Fiji is only the second country in the history of the Games to be banned. Nigeria was the first. Fiji's misdemeanors, therefore, must be judged worse than those of all 71 member countries and territories. Or perhaps the Commonwealth is less concerned about countries that "legally" breach human rights so long as they hold elections however fake the results. Or perhaps it's just a question of size and influence in which Fiji has no chance against the advocacy of Australia and New Zealand. Or perhaps earlier actions -- by Australia, NZ, the Forum countries, PACER, the Commonwealth Heads of Government, the EU, aided by their respective media -- had done such a good hatchet job isolating Fiji that the CGF decision was a "given" even before it met. Who knows?
Twist in the Tale
But there's a twist in the tale that also needs interpretation. On the initiative of Mike Fennell, the 74-year old Jamaican who has been president since 1994 (photo, right), the CGF endorsed his "proposal to lead a delegation to the Commonwealth Secretary-General requesting him to take forward to the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting a recommendation from us that sport be removed as part of the sanction imposed upon a nation suspended from the Commonwealth.” If this proposal is accepted, which I doubt, Fiji could participate in the New Delhi Games.
Now why would he be doing that? It does not follow that a sanction imposed by the Commonwealth body political must also be imposed by the Commonwealth sporting body. Indeed, the CGF constitution is quite explicit on this point. It is an autonomous organization that does not need to defer to the Commonwealth's political leaders to decide issues. Article 3 of its constitution reads: "The Federation is the supreme authority in all matters concerning the Commonwealth Games." So what happened at its General Assembly meeting?
So How Come?
How did the required two-thirds of its members decide to to vote Fiji out, and what was the constitutional provision involved? It couldn't be Regulation C (7) that invokes the Gleneagles Agreement. That was to cut sporting links with apartheid South Africa. Nor Article 12 on vision, mission and objectives. These concerned sports, not inter-country relations.
The Federation certainly has the power to withdraw the right of a county to participate in the Games for breaches of the code of conduct (Regulation D 4) but this, like Article 12, concerns only sports breaches. There is no mention of supposed political breaches. I wonder what provisions were used to exclude Nigeria?
So why the delegation to Commonwealth Secretary-General Kamalesh Sharma? Perhaps a country not voting for Fiji's exclusion raised a question about its legality. After all, Article 7 states there shall be "no discrimination against any country or person on any grounds whatsoever including race, colour, gender, religion or politics." (my emphases). And with some delegates uncomfortable with whatever constitutional interpretation was used to exclude Fiji, a compromise was reached. They'd forgo their autonomy. Mike Fennell would talk to the Commonwealth Secretary-General -- and leave the buck with him.
Whatever the cause, it's a pity and will have absolutely no effect on Fiji, except to fractionally strengthen those opposed to Bainimarama and political reform. Photo: Mike Fennell chatting with a competitor at the Beijing Olympics.
5 comments:
What a lot of arrant rubbish and nonsense! Anyway, it would appear that Delhi is far behind schedule with its arrangements for the 2010 Commonwealth Games and NO ONE may be going if they do not get their act together quickly. Not that this is any consolation for Fiji's young sports men and women. Have they not already suffered enough in the roller-coaster ride of the last ten to fifteen years? What possible advantage or benefit will be obtained by this ham-fisted decision? Nil. It will only serve to make some people believe that the Commonwealth Games are becoming increasingly 'off beam': including in their choice of venues. Sportsmanship requires a sense of 'Fair Play' - nothing fair about this decision. And we shall not recoil from saying so!
Surely, President Obama's Fiji Day wish that Fiji might move towards a 'brighter future' should be considered carefully by the Commonwealth Games Committee and the Secretary General? What is brighter about banning young Fijians (who could not vote anyway until they are 21 under the abrogated constitution)? The sensible thing is to enjoin Fiji to allow all Fijians to vote at 18 under a new constitution and allow them full participation in sport at the Commonwealth Games. It is completely counter-productive to come to any other conclusion. Disenfranchised young sports people from Fiji deserve better than this from the Commonwealth. Listen to President Barack Obama and hear what he is saying!
This was without a doubt, a decision based on political pressure.
Had the Commonwealth Games Federation been followed, this decision would not have been arrived at.
For one thing, the Commonwealth's own website states that Fiji has NOT been fully suspended.
Here is a link to its website. The last couple of questions are the relevant ones.
http://www.thecommonwealth.org/Internal/180384/
From the Games Federation...
http://www.thecgf.com/about/constitution.pdf
Pages of interest are:
Page 6 - Article 7.
Page 21 (about 3/4 down) Definition of a Commonwealth country.
Page 34 #7 of Principles of Conduct.
Theres only two things that you can trust politicians to be. One is self-serving, and the second is Hypocrites.
To Bainimarama and his team, I share this quote from Harriet Beecher Stowe... “When you get into a tight place and everything goes against you, till it seems as though you could not hold on a minute longer, never give up then, for that is just the place and time that the tide will turn.”
God Bless Fiji.
Pacific Scoop has reported that New Zealand Foreign Minister Murray McCully heads to London tonight to attend a Commonwealth meeting on Fiji, before going to Australia to attend the Pacific Islands Forum.
It is so disappointing to see John Key and National Party still clinging fast to past PM Helen Clark's policies (some say petticoat). Before National came to power, I had personally made an effort and saw and briefed the Westie Minister (then she was a list MP) so much in advance about Fiji situation. Those concerned with Fiji had offered to meet National to brief them. But they were never interested. They continued showing their First World superiority. Who is responsible for deterioration of situation in Fiji? It is directly the non-appreciative foreign policies of Australia and New Zealand which continue to act as bullies and kick Fiji in the teeth. The white mainstream media in NZ appears to determine the foreign policy for National who sings the tunes of The Dominion and New Zealand Herald.
In fact, that is what MC Cully will be singing in Britain, while more despotic African and Asian regimes with an election but atrocious social justice and human rights will be playing in New Delhi's games while the poor souls in Fiji, many third and fourth generation Indians, will miss the opportunity to participate in the country of their forbears. The Commonwealth Games Committee had requested for Fiji to play, but the Commonwealth Secretariat denied them this opportunity
Who say colonialism is over? It always crops up in different shapes and forms, and the Neo-Colonist attitude of Australia (Rudd) and New Zealand (Key) is just one of such means of controlling the natives and coolies in lesser developed smaller economies while they are prepared to sleep with bigger economies with more shocking records and history than Fiji.
Isn’t it a joke on international sports when you can have Olympics in China (ha ha ha) but Fijians cannot play in the 2010 Commonwealth games because they have been naughty. Compared to what happens in China on a daily basis, Fiji’s situation is like a Sunday school picnic. This joke will further erode the respectability for the supposedly respectable Commonwealth.
Yes, Fijians have been naughty. But we are trying to deal with the 'naughty ones' now. A number of very high profile people are coming to court and will have to face the music for years and years of alleged abuse of office relating to public money. Is it not strange that still, even now, many feel they do not have to stand down in the face of serious charges against them. They thus run the risk of tainting the institutions in which they insist upon retaining office. If a State of Emergency were to be worth anything at all, it should be that these people comply with 'conduct becoming' and step down until such time as they are found 'not guilty' by the High Court of Fiji. How do they expect to attract sponsorship or donations for those who depend upon them with a charge of abuse of office hanging over their heads involving taxpayers' money? This is more than 'NAUGHTY', this is plain stupidity and arrogance. No good will come of it.
Post a Comment