NOTED ACADEMIC'S SPEECH BANNED BY FIJI'S DE FACTO

UNCLAS SUVA 000251


PLEASE PASS TO EAP ACTING A/S DAVIES

E.O. 12958: N/A
TAGS: PGOV PREL FJ KDEM
SUBJECT: NOTED ACADEMIC'S SPEECH BANNED BY FIJI'S DE FACTO
GOVERNMENT FOR TRUTH TELLING

REF: A) Suva 31, B) Suva 62, C) Suva 131, D) Suva 141, E) Suva 171,
F) Suva 186, G) Suva 189



1. (U) On June 12, Fijian police banned the opening session of the
Fiji Institute of Chartered Accountants annual congress in Nadi
because Fiji lawyer and outspoken critic of the de facto government
Graham Leung and Dr. Brij Lal, Professor of Pacific and Asian
History at the Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies,
Australian National University, were scheduled to speak. Embassy
obtained Dr. Lal's speech, which gives an accurate view of Fiji's
conundrum and a way forward toward democracy and a duly-elected
civilian government. The speech shares the Embassy's analyses and
conclusions regarding the situation in Fiji and the role of the
international community (reftels).


2. (U) To summarize, Lal points out that the interim regime is
engaged in an attempt to create a perfect democracy in Fiji, which
raises the question of whether the military would actually allow
elections by 2014. Lal made clear that Fiji's present course does
not bring the country closer to democracy; instead, the interim
government would likely continue to be more repressive rather than
inclusive. He said that despite censorship, borders are now so
porous that the exercise of controlling speech is futile and
self-defeating. In reference to Fiji's suspension from the Pacific
Islands Forum (PIF),Lal said "Fiji needs to recognize that Pacific
leaders are not pawns in the hands of Australia and New Zealand, and
it is deeply offensive to Pacific Island leaders for Fiji to think
so." Lal concluded his remarks by quoting excerpts from President
Obama's Cairo speech regarding human rights.


3. (U) Begin Text:

When Mr. Murray McKenzie invited me to address your convention, I
told him in all my naivet that I didn't know anything about
Accountancy. 'Not many accountants do either,' he replied. That
put my mind at rest. When he said that I should focus my address on
the present and the future, I had to tell him that I made my living
by predicting the past. He said reassuringly, 'You will do just
fine.' So here I am, and I thank you for the privilege of being
with you today.

The invitation to speak at this gathering was extended to me at a
time that is so rapidly vanishing beyond recall. The constitution
was still in place, even though it was observed more in the breach;
a political dialogue process, although fraught and flawed in many
ways, was under way; the international community was expressing a
cautious and conditional willingness to get engaged to rescue Fiji
from the cul-de-sac it was in; and there was a glimmer of hope -
just a glimmer - that Fiji might finally find its feet on the ground
again.

But all that is now gone. There is now no pretence about finding a
solution to Fiji's political problems in a timely fashion, in
consultation with its friends in the regional and the international
community. Fiji is now telling the world: we will find solutions to
Fiji's problems on our own terms, in our own time. The
international community must not dictate terms. Fiji is a sovereign
nation. Leave us alone. There is a palpable sense of exasperation
in the voice of the interim administration: we are the guys who are
on the right side of history; we are doing the right thing; why
doesn't the world understand us? Why indeed.

This question goes to the heart of the topic given to me: 'Fiji and
the International Community: Acceptance or Isolation: Are these the
only choices?' My response is: No. I don't think Acceptance and
Isolation are the only two choices available to the international
community when dealing with Fiji. There is another alternative:
Accommodation. And there is an alternative to Monologue: Dialogue.
I shall return to this theme later.

This coup is in marked contrast to the first coup of 1987. The
world then was a simpler place. The fax machine was the latest
invention, and it was possible to deprive society of the oxygen of
information and commentary. But the world since then has changed
beyond recognition. Now censorship is enforced in Fiji and
self-censorship encouraged, but technology cannot be so easily
intimidated. Blogsites abound, spreading information as well as
misinformation to all those who want them across the world. The
boundaries are simply too porous to be easily policed. They are
transgressed at the click of a button. The whole exercise of
controlling speech is futile and self-defeating.

There is another difference with 1987. Then the message was clear,
even though it was based on spurious assumptions. The message was
the defense of indigenous rights against the interests and
aspirations of an immigrant community. The international community,
unable or unwilling to decipher the more unseemly motives of the
principal actors, was willing to believe the message. But the
message this time around is not clear, which is one reason for the
present confusion. Initially the coup was justified as a 'Clean Up
Campaign.' A few months later, another rationale crept in:
electoral reform and the implementation of a so-called Peoples'
Charter, the latter a kind of development plan, presented to the
people as the military's exit strategy and as a panacea for all the
ills afflicting the nation. More recently, another rationale has
crept in: to create a perfect, corruption free, politics-free
society. As the interim prime minister puts it, 'I want to rid
politics from decision making that has an impact on our economy, our
future. We cannot be beholden to petty politics, communal politics,
provincial politics and religious politics.' He did not use the
word, but he could have been talking about creating a utopia. And
when you are engaged in that mammoth task, timeliness and
accountability are irrelevant.

In 1987, the military coup was always intended as a means to an end,
and not an end in itself. The end was the entrenchment of Fijian
control of the political process. After a few chaotic months,
Sitiveni Rabuka eventually handed power back to civilian rulers who
then chalked the path back to parliamentary democracy. Now the
situation is different. You do not have on the national stage
chiefs of mana and overarching influence, such as Ratu Sir Kamisese
Mara or Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau, who can exercise a moderating,
stabilizing influence on developments. Now, the military, having
hobbled indigenous institutions of power, is much more intent on
being centrally involved in reshaping the future of the country in
its own image. They are here to stay: that message comes out loud
and clear from a whole raft of things the interim administration has
done since abrogating the constitution on April 10th. Whether it is
civil society organizations, the media or the Fiji Law Society, the
message from the military is the same: we are in control, and we
intend to remain in control for a very long time.

The military and the interim administration have tried very hard to
convince the international community that their main aim is to
create a truly democratic society in Fiji that is just and fair to
everyone. They want an allegedly very undemocratic constitution to
be re-written so that every citizen has equal rights. One would
have to admit that there are some - perhaps many - people both in
Fiji and abroad who are willing to believe this, and give the
interim administration the benefit of the doubt. That is, they
believe that the military is dead earnest about creating a perfect
democracy, after which it would voluntarily leave the stage for
politics to operate as normal.

I am prepared to accept this assertion for the sake of argument,
just as those who embrace the military's vision must, by the same
token, accept the position of those who express grave reservation,
as many in the international community do. There is the argument
that by simply having a non-racial system of voting will not remove
race as a factor in politics. Just look at Guyana or Malaysia, to
take just two examples, and the evidence is clear. There are those
who argue that an electoral system, however perfect, is a means to
an end, and not an end in itself. So a prior question has to be
asked: what kind of political culture do you want to create in Fiji?
I do not believe that this debate has taken place here. A view has
been asserted, but it has not been properly argued.

But let us, again for the sake of argument, assume that the interim
administration's proposed electoral system is adopted. Two
questions then arise. What is the quid pro quo? Will the military
then retreat to the barracks? And what happens if the results
thrown up by the new system, whatever they are, are deemed
unacceptable to the military? There is another point to consider.
Now that we have no constitution in place, the interim
administration can simply decree its preferred electoral model into
existence and then proceed to hold elections under it, as happened
under the 1990 constitution. At the back of my mind is another
thought that I want to express in the hope of having it debated.
And it is this. Increasingly, it seems to me, the powers-that-be
are engaged in a project that goes beyond tinkering with the
electoral system. They are intent on fundamentally re-structuring
of society. To put it another way, they are engaged in creating
utopia in Fiji, as I suggested earlier. This plants seeds of doubt
in my mind about elections being held in 2014. 2024 perhaps, but
certainly not 2014. I hope I am wrong.

A central plank in the interim administration's defense of its
defiant stance is the notion of sovereignty. Sovereignty, simply
defined, is the line that distinguishes one nation state from
another. Historically, there have been two philosophical positions
on sovereignty: one by Thomas Hobbes and another by John Locke. The
difference between the two lies in the extent of the obligation the
state has to its citizens: in one minimal, in the other
considerable. There is now another dimension to consider:
globalization, which renders national boundaries porous through the
impact of travel and technology. Sovereignty is now not an absolute
concept, but a contingent one, intersected at various points by
provisions of international law. From the Nuremburg trials onwards,
the world has understood international law as not only adjudicating
disputes between states but also holding states accountable for the
fundamental violations of the human rights of its citizens. Look at
international intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq, Rwanda, Somalia,
East Timor and Kosovo, and you will see what I mean. So Fiji cannot
and should not expect immunity or exception from international
disapproval for what has happened here. The consciousness of civil,
political and human rights is now too deeply entrenched in many
international instruments and conventions to be ignored or violated
with impunity.

Indeed, Fiji is a signatory to many of these instruments. Let us
take the Biketawa Declaration. Its seven or so principles include
'Upholding democratic processes and institutions which reflect
national and local circumstances, including the peaceful transfer of
power, the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, and
just and honest government,' and 'Recognizing the importance of
respecting and protecting indigenous rights and cultural values,
traditions and customs.' And the Declaration stipulates the precise
steps to be taken in the event of strife in a member country: the
convening of Forum Foreign Ministers meeting, creating a Ministerial
Action Group, appointing a fact-finding mission, and so on. And
this is precisely what happened in the case of Fiji. So I am
puzzled at Fiji's umbrage. A few days ago, Forum Secretary General
Slade expressed a view that is worth pondering: 'The welfare of the
region is inextricably tied up with the welfare of Fiji. But the
present situation in Fiji involves clear disregard of the core
values of democracy, good governance and the rule of law recognized
by all Forum members, as well as the vast majority of the
international community, as crucial to the future peace and
prosperity of the Pacific Forum region.' That sentiment is
unexceptionable.

Let me take another declaration, the Cotonou Agreement, about which
many of you probably know a great deal. There are four fundamental
principles which underpin the Agreement: Equality of Partners and
Ownership of Development Strategies; Partnership; Dialogue and
Mutual Obligation, and finally Differentiation and Regionalization.
I would be happy to elaborate on these principles during discussion.
But what is important in the context of Fiji is an additional
provision in the Cotonou Agreement. Article 8, titled 'The
Political Dimension,' provides that all parties to the Agreement
'shall contribute to peace, security and stability and promote a
stable and democratic environment.' The dialogue 'shall also
encompass a regular assessment of the developments concerning the
respect for human rights, democratic principles, the rule of law,'
and 'shall take full account of the objective of peace and
democratic stability in the definition of priority areas of
cooperation.' It is all there in black and white, and I am again at
a loss to understand Fiji's puzzlement at being told that what it is
doing is wrong and unacceptable. The EU will not relax its stance.
That much is certain. This is not necessarily what I or many of us
want. This is, quite simply, the way things are. And the sooner
the people of Fiji are told the truth, the better it will be for
everyone.

It is no secret that the interim administration is unhappy with the
reaction of the international community, and it has singled out
Australia and New Zealand for particular criticism in relation to
their alleged interference in Forum decision making about Fiji.
There are several points to consider. The Forum position has
hardened over time in direct response to Fiji's intransigence.
Tonga's Fred Sevele was sympathetic to Fiji in the beginning, as was
PNG's Michael Somare. Both were disappointed at Fiji's snub of
Pacific leaders' meeting in Niue and then in Port Moresby. Fiji
needs to recognize that Pacific leaders are not pawns in the hands
of Australia and New Zealand, and it is deeply offensive to Pacific
Island leaders for Fiji to think so. And there is a further point
to consider. Why should anyone express surprise that Australia and
New Zealand are using their diplomatic leverage in the region to
effect an outcome they want? You would surely expect democratic
countries to champion values that underpin their own political
culture and not condone practices which seek to subvert them. But
having said that, I know that the international community does want
to help, provided there is genuine willingness on the part of the
interim administration to engage in inclusive dialogue. Fiji's
siege mentality in the circumstances is understandable, but it is
also a hindrance to progress.

It is perhaps this closed mindset that obscures a clear perception
of the international reaction to Fiji. I recall what then Minister
Mahendra Chaudry said when the Rudd Labour government was elected
into office. He welcomed the new government and said that he was
hopeful that Canberra would show a more sympathetic appreciation of
the situation in Fiji. I was asked to respond to this on a Hindi
radio talk show. The whole world came crashing down on my head. I
said that the change of government would not alter Australia's
position on Fiji, and gave three reasons. One was that no
Australian political party would ever condone a military coup
against a democratically elected government. Two, that after
thirteen years in the wilderness, the ALP having won power at the
ballot box could hardly be expected to condone its violation in its
own neighborhood. And three, Australia would not take a position on
Fiji without consulting its closest partner New Zealand, which had
already condemned the coup in the strongest terms possible. All
this was, or should have been, common sense.

Today, some in the interim administration are making a similar noise
about China. Let me say at the outset that I hope the interim
administration is right and that Chinese aid, trade and investment
will flow into Fiji in ample measure in the years to come. But I am
not optimistic. Why? We have been on this route before, soon after
the 1987 coups when Fiji embarked on a 'Look North Policy' with
great enthusiasm, not the least to teach Australia and New Zealand
the lesson that they were not indispensable to Fiji's development.
Nothing tangible came from that initiative. Nothing. And I am not
sure that much will come out of the current China drive either.
China's strategic interest in Fiji is limited. Its regional policy
is driven by the Taiwan factor. At this time of global financial
crisis, no country, including China, will invest in an environment
characterized by systemic instability and periodic eruptions. And
for China, Australia and New Zealand are far more important than
Fiji. For that reason alone, China is unlikely to do anything in
direct defiance of Canberra and Wellington.

The interim administration has repeatedly told the international
community and anyone else who would listen, that merely having
elections will not solve Fiji's problems. I agree. Elections by
themselves don't solve anything. That is common sense. What they
do is to provide the basis of legitimacy for governance. This
fundamental point has escaped many who place trust and confidence in
the military and the interim administration. Fiji tells the
international community that Fiji's constitution is 'undemocratic'
and that it has to go if Fiji is to develop into a fair and just
society. I have alluded to this before, but let me make some
additional points. I do not know what criterion is used to define
democracy. What I do know is that international laws allow for a
certain margin of appreciation to accommodate a country's unique
culture and history and traditions and for these to be incorporated
into its constitutional structure. There is no one-size-fits-all.

Second, I know that the 1997 constitution attempted to deal with the
most fundamental problem that has beset Fiji since the inception of
party politics in 1966. That problem was not a flawed electoral
system (although the first-past-the-post most certainly was),but
the systematic exclusion of one community, the Indo-Fijians, from
sharing power. They were the perennial 'Other' of Fijian politics.
The compulsory power-sharing provision in the 1997 constitution was
designed to address that problem. And in 2006, for the first time
in Fiji's political history ever, there was a genuinely
multi-ethnic, multi-party government in place. A new beginning was
being made, however tentatively. Consider the sweet irony: Fijians
and Indo-Fijians were in government, while the opposition was led by
a General Voter!

Third, I know that there are other forms of democracy other than the
Westminster variety, respected and practiced in many stable
democracies. One such, upon which the 1997 constitution was partly
founded, was what Arend Lijphart has called 'Consociationalism'
whose principal characteristics are: a grand coalition of elites
representing different segments of society; guaranteed group
representation so that no major community is excluded from power;
mutual veto over matters of particular concern to the different
communities; proportionality in political representation; and
segmental autonomy that allows for the maintenance of different
cultural identities. This, too, a model of democracy, and Fiji's
1997 constitution meets its test fully. In this version, reserving
seats for distinct communities is not the evil that the advocates of
the Westminster model make it out to be.

Fourth, I know that no country will ever enjoy political stability
so necessary for economic development unless there is basic respect
for the rule of law. You may have the most perfect constitution in
the world, the most perfect model of democracy on paper, but as long
as you have a large standing military in an environment
characterized by violence and disorder, there will always be a
threat to peace.

The time for apportioning blame about what happened is over. The
question now is: where do we go from here? First, we need to
confront the inescapable truth that Fiji cannot go it alone, that
sooner rather than later, it will have to engage with the
international community Fiji will have to adopt a more open and
inclusive approach. Many initiatives contemplated by the interim
administration are praiseworthy, and I have no doubt that there
would be a meeting of minds on many of them. That is why there is
an urgent need of tact and diplomacy. Fiji is an island, I have
said so many times before, but it is an island in the physical sense
alone. The words of John Donne come to mind: 'No man is an Island,
entire of itself; every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of
the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less,
as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of the thy
friends or thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I
am involved with Mankind.'

As a practical matter, the interim administration, if it is serious
about returning Fiji to parliamentary democracy in a timely fashion
- and I have already expressed my doubts before - it should design
backwards from 2014 and draw up a timetable for taking the country
to elections. Without that demonstrable commitment, the
international community will not engage. That much is clear. No
one wants to be taken for a cheap ride.

It would also be helpful if the interim administration set out in
specific detail what aspect of the abrogated 1997 constitution it
finds problematic so that areas of agreement and disagreement among
the different stakeholders can be clearly identified. The problems
Fiji faces are huge, but they are surmountable. The international
community will come to the party, but it will have to be convinced
of Fiji's genuine desire to engage in an inclusive dialogue. In the
end, though, solutions to Fiji's problems will have to be found
here, devised by the people of this country. And no solution will
be sustainable and enduring unless it is based on tolerance and a
sensitive understanding of this country's diverse inheritance. It
must be based on the understanding that dissent does not mean
disloyalty. President Obama said it well in Cairo earlier this
month. He said that 'in order to move forward, we must say openly
to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often
are said only behind closed doors. There must be a sustained effort
to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one
another; and to seek common ground.' Fiji can realize its potential
that is so within its reach. That is its challenge and its
opportunity.

I want to end by quoting again words from President Obama's Cairo
address which are apt for my purposes. He said: 'I do have an
unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the
ability to speak your own mind and have a say in how you are
governed, confidence in the rule of law and equal administration of
justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from
people; the freedom to live as you choose. These are not just
American ideas; they are human rights, and that is why we will
support them everywhere.'

End Text

MCGANN