an issue strictly discussed by the FICs themselves without consulting ANZ. After all, it is odd that the FICs discussed with ANZ the OCTA which is a FIC negotiation strategy.

“It is therefore PNG’s view that once the initial three years of ANZ support to OCTA lapses, FICs need to bite the bullet and take exclusive ownership of the subsequent requirements for OCTA and resolve any related issues internally,” Ms Bogari wrote in her November 19, letter.

Both Australia and New Zealand have jointly committed A$1.5 million (US$1.3 million) to help fund the setting up of the office in Vanuatu.

Meanwhile, LETTER FROM SUVA has been told that the Head of the Pacific Plan Unit at the Forum Secretariat, Ed Vrikic, has lodged an application for a new work permit through the Fiji foreign ministry. His current work permit expires this year. But the new one he is applying for is for the position of Executive Officer.

LETTER FROM SUVA had revealed a few months ago, that he had been appointed Chief of Staff following the Cairns Leaders meeting, although the job title has now changed to Executive Officer. And he will take up that position once his Pacific Plan contract expires this year. The new job is a one-year contract and he will be on secondment from the Australian Government.

This is going to be a very powerful position and a strategic one too, as one Forum observer had told LETTER FROM SUVA.

“This person will vet everything the SG [Secretary General] will see—what comes to his table and what goes out from his table,” this Forum observer said. “He will also have access to all the vital and top secret information the Forum Secretariat might have in relation to trade negotiations for instance and so forth, which could find itself turning up at the Australia’s Pacific desk in Canberra—preempting our every move.”

It will be interesting to see how the Fiji foreign ministry will handle the issue. Would it be another case like Chakriya Bowman, another Australian, who is now understood to be working from the Forum trade office in Sydney?

Unfortunately, there are some parallels between the Forum Secretariat's adopted stance on Climate Change, and the unfolding crisis in Copenhagen.

First and foremost the Pacific Forum final communique on Climate Change, as it appears on Forum website:

The excerpt of Forum Communique On Climate Change:

ANNEX A PACIFIC LEADERS’ CALL TO ACTION ON CLIMATE CHANGE

6 August 2009

For Pacific Island states, climate change is the great challenge of our time. It threatens not only our livelihoods and living standards, but the very viability of some of our communities.

Though the role of Pacific Island states in the causes of climate change is small, the impact on them is great. Many Pacific people face new challenges in access to water. The security of our communities and the health of populations are placed in greater jeopardy. And some habitats and island States face obliteration.

Mindful of the Niue Declaration, we therefore address this Call to Action to all leaders in the global community, and urgently seek their support to address this grave threat.

Many actions are needed, but a strong global agreement is vital. We therefore seek redoubled efforts from all states to secure a successful agreement at Copenhagen in December.
With 122 days to go, the international community is not on track to achieve the outcome we need unless we see a renewed mandate across all participating nations.
We call upon world Leaders to urgently increase their level of ambition and to give their negotiators fresh mandates to secure a truly effective global agreement.

We call for a post-2012 outcome that sets the world on a path to limit the increase in global average temperatures to 2 degrees Celsius or less.

We call on states to reduce global emissions by at least 50 per cent below 1990 levels by 2050.

We call on states to ensure that global emissions peak no later than 2020.

We call on developed economies to take the lead by setting ambitious and robust mid-term emissions reduction targets – consistent with the agreed science and the directions embraced by the Major Economies Forum Meeting in July 2009.

We also call on developed economies to strengthen the seriousness and credibility of their claims at Copenhagen by putting in place domestic policies and legislation now to achieve emission reductions targets.

And we call on major developing economies to commit to slow and then reduce emissions growth over time, to nominate a peaking year for their emissions, and to ensure a substantial collective reduction below business-as-usual levels by 2020.

We call upon each major emitter to show leadership – to demonstrate by their words and deeds that they are willing to make the tough decisions necessary to secure the agreement that we need; and not to wait for others to show the way forward.

We understand that just as deforestation is part of the problem, so reducing deforestation and providing incentives to preserve forests should be part of the solution.

To defeat deforestation and forest degradation, we acknowledge that finance, technology and capacity development are necessary to underpin a step-wise process necessary to increase emissions reductions and carbon sequestration. Global carbon markets will play an important role, requiring robust methodological standards for measurable, reportable and verifiable actions.

For our part, we know that we will need to adapt to the changes in our climate that are already inevitable. We stand ready to lead our peoples in this adaptation process. But developing countries cannot do this alone. We call for increased support, prioritised to those developing countries most vulnerable and least able to respond.

We call for increased financing through carbon markets and other channels for climate change adaptation and mitigation action in developing countries, including through technology development and diffusion, and we welcome initiatives by G20 Leaders to develop financing options.

We call upon world leaders to recognise and act upon the threat climate change poses to our marine environment, particularly its effect on coral reefs, fisheries and food security.

We also call upon world leaders to include in a post-2012 arrangement practical and concrete solutions for those whose future existence is under threat.

In view of the situation of Small Island States and their future survival action by the major emitters, both developed and developing countries, should embrace the possibility of going beyond the 2050 targets contained within this Call to Action.

The world has shown, in responding to the global financial crisis, that it is prepared to act swiftly and decisively to address tough challenges. There will be no tougher challenge than addressing climate change, and no greater imperative for the peoples of the Pacific.

We, the Leaders of the Pacific Islands Forum, commit ourselves to working intensively with Leaders of all states to achieve an effective agreement at Copenhagen. We stand ready to play our part in securing an outcome that can safeguard our people, their prosperity and the planet.

Secondly, the position taken by the Pacific Forum was basically to have Australia voicing their collective environmental concerns at Copenhagen.
That stance was disputed by Fiji; who subsequently aligned itself with the Association Of Small Island States (AOSIS) according to a Fiji Broadcasting Corporation (FBCL)article.

The excerpt of FBCL article:

Fiji opposes Forum climate change policy
Thursday, December 03, 2009

Fiji is opposing the climate change stance adopted by the Pacific Island Forum that is going to be taken to the Copenhagen meet in Denmark next week.

Prime Minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama says Fiji has aligned itself with the Association Of Small Island States (AOSIS) for the Copenhagen meet and it opposes the stance taken by the Forum at the recent meeting in Australia.

“We certainly have differences with the stance of the Forum. It is in Fiji’s interests to be leading the region on climate change that have the backing of other pacific island countries. As for Copenhagen, yes negotiations will be held with the developed countries concerning emission levels…”

The climate change policy agreed to by the Forum is to allow Australia to be the voice of their climate change concerns at Copenhagen.

This is something many environmental and NGOs in the Pacific oppose, saying it will only dilute the Pacific’s concerns.

Sadly, the hens have come home to roost for the Pacific Forum; after the recent revelation of a Final Draft agreement, which was leaked to the Guardian Newspaper.

One particular brow raising revelation was that the Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd had a central role in the draft compilation, according to an article published in The Age.


The excerpt of the Age article:

Anger at 'secret' climate change deal

ADAM MORTON, COPENHAGEN
December 10, 2009


PRIME Minister Kevin Rudd had a central role in the creation of a "secret" draft climate agreement that has sparked angry accusations that wealthy nations are trying to railroad the developing world into an unfair deal at the climate summit in Copenhagen.

The G77 bloc of developing nations said the draft deal would abandon a long-held agreement that rich nations were responsible for lowering emissions and condemn 80 per cent of the world's population to suffering and injustice.

The proposal would for the first time require developing countries to put forward climate policies as part of a binding international treaty and split the developing bloc into two groups.

Although this has been widely expected, it drew a furious response from G77 head Lumumba Stanislaus-Kaw Di-Aping of Sudan.

He accused wealthy leaders of trying to shore up their economies by demanding action from developing nations before committing to deep emissions cuts themselves and saying what they would pay towards a green fund to help vulnerable communities.

The proposal was prepared by the Danish Government with members of its "circle of commitment", including Mr Rudd.

"Perhaps it is the Danish idea that maybe developing countries are not competent enough, not knowledgeable enough, to articulate their own views and their own solutions," Mr Di-Aping said.

"This is a very serious development, a very unfortunate development, a major violation that threatens the success of the Copenhagen negotiations."

Late last night Mr Di-Aping stepped up his rhetoric, comparing the rich nations with nations that appeased Nazi Germany before World War II. ''Many of them were willing to appease gross violations of human rights, but at the end of the day humanity prevailed,'' he said

Developed nations quickly played down the draft, saying it was just one of several working papers being put forward before world leaders arrive next week.

It is believed an updated version has been distributed, but work on it has been put on hold while the negotiations continue this week.

Australian climate change ambassador Louise Hand said the Danes had consulted with several delegations, including Australia's, on what a climate agreement might look like but had not prepared a final draft.

Denmark's Ministry of Climate and Energy issued a statement denying the existence of a ''secret Danish draft''.

Speaking in Cairns, Mr Rudd said Denmark had been taking ''inputs'' from other countries. But he would not comment on the draft document, which was leaked to The Guardian in Britain.

He said the world needed a ''strong, levelled political agreement … but more broadly, the right approach is to get the right outcome for the developed and the developing world, because we live on one planet''.

As part of the Danes' ''circle of commitment'', Mr Rudd has had weekly video links with Danish Prime Minister Lars Lokke Rasmussen, Mexican President Felipe Calderon and UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon in a bid to find an approach to satisfy both the US and developing nations while giving a chance of limiting global warming to 2 degrees.

It is understood the Governments of all members of the circle have consulted on text that could form part of a political deal at Copenhagen.

Proposals in the leaked draft reflect the ''schedules'' approach proposed by Australia this year. This would require industrialised countries to take on emissions targets, as under the Kyoto Protocol, and developing countries to put forward measurable climate policies of their choice, such as targets for renewable energy.

The draft proposes a global 50 per cent cut in emissions by 2050, a figure opposed by China and other developing countries because it is understood to demand an overall cut of 20 per cent by the poor.

Wealthy nations would be expected to make an 80 per cent cut by 2050 - more than Australia's current target of 60 per cent. But the Government has pledged to take an 80 per cent policy to the next election if a climate deal is struck.

Erwin Jackson of the Climate Institute said parts of the draft proposal could be the basis for an ambitious climate deal. But he criticised the absence of 2020 targets and commitments on a green fund. ''There is no doubt the Prime Minister and the Government are playing a role in attempting to avoid the negotiations spiralling towards a low ambitious outcome,'' he said.

"However, all countries have to lift their game."

It seems those Pacific Island States, which voted for Australia speaking on behalf of the Pacific region were in for a rude awakening. This whole climate change fiasco has become a diplomatic metaphor for "bait and switch".

More so, when the current Chair of the Pacific Forum (Australia) is covertly advocating a position (that basically contradicts their stance adopted by the Pacific Forum). According to a NZ Herald article, The Government of New Zealand was also involved in the draft agreement.

Australia and New Zealand's two timing position on Climate Change is now undisputed and vilified as, Tiger Wood's transgressions, wrapped in the controversial Downing Street Memos.

This climate scandal already labeled "Carbon Colonialism" by an article from the Times of London; has serious implications on the final agreement in Copenhagen and its acceptance or abeyance by the least developed nations on this planet (many of whom are seething with anger) pivots on the knife edge of history.

The leaked Danish text (posted below) courtesy of Doom Daily.

Copenhagen Climate Change Agreement



Save Page As PDF

Social Bookmarking