(+) Australia and New Zealand's Lack of Diplomacy
Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, Interim Attorney-General and Minister for Justice
Fiji Daily Post, 26-Dec. 2008.
[Note: This address was given shortly before the expulsion of Acting NZ High Commissioner Caroline Macdonald, who was said to be expelled for reasons similar to Michael Green.]
There has been much speculation in the media about the relationship between New Zealand and Australia on one hand and Fiji on the other and about the acting New Zealand High Commissioner’s stay in Fiji.We want to lay out a number of facts in relation to our foreign relations both with Australia and New Zealand and the other Pacific island countries.The Government wants cordial relationships with all countries of the world. It in particular wants to maintain strong relationships with its Pacific island neighbours including Australia and New Zealand. These relationships, however, must be built on mutual trust, confidence, respect and dignity.Mutual trust, respect and accordance of dignity however, has been lacking by the Australian and New Zealand governments. Their lack of consistency and patronizing attitude towards Fiji and her people and the Pacific in general has been staggering.
In diplomatic terms the High Commissions of Australia and New Zealand have been almost completely disengaged with the Government of Fiji over the past 23 months.The heads of their missions do not engage with the government ministers and the State at a political level.The existence of diplomatic missions is to engage with the country in which they are based. The Australians and New Zealanders have not adhered to this basic principle.
They claim the Government of Fiji is illegal. This is factually incorrect. We have a High Court ruling that states that the interim Government was validly appointed by His Excellency our President. In 2000 both these two governments engaged fully with the then interim Government which the Court had declared was illegal. In 1987 it engaged with the decree-led Government for 5 years, following the removal of the Bavadra Government and the 1970 Constitution.Their inconsistency extends beyond Fiji. When governments were removed in Thailand and Pakistan the Australia and New Zealand Governments continued full diplomatic engagement.
If they argue that there is no parliamentary democracy, the way they want it and that is why they are not engaging with the Fijian Government, then again they are inconsistent. They actively engage with China, with Tonga, with Thailand and with numerous other countries which have different rules for governance, representation, or have had governments removed.
One is then left with the only conclusion that the governments of Australia and New Zealand are simply bullying the Pacific, believe they can engage with Fiji and the Pacific in whichever form they want and we in the Pacific are expected to just sit back like children and accept it.
The abuse of diplomacy has extended to their missions, and not only by disengaging with the Fijian Government but by actively engaging with those who are opposed to the Government. They have been engaged in local politics, they are engaged in creating disquiet within the population. This is why Michael Green was sent back.They have encouraged their local staff to become spies for them. These local staff should be ashamed of themselves for betraying and spying on their fellow country men and women.
This lack of diplomacy would not be tolerated in any other country. The Australians and New Zealanders would not do this in other countries and indeed would not tolerate this happening in their own countries.They believe they can impose whatever they want in the Pacific and with impunity.There is a word for this attitude and behaviour, neo-colonialism.
They do not treat us with dignity and respect. They send their junior staff to the laying of wreaths on Remembrance Day. This November all heads of missions turned up to the ceremony except, Australia, New Zealand and Britain. They have not even spared the dead in their political posturing. It is an insult to the brave men and women who died not only serving Fiji but the allies which included Australia and New Zealand.
When our Prime Minister had a bi-lateral meeting with Steven Smith a few weeks ago it was put to him that the Australian authorities are tapping our phones. He did not deny it. Ladies and gentlemen, the tapping of phones in Fiji is illegal.
It has also become apparent that Australia and New Zealand appear to be dictating to the rest of the Pacific Island countries as to how Fiji should be dealt with. They have even sought to preempt the outcome of the MCG report.It should also be mentioned that the current chair of the forum has been misleading in his comments. He has claimed that he heard about the shift in the March 09 election date through the media. This is not true. The PM sent him a bundle of documents some months back which set out the proposal for the political dialogue forum and the ensuing processes mapping out the road to elections.
Ladies and gentlemen, the reality is that none of the Pacific Island countries treat us in the manner in which Australia and New Zealand do. These two countries are the richest and most powerful in the Pacific. The reality is they believe that their way is the only way even if they have been inconsistent, even if what we want is right and good on a universal basis and for us.The values and systems of equal suffrage, of non-ethnic voting, of having accountable politicians, of equal and common citizenry, of removing systemic corruption cannot be faulted. These principles and values are what this Government wants and shall put in place.
It will not be moved by the bullying tactics of Australia and New Zealand. It wants to engage with Australia and New Zealand on equal and fair terms, and with dignity. To this end the PM shall announce in the next few days the appointment of a special team to engender better relations with New Zealand. We must as a nation and indeed as people of the Pacific stand up to such bullying tactics, we must be proud of our country and not be intimidated.We need to constructively engage with each other but that engagement must be based on respect for the differences between our countries and on respect for each other as sovereign nations.
Tuesday, January 6, 2009
Monday, January 5, 2009
(o+) Fiji, New Zealand, the Media
Crosbie Walsh. Dec. 2008
(An extract from my seasonal letter to friends)
Fiji continues to be a concern. We spent some years there and people we know and respect are on both sides of the political divide. Perhaps the most disturbing feature is the abysmally ignorant and one-sided stance of our politicians and even worse media coverage. The words “military coup” and “return to democracy” are stamped with a respectively bad and good singularity which is far from the actual situation.
The Fiji parliamentary system was far from democratic. One’s vote was worth much more or much less depending on your ethnic group and where you lived. Generally, rural Fijians and General (not Fijian or Indo-Fijian) voters were over-represented, and urban Fijians and Indo-Fijians under-represented. There had been no census for ten years and the electoral rolls were well out of date. Many people were bribed to vote and hundreds of ballot papers went missing.
The Qarase Government that was narrowly elected in 2001 was entirely Fijian and included a number of ethno-nationalist and religious extremists, some of whom were implicated in the 2000 (Speight) coup which overthrew the Indo-Fijian-led but essentially multi-ethnic government of Mahendra Chaudhry. One of Qarase’s ministers referred to Indo-Fijians as “weeds” to be exterminated, and to poor urban squatters as “thieves” because, with nowhere else to go, they were living extra-legally on land in the peri-urban areas. Squatting increased during this time due in part to a government agency, the Native Lands Trust Board, advising many Fijian landowners not to renew leases to Indo-Fijians. Another consequence was a sharp decline in cultivated land and the size of the sugar harvest. The Government promised rural Fijians control of their local coastal reefs and foreshores. In anticipation of this becoming law, one landowner offered $10 fishing licences to Fijians and $100 licences to Indo-Fijians. Other proposed legislation greatly favoured Fijians to the detriment of other races. And a “Tolerance and Reconciliation” Bill sought to absolve all those jailed or involved in the 2000 Speight coup and mutiny, but offered no compensation to the thousands of Indo-Fijians uprooted from their homes, many to leave Fiji for ever.
I won’t go on. This should not be a lecture on Fiji’s politics. But this was a coup with a difference, and more a military takeover than a coup. Coups are sudden. Commodore Bainimarama gave PM Qarase months of warning: act now against the widespread corruption; stop the proposed legislation; treat all citizens, irrespective or race and religion, as equal. Where special assistance is needed for the needy, do not confine it to only one race.
The New Zealand Position and Elections, and the Media
So here we are, two years down the road, with our Government insisting that Fiji returns to a democracy that never was, and taking actions (particularly its indiscriminate travel ban on anyone related to the military or interim government) which is making it extremely difficult to provide effective government or a healthy economy. And, as ever, we have a media intent on the spectacular, fully geared to sell newspapers and maintains viewer ratings. Unfortunately, in-depth analyses and more balanced reporting would do neither. Over the years, superficiality and trivia on TV have trained New Zealanders to limit their attention span to 3-4 minutes whenever any important issue is covered.
There’s little doubt this same sort of media coverage played a part in our November change of government. People were, I think, a little tired of Helen Clarke and Labour, but Labour could still have been returned to office had the media not misrepresented much of its legislation. A Bill seeking to remove legal excuse for parental physical abuse became the “Anti-Smacking” Bill. A proposed environmental tax on farmers became the “Anti-Fart” Bill. A proposed phasing out of inefficient light bulbs was further evidence of a “nanny state”. Most other legislation was invariably labelled as “politically correct” or “social engineering”.
But Labour could only have governed again with the help of Winston Peters’ NZ First Party. Here the media spent months digging up “evidence” of its alleged misuse of election funds - all of which, on enquiry, were legally dismissed. But by then the damage was done. NZ First needed 5% of the vote to win seats in parliament. It won 4.2%. The right-wing ACT party, won one electoral seat and with only 3.6% of the overall vote, it won a further four seats. This is one of the anomalies of our mixed-member-proportional-representative system.
In the end, the election seemed to be mostly about which party would give the middle and upper classes the best tax relief - or that was the message conveyed by the media. I voted Labour for my electorate and Greens for my general ("list") vote. The Greens needed 5% to be represented in parliament. I don’t agree with all of its policies (or for that matter with all the policies of any other party) but I think they can play a worthwhile role in parliament. Besides their concern for the environment, they take what I consider to be intelligent and caring positions of most economic and social issues.
Crosbie Walsh. Dec. 2008
(An extract from my seasonal letter to friends)
Fiji continues to be a concern. We spent some years there and people we know and respect are on both sides of the political divide. Perhaps the most disturbing feature is the abysmally ignorant and one-sided stance of our politicians and even worse media coverage. The words “military coup” and “return to democracy” are stamped with a respectively bad and good singularity which is far from the actual situation.
The Fiji parliamentary system was far from democratic. One’s vote was worth much more or much less depending on your ethnic group and where you lived. Generally, rural Fijians and General (not Fijian or Indo-Fijian) voters were over-represented, and urban Fijians and Indo-Fijians under-represented. There had been no census for ten years and the electoral rolls were well out of date. Many people were bribed to vote and hundreds of ballot papers went missing.
The Qarase Government that was narrowly elected in 2001 was entirely Fijian and included a number of ethno-nationalist and religious extremists, some of whom were implicated in the 2000 (Speight) coup which overthrew the Indo-Fijian-led but essentially multi-ethnic government of Mahendra Chaudhry. One of Qarase’s ministers referred to Indo-Fijians as “weeds” to be exterminated, and to poor urban squatters as “thieves” because, with nowhere else to go, they were living extra-legally on land in the peri-urban areas. Squatting increased during this time due in part to a government agency, the Native Lands Trust Board, advising many Fijian landowners not to renew leases to Indo-Fijians. Another consequence was a sharp decline in cultivated land and the size of the sugar harvest. The Government promised rural Fijians control of their local coastal reefs and foreshores. In anticipation of this becoming law, one landowner offered $10 fishing licences to Fijians and $100 licences to Indo-Fijians. Other proposed legislation greatly favoured Fijians to the detriment of other races. And a “Tolerance and Reconciliation” Bill sought to absolve all those jailed or involved in the 2000 Speight coup and mutiny, but offered no compensation to the thousands of Indo-Fijians uprooted from their homes, many to leave Fiji for ever.
I won’t go on. This should not be a lecture on Fiji’s politics. But this was a coup with a difference, and more a military takeover than a coup. Coups are sudden. Commodore Bainimarama gave PM Qarase months of warning: act now against the widespread corruption; stop the proposed legislation; treat all citizens, irrespective or race and religion, as equal. Where special assistance is needed for the needy, do not confine it to only one race.
The New Zealand Position and Elections, and the Media
So here we are, two years down the road, with our Government insisting that Fiji returns to a democracy that never was, and taking actions (particularly its indiscriminate travel ban on anyone related to the military or interim government) which is making it extremely difficult to provide effective government or a healthy economy. And, as ever, we have a media intent on the spectacular, fully geared to sell newspapers and maintains viewer ratings. Unfortunately, in-depth analyses and more balanced reporting would do neither. Over the years, superficiality and trivia on TV have trained New Zealanders to limit their attention span to 3-4 minutes whenever any important issue is covered.
There’s little doubt this same sort of media coverage played a part in our November change of government. People were, I think, a little tired of Helen Clarke and Labour, but Labour could still have been returned to office had the media not misrepresented much of its legislation. A Bill seeking to remove legal excuse for parental physical abuse became the “Anti-Smacking” Bill. A proposed environmental tax on farmers became the “Anti-Fart” Bill. A proposed phasing out of inefficient light bulbs was further evidence of a “nanny state”. Most other legislation was invariably labelled as “politically correct” or “social engineering”.
But Labour could only have governed again with the help of Winston Peters’ NZ First Party. Here the media spent months digging up “evidence” of its alleged misuse of election funds - all of which, on enquiry, were legally dismissed. But by then the damage was done. NZ First needed 5% of the vote to win seats in parliament. It won 4.2%. The right-wing ACT party, won one electoral seat and with only 3.6% of the overall vote, it won a further four seats. This is one of the anomalies of our mixed-member-proportional-representative system.
In the end, the election seemed to be mostly about which party would give the middle and upper classes the best tax relief - or that was the message conveyed by the media. I voted Labour for my electorate and Greens for my general ("list") vote. The Greens needed 5% to be represented in parliament. I don’t agree with all of its policies (or for that matter with all the policies of any other party) but I think they can play a worthwhile role in parliament. Besides their concern for the environment, they take what I consider to be intelligent and caring positions of most economic and social issues.
(o+) Fiji - More than Meets the Eye
Crosbie Walsh
Letter to NZ Listener, 17-23 Jan.2009
I’m not an avid supporter of the Fiji 2006 military takeover or the far-from-democratic regime it displaced. I’m even less a supporter of New Zealand politicians, diplomats and journalists who wittingly or unwittingly continue to misrepresent the Fiji situation. My credentials? Fifty years of study, research and writing; 16 years of work and residence in the Pacific, eight of them in Fiji.
The current diplomatic crisis should cause us to ask what our Government still hopes to achieve, two years after the military takeover, by the indiscriminate application of its travel ban? The young goalkeeper whose fiancé was the daughter an army officer was not closely linked to the regime. Neither is the daughter of the former Permanent Secretary of Health, or the son of the Permanent Secretary to the President. No one questions the President’s legitimacy and his secretary is a career public servant appointed in 2004, two years before the military takeover.
The Fiji Interim Government was not asking that the travel ban be removed, as the New Zealand public has been informed; only that it not be applied indiscriminately. Our High Commissioner was expelled for more than the travel bans: Wellington allowed her to engage freely with the regime opponents but not in any meaningful way with the Interim Government. Similar reasons explain TV reporter Barbara Dreaver’s expulsion. Her Fiji interviews have been very one-sided. And TV’s continuing use of two-year old film footage of armed soldiers patrolling Suva’s streets is a little more than innocently deceptive.
It is the responsibility of the media to be informed and fair-minded. They should report that the Interim Government intends to end widespread corruption, check extreme Fijian nationalism and religious fundamentalism, counter laws and practices which discriminate against non-Fijians, check alleged election irregularities, and devise an election system which guarantees these undemocratic practices will not be repeated. And we should be told what its opponents say about these claims. It is reported that the Interim Government has taken no steps towards parliamentary elections. This is not true. We should be informed of these steps, and left to decide for ourselves whether they are genuine or not.
More of the same will not help resolve the Fiji crisis. Fiji is a deeply fractured society with “goodies” and “baddies” in each of its many camps. Its leaders must resolve the situation in the Pacific way, by dialogue and, hopefully, consensus. We can assist this process by adopting a critical but even-handed manner, and demonstrate that we do indeed have some idea of Pacific ways, or we can continue to demonstrate what some see as arrogance and others as an abysmal ignorance of Pacific mores.
I would urge the new government to discard our former PM’s ideological blinkers, and take a new look at what we can do to assist Fiji along the path towards a more inclusive democracy.
Crosbie Walsh
Adjunct Professor
University of the South Pacific
Crosbie Walsh
Letter to NZ Listener, 17-23 Jan.2009
I’m not an avid supporter of the Fiji 2006 military takeover or the far-from-democratic regime it displaced. I’m even less a supporter of New Zealand politicians, diplomats and journalists who wittingly or unwittingly continue to misrepresent the Fiji situation. My credentials? Fifty years of study, research and writing; 16 years of work and residence in the Pacific, eight of them in Fiji.
The current diplomatic crisis should cause us to ask what our Government still hopes to achieve, two years after the military takeover, by the indiscriminate application of its travel ban? The young goalkeeper whose fiancé was the daughter an army officer was not closely linked to the regime. Neither is the daughter of the former Permanent Secretary of Health, or the son of the Permanent Secretary to the President. No one questions the President’s legitimacy and his secretary is a career public servant appointed in 2004, two years before the military takeover.
The Fiji Interim Government was not asking that the travel ban be removed, as the New Zealand public has been informed; only that it not be applied indiscriminately. Our High Commissioner was expelled for more than the travel bans: Wellington allowed her to engage freely with the regime opponents but not in any meaningful way with the Interim Government. Similar reasons explain TV reporter Barbara Dreaver’s expulsion. Her Fiji interviews have been very one-sided. And TV’s continuing use of two-year old film footage of armed soldiers patrolling Suva’s streets is a little more than innocently deceptive.
It is the responsibility of the media to be informed and fair-minded. They should report that the Interim Government intends to end widespread corruption, check extreme Fijian nationalism and religious fundamentalism, counter laws and practices which discriminate against non-Fijians, check alleged election irregularities, and devise an election system which guarantees these undemocratic practices will not be repeated. And we should be told what its opponents say about these claims. It is reported that the Interim Government has taken no steps towards parliamentary elections. This is not true. We should be informed of these steps, and left to decide for ourselves whether they are genuine or not.
More of the same will not help resolve the Fiji crisis. Fiji is a deeply fractured society with “goodies” and “baddies” in each of its many camps. Its leaders must resolve the situation in the Pacific way, by dialogue and, hopefully, consensus. We can assist this process by adopting a critical but even-handed manner, and demonstrate that we do indeed have some idea of Pacific ways, or we can continue to demonstrate what some see as arrogance and others as an abysmal ignorance of Pacific mores.
I would urge the new government to discard our former PM’s ideological blinkers, and take a new look at what we can do to assist Fiji along the path towards a more inclusive democracy.
Crosbie Walsh
Adjunct Professor
University of the South Pacific
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)