Mara's Contradictory Appeals: He Can't Have it Both Ways — or Can He?

 Ratu Tevita Mara's appeals to others for action against Fiji seem to be increasingly unreasoned or devious. Take your pick.

Gone are his relatively moderate earlier calls for a regime change by peaceful means.
Now he is appealing to NZ for stronger sanctions, including action against NZ citizens in Fiji who support the Bainimarama government, such as Solicitor-General Chris Pryde.  As far as I know, there are no legal provisions that would allow this. 


He is also calling  for Fiji's dismissal from the Melanesian Spearhead Group chairmanship, just months after the MSG re-endorsed Fiji's chairmanship.

And he wants Pacific Forum countries to "intervene" in Fiji. If it is not quite clear what he means by interfere, he spells it out:

"If it comes to it, the Forum may have to invoke the Biketawa declaration, which allows for military intervention."

So here, finally, the gloves are off. This is what he is calling for if all else fails. 


His  stance is clear but his reasoning is notconsistent. Which goes back to whether it's reasoned or devious. If it's reasoned, it's unwittingly contradictory; if it's devious, the contradiction is deliberate.

On the one hand, he claims that more than half the military and most grassroots (ethnic?) "Fijians" want to get rid of Bainimarama, using hearsay to support his claim. 

Fiji government opponents say  people in Fiji are too afraid to talk. If this is true, how can Mara, in New Zealand, have any idea of the extent of opposition to Bainimarama? They can't both be right. Like most information, veracity depends on its source. Mara's sources are Mara supporters, and we have no idea how representative they might be.


One must also ask, had this level of opposition to Bainimarama existed when he was in the military, why did he not use it. It is, after all, much easier to launch an attack from within Fiji with 400 troops at your back than it is,  troop-less, from without. 

On the other hand, he calls for military intervention by Australia and New Zealand.  But why, going back to his earlier claim,  is this needed if more than half the military and ethnic Fijians really want to get rid of Bainimarama?  

My information is that an increasing number of grassroots itaukei, especially in rural areas,  support Bainimarama. The problem is with the urban "middle class" and its leaders who want faster progress to elections, the lifting of the Public Emergency Regulations, and more civilian participation in government decision-making.


A comment by an anti-Bainimarama writer on Facebook seems closer to the reality that appears to be slipping away from Mara. Offering an new perspective on why Mara fled Fiji,  she writes:

"So, knowing he did not have the support either within the military, or the support of the general population, he really only had one option, to run and join the people already campaigning for change so that he might once again rise to some form of hero before he is tried for crimes against humanity and his role in the ousting of the elected government."

 Mara would do well to remember the old adage that liars (and fantasisers) need good memories. He can't have it both ways. Either there is massive internal support to oust Bainimarama and he doesn't need outside military intervention. Or outside support is needed because the internal support is lacking. 


His delusionary support  remind me of ousted Laisenia Qarase  in early 2007 when he said tens of thousands would take to the streets to protest against the Bainimarama Coup. 

He is still waiting.