He seemed to think:
- The attempted assassination of Bainimarama in 2001, "a personal affair," was the primary cause of the 2006 Coup.
- The Abrogration of the Constitution and abuses of human rights (he spoke of media freedom) could never, ever, under any circumstances, be justified according to UN "laws."
- Military coups have never produced democratic outcomes.
- Bainimarama and the military have no intention of ever giving up power.
- "Cause" is usually more complex than a single, personalised event, and Bainimarama's supposed need for revenge certainly took a long time hatching.
- "Never" is an absolutist term that should be used only rarely by thinking people. There are many instances of bad laws and constitutions, and the misuse of human rights. It is difficult to see how the "bad" legislation of the Qarase Government could have been overturned so long as race-based electorates, and racial politics, remained firmly entrenched.
- And Rabuka's military (and Speight's partly-military) coups did produce "democratic" outcomes acceptable to New Zealand. (It should not be forgotten that it was Bainimarama who negotiated with Speight and helped install the first Qarase government. If he'd wanted power then, when he was hailed as hero, few would have objected.)
- As for whether the military will ever give up power, we have no way of knowing but it seems likely they will hold on until they achieve their objectives that, on the face of it and from what we've seen of the "Roadmap" so far, seem worth waiting for.
In question time, I most respectfully said I didn't agree with his explanation of events, and asked him whether -- given Sir Paul Reeves's earlier address that had called for some relaxation towards Fiji -- he thought we should be less inflexible on the travel bans.
His answer in effect was "No" though he thought there could be some flexibility on humanitarian grounds -- which there already is!
He gave the impression the bans applied only to senior military people while in fact the net is cast far more widely. At one point it even stopped the Fiji goalkeeper joining his team! The ban makes it difficult for government to recruit suitably qualified people to any branch of government, because it applies also to all family members (thus, ironically, denying them their human right to be treated as individuals).
We have already seen it applied to a Domestic Court judge. It would also be applied to all Ministers, irrespective of their portfolios, permanent secretaries and senior civil servants. The ban has resulted in Government appointing too many military people to civil service positions -- and in Government being blamed for these appointments!
One must wonder whether the ban also applies to NGOs that work with Government; to the Catholic Archbishop for co-chairing the PPDF; to the President of the Fiji Chamber of Commerce; to the Chairperson of the Amnesty International Fiji (who did not agree with Apolosi Bose's AI Fiji report); and to anyone who in the future participates in next year's "Dialogue."
4 comments:
Phil Goff's analysis is shocking, to say the least. A new Fiji is in the making and nothing will stop that, regardless. I hope ex Fijians in NZ are taking note of this for the next election in NZ.
Phil Goff was on record to declare that the New Zealand would act unilaterally to invade Fiji 9with or without their approval), to secure the lives of its citizens.
Phil Goff is just another politician from New Zealand, who thinks the Pacific is their stomping grounds, forever to be pillaged and mineral resources plundered by these mega coporations, whom had donated money to their election campaign.
Mr Goff could not credibly nor conceivably come to the conclusions he appears to have without prolonged time on the ground in Fiji. It is insufficient to arrive at such 'loaded language' through the eyes and ears of others even those trained in diplomacy. Despite this, his reservations are justified. All reservations are justified when rule is necessarily autocratic and revolutionary change is made. There is often collateral damage which unforeseen or no preparation is in hand (the January 2009 floods). However, Phil Goff and Australia have seen fit to coerce (not cajole) the small Pacific Island countries. They might have chosen to be revolutionary themselves by moving towards a Free Pacific Region which would allow for free movement of people across borders and encourage infrastructural, health and education changes. In lieu, they chose maintain a 'status quo' with insufficient provision of services in all sectors of economies but especially in internal security and safety. The Peoples of the Pacific have every right and business to insist upon independent, impartial and functioning judicial systems and very much else. None of this was catered for in policies which have fallen short. These policies continue to be insufficient and are constrained by a "We know best" attitude of mind.
If you knew best, explain why women in the entire Pacific Region receive such a poor deal? And with them children, our future? Why Climate Change impinges upon the islands unequally? Why education systems have been so obviously antediluvian? Aid has failed and the myriads of consultants paid out of it also. They began from the wrong premise: that they were entering a world where democratic principles and conduct "came naturally". How far off the mark that was.
It seems that Goff is speaking from under his predecessors skirt. Get out or there son, and sanitize yourself. You have absolutely no idea.
Post a Comment