Comment and Analysis
I've just read, taken notes and quickly summarised the 20-page UN Human Rights report*, and its 103 recommendations that Fiji is asked to consider, and I must say I'm impressed. It is far more balanced than we were led to believe. The report is part of the UN's periodic review of human rights in its member countries.
My copy of the pdf document came from Mosmi Bhim of the Citizen's Constitutional Forum (CCF) with the note "that it appears that Fiji’s media are not being allowed to publish these recommendations as the recommendations are critical of the current regime in Fiji. There is no way of informing the ordinary citizens of Fiji, of what’s in the recommendations by the UN, due to the heavy media censorship."
If this is the case, it's a pity because the report contains far more than the already well publicised criticisms.
The report actually commends Fiji for its work in a number of human rights areas, including human trafficking, poverty alleviation, AIDS, domestic violence, the rights of women, children and the disabled, climate change, the death penalty, and human rights education. And several countries clearly welcomed the Roadmap, many of government's reforms, and accepted the need to delay elections until 2014. The most common criticism concerned the Public Emergency Regulations.
The impression given by the media in prior comments was that Fiji received a sound drubbing on its human rights record, with little to no support or understanding from any country. This is half true.
Some 15 to 17 of the 31 countries that made submissions condemned, or were deeply concerned about, the usual human rights issues: the constitution, elections, the judiciary, the media, and individual freedoms. There's no need to second guess most of them:the Western democracies, Israel,Chile and Japan.
A second group of some 7-9 countries was relatively even-handed, with a wider interpretation of human rights that included the rights of women and children (for which Fiji was actually commended!). This group included Brazil, Norway, Russia, Slovakia, Mexico and Maldives. A third group of 5-7 countries was no less concerned about human rights but they showed more understanding of Fiji's particular circumstances. This group included Philipines, China and Malaysia.
In the second group, Slovakia (recommendation 20) called for a return to constitutional order and the rule of law, genuine dialogue across all ethnic communities, free and fair elections, and the need to address the underlying issues that led to Fiji's political instability.
My copy of the pdf document came from Mosmi Bhim of the Citizen's Constitutional Forum (CCF) with the note "that it appears that Fiji’s media are not being allowed to publish these recommendations as the recommendations are critical of the current regime in Fiji. There is no way of informing the ordinary citizens of Fiji, of what’s in the recommendations by the UN, due to the heavy media censorship."
If this is the case, it's a pity because the report contains far more than the already well publicised criticisms.
The report actually commends Fiji for its work in a number of human rights areas, including human trafficking, poverty alleviation, AIDS, domestic violence, the rights of women, children and the disabled, climate change, the death penalty, and human rights education. And several countries clearly welcomed the Roadmap, many of government's reforms, and accepted the need to delay elections until 2014. The most common criticism concerned the Public Emergency Regulations.
The impression given by the media in prior comments was that Fiji received a sound drubbing on its human rights record, with little to no support or understanding from any country. This is half true.
Some 15 to 17 of the 31 countries that made submissions condemned, or were deeply concerned about, the usual human rights issues: the constitution, elections, the judiciary, the media, and individual freedoms. There's no need to second guess most of them:the Western democracies, Israel,Chile and Japan.
A second group of some 7-9 countries was relatively even-handed, with a wider interpretation of human rights that included the rights of women and children (for which Fiji was actually commended!). This group included Brazil, Norway, Russia, Slovakia, Mexico and Maldives. A third group of 5-7 countries was no less concerned about human rights but they showed more understanding of Fiji's particular circumstances. This group included Philipines, China and Malaysia.
In the second group, Slovakia (recommendation 20) called for a return to constitutional order and the rule of law, genuine dialogue across all ethnic communities, free and fair elections, and the need to address the underlying issues that led to Fiji's political instability.
In the third group, Maldives (recommendation 99) requested the international community to do its part and show goodwill by believing in and expressing support for democracy and human rights reform in Fiji, while Morocco (recommendation 100) urged Fiji to persist in its Roadmap reforms and asked the international community to support Fiji in this.
If two halves make one whole, half-true reporting, while expected and true to form, is also half-wrong. But perhaps that's how some journalists define balance.
Fiji will respond to the recommendations before June 2010.
To read the full report, click this Scoop link.
Coupfourpointfive, in its first original post for several days, makes the solitary obervation that Australia and New Zealand are not the only countries taking a strong stand on Fiji, and lists some of the recommendations. Link. The "orientation" of our two reports speaks for itself.
* Draft of the (UN Human Rights Council) Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review:Fiji, Geneva. 11 Feb. 2010.
If two halves make one whole, half-true reporting, while expected and true to form, is also half-wrong. But perhaps that's how some journalists define balance.
Fiji will respond to the recommendations before June 2010.
To read the full report, click this Scoop link.
Coupfourpointfive, in its first original post for several days, makes the solitary obervation that Australia and New Zealand are not the only countries taking a strong stand on Fiji, and lists some of the recommendations. Link. The "orientation" of our two reports speaks for itself.
* Draft of the (UN Human Rights Council) Working Group on the Universal Periodic Review:Fiji, Geneva. 11 Feb. 2010.
14 comments:
Does it really matter, Croz? The fact is that the regime should be aiming for a human rights scorecard that is neural if not positive. And until that happens, all your massaging of the facts amounts to nought. So what if there's been progress in Fiji even on a broad front. There's still a huge shortfall in compliance with recognised international standards and you do yourself no credit by excusing these in the way you do. This is what your critics get upset about. Every time there's legitimate criticism of the regime, you switch to defensive mode. A human rights abuse is still a human rights abuse and shouldn't be happening at all. If you want to excuse it as part of a wider agenda, you can't complain if people keep dragging you back to the main point. It needs to stop for the regime to have any real and lasting legitimacy at all.
I take your point, and agree there should be NO abuses.In fact, I listed the abuses. But it is not "massaging" to mention positives in Fiji and support and understanding from some countries when these things are not mentioned elsewhere. This is balance, lacking elsewhere.
I'd have to back 'Relative Abuse' on this. When the coup happened, i was overjoyed to see military checkpoints around the country. Crime was zero for the month they were out. But towards the end of the check-points month and many months following that, i kept hearing of how people were being beaten up left, right and centre for minor stuff, like young drivers who's car radios were too loud for the ears of the soliders manning the checkpoints! I quickly changed my view on soldiers maintaining the law and order business. The miltary's (any military's) modus operandi is intimidation and bullying of adversaries. They lack the niceties of dealing with civilians on a daily basis, Its not a fault of the front line soldiers, its just how they're trained. The real culprits are the supervising officers who let all the beatings and intimidation tactics go unchecked.
Relative abuse. You must realise that any country that undergoes this type of human rights abuse review will end up with many examples of human rights abuse listed. Lets take the US for example, without even checking the web I can list off the top of my head; Guantanamo bay (no right to trial, torture etc), death penalty, some aspects of the homeland security laws (media suppression and holding suspects without charge or trial), poverty due to low minimum wage, ratios of minorities in poverty and prisons. The question comes down to how many abuses and how serious in comparison to other countries in the world, and how the government has responded to abuses. As Croz has rightly pointed out, the score card for Fiji, while not perfect by any means, is nowhere near as bad as has been reported in the Aust/NZ media, the Aust/NZ governments, and the Fiji opposition on blogsites. Croz is reporting a balanced view; it only seems he is further to one side because most of the current reporting is too far to the other side.
Lets remember that the free press in these countries is the only reason you have heard about it.
What arn't we hearing in Fiji.
In Australia the press is also not completely free. The anti-terror laws place restrictions on the press. There are limitations on racist comments, incitement to violence etc. In Fiji there is a vocal minority that is determined to try to undermine the current government with misinformation in an attempt to regain power. They hope to incite parts of the population to oppose the current government, to take to the streets and demonstrate, which would probably turn violent (as occurred during the 2000 coup). While the PER does restrict human rights and certain free speech, it was necessary to stop violence, anarchy and the far greater abuse of human rights that history in Fiji has shown could occur.
So an ignorant population is a quiet population. I would give the average Fijian more Kudos than that.
As I have said before, this human rights issue is a misnomer to me nowadays. It doesn't make sense anymore when you have the powerful nations of the world such as the US, UK and others use their position to invade sovereign nations such as Iraq based on a lie and deny their citizens their human rights.
We have all now known that there are more Iraqis dead, being made destitute and homeless as a result of the invasion of their country then when Saddam Hussein was their president.
The US and UK media together with their counterparts in the Australian media organizations orchestrated a campaign to demonize Saddam Hussein to the point where he was almost Lucifer incarnate. The whole essence of doing that was to ensure that by the time the invasion was done, it would be seen as legitimate.
What the world was made to forget was that Saddam Hussein was supported and armed by the US for years in their war with Iran in the 80s.
What about the people of Chagos Island in the Indian Ocean who were forcibly removed from their island by the British to allow the US to build a military base? We hardly hear this case of gross abuse of human rights by these deceiving countries mentioned at the UN.
See the video here Stealing A Nation - by John Pilger http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-3667764379758632511#docid=2960146925833848851
What has the UN done about these cases highlighted above? Nothing.
The UN is nothing but a vast intelligence gathering organization for the US, UK, international bankers, rich elites and powerful individuals. It works against the interest of everyone in this world but the few elites who finance its operation.
When you have powerful nations such as the US and UK grossly abusing the human rights of innocent people of sovereign nations such as the Chagos Islands, Iraq, and countless others, yet are never questioned or punished by the UN, should clearly show to the rest of us that these human rights rigmarole is nothing but a charade.
Just because rights are abused elsewhere we should accept the loss of our rights?
@ Cama
That's not what i'm trying to point out. What I'm saying is that the US, UK, Australia and a few other countries are using this human rights issue to attack Fiji at the UN when they themselves conducted gross human rights abuse on legitimate sovereign nations.
The way Fiji was attacked by representatives from these countries at the UN was as if we have extensive human rights abuse in Fiji.
Take a very good look at Australia's subversive activities in Fiji and the Pacific as a whole. These subversive activities then leads to the denial of human rights to some people in Fiji and the Pacific. The case against Julian Moti is one example.
The ban on judges, permanent secretaries of the Fiji government, well-meaning people who want to take up board membership positions in Fiji are being placed on ban to visit their relatives in Australia, undergo medical treatments, etc. These are human rights issue as well.
The only question that is not a side issue is....Do we believe that the abuses of human rights in Fiji are acceptable.
The UN spokesperson has given a clear statement on why Driti was refused the position in Iraq.
See Fiji today blog on side.
Cama, of coarse the human rights abuses are not acceptable. Nor are they in the other countries that have been listed above. The problem is that Aust/NZ and opponents to the current government are using the relatively minor ones that have occurred as a justification for their actions (travel restrictions etc) and one of the reasons they will not work with, and help, the current government achieve its aims of true democracy. I am just trying to point out the hypocrisy and the PR smokescreen for what it is.
Croz highlited an interesting issue about Australia and its funding of foreign Aid especially in the Pacific.
Some Aid Workers are paid more then the Prime Minister of Australia. The questiona rise as to how much of the aid actually reaches the people its intended for.
It has been brought up that Australia's main intention in Aid funding is to get into the UN Security Council.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/nation/aid-workers-earning-more-than-the-prime-minister/story-e6frg6nf-1225831568482
The UN affects lives of millions of people eg.Irag etc
Post a Comment