ABC's Newsline - A Skewed Potrayal of Fiji's PIDF.

Australia News Network's program Newsline, covers the recent Pacific Islands Development Forum (PIDF), which was a diplomatic initiative of Fiji .

Most of the commentary in the Newsline segment, contained loaded terminology and the analysis within the video, is viewed through the prism of the Australian Foreign Affairs establishment. The general theme of the Newsline segment, unfairly portrays this new addition to the regional architecture, in particular subtle overtones of bias.

A recent post by Grubsheet accurately describes a similar strain of bias, existing in Radio Australia; apparently this is an endemic problem within the Australia Broadcasting Corporation (ABC).

(Video of Newsline segment posted below)

Club Em Designs

X-Post : The Strategist - Why Carr Needs The Velvet Glove More Than The Iron Fist.

Source: The Strategist

31 Jan 2013

By Richard Herr
 

On my flight home from Fiji recently, I was struck by the continuing negativism of the arguments regarding Australian relations with Fiji. Rowan Callick’s commentary in the Weekend Australian is another example of a tough line on Fiji without any positive proposals. The one element of novelty in Callick’s piece, however, is the suggestion that Carr’s ‘soft’ approach toward the Government of Commodore Voreqe (‘Frank’) Bainimarama is the reason why Fiji has slipped the leash and gone feral recently. But this belies the evidence of the past six years. When has the Bainimarama Government ever been on an Australian leash or even responded positively to pressure from Canberra?

Having viewed the changing events in Fiji fairly closely in a variety of roles over the past six years, I find it difficult to see how the tactics that have failed to have any influence on the course of Fiji’s return to democracy since the December 2006 military coup will work in the 18 months before Fiji is due to go to elections. And this view has been bolstered by a week in Suva talking with a range of people that included participants in the constitutional process, current and former members of Government and academics. More of the same intransigence simply will not to produce a different outcome.

The Bainimarama Government has neither deviated from the roadmap’s timing for the return to democracy that it announced in July 2009 and nor has it altered this timetable since Bob Carr became Foreign Minister. Still, it’s a welcome development that Carr apparently has accepted this—albeit at a fairly low level—but it’s far too late to have the sort of influence that was on offer at the beginning of 2008.

The deepening frustration with Canberra since July 2009 comes from seeing Australian Governments refusing to set incremental steps for returning to a balanced relationship; of being obdurate even to the point of reneging on an agreement. Fiji’s lifting of censorship rules, withdrawal of the public emergency regulations, registering of voters and starting of the constitutional process have all been greeted with ‘not enough’ from Canberra.

The Bainimarama Government nevertheless expected some improvement in relations after the July 2012 tripartite agreement between Australia, Fiji and New Zealand to restore High Commissioners and relax some visa sanctions. However, to its genuine disappointment, many in Government in Suva saw little real change. They smile wryly at Australian critics who interpreted Carr’s expression of understanding over some of the complexities of the drafting of a new constitution as example of unwarranted appeasement.

Understanding scarcely constitutes undeserved compassion in a sanctions regime against Fiji which includes elements that, arguably, would be illegal if applied domestically—such as those against family members of targeted officials. Indeed, within the Fiji Government, the travel sanctions against it are claimed to be more extensive than even those against Mugabe at his worst. Yet, for all their severity, the critics can’t point to a single positive instance where these sanctions have hastened the return to democracy in Fiji by so much as a day.

Richard Herr

" Whether anyone one in Canberra wants to admit it, Australia has suffered a retreat from influence within our region and its institutions; a decline of support from our neighbours in the United Nations; and diminished respect from key allies in the South Pacific on regional affairs."

Seen from the Suva perspective, there hasn’t been a skerrick of public encouragement to mark the passing of the roadmap’s milestones to elections. The most recent disappointment was the denial of a visa to Aisake Taito, the chief executive of the Fiji National Provident Fund (a Government enterprise) and Bainimarama’s brother-in-law, who was to make a business trip to Australia at the end of December. Suva saw this as a clear breach of the July 2012 tripartite agreement. According to one commentator, it’s now highly likely that the Government’s response will be to refuse Margaret Twomey a chance to present her credentials as the first Australian High Commissioner to Fiji since James Batley was expelled in November 2009.

Whether anyone one in Canberra wants to admit it, Australia has suffered a retreat from influence within our region and its institutions; a decline of support from our neighbours in the United Nations; and diminished respect from key allies in the South Pacific on regional affairs. These foreign policy consequences for the contretemps between Australia and Fiji shouldn’t be used to excuse the weaknesses in the political processes of Fiji today but the critics, especially those so vocal in the Australian media, should be consistent in their expectations.

Even supporters of the Bainimarama Government have been disappointed that it hasn’t taken every opportunity to demonstrate the bona fides of its professed reformist goals. This includes, most recently, aspects of the constitutional process and the edict regulating political parties as well as a renewed activism by the Republic of Fiji Military Forces. Nevertheless, the present Government is the only game in town at least until 2014. Canberra needs to recognise this even as its South Pacific allies have already done. Moreover, Canberra needs to recognise and address the fact that Fiji has its own complaints against Australia.

It’s impossible to prove that a gentler, more engaged approach to the Bainimarama Government would have accelerated the return to democracy or made the path to democracy smoother. What’s undeniable is that the hard line approach advocated by critics over the years hasn’t prevented any of the adverse consequences of the toxic political relationship between the two countries. Indeed, it has contributed demonstrably to these outcomes. Failing to reset policy settings with regard to Fiji until ‘after free and fair elections in 2014’ merely demonstrates this ineffectiveness. Worse, where does Canberra go when elections are held under a constitution it regards as flawed by a process it deems biased? Does Australia rail against the result as not ‘free and fair’ and so maintain the sanctions that have had no effect?

It’s far too late to expect any great Australian influence on Suva’s charted course to the 2014 elections. But there’s much to be done to assist technically with the preparations for them, if Bainimarama will accept help now. If not, it’s still essential to prepare the ground for more effective relations after the elections. Hectoring from the bunkers is not only a demonstration of impotence; it is also preparing a grave for future relations.

Richard Herr is honorary director of the Centre for International and Regional Affairs, University of Fiji. Some of these themes will be explored more fully with regards to the broader implications for Australia’s security interests in Melanesia at RUSI’s forthcoming 2^nd International Defence and Security Dialogue. Image courtesy of Flickr user Asia Society.


Club Em Designs

The Audacity of Change- Fiji's Beta Democracy (Part2).

Jenny Hayward-Jones' latest blog posting on "The Interpreter" titled "New Strategic Framework", features new developments in the arena of Fiji's political cross-roads.
The article in question, began with the factual play-by-play events, then abruptly ends with a "did not convince" rhetorical device.

This particular rhetorical device was somewhat confusing, as it veered the otherwise impressive objective opening, to a myopic ending; un-intentionally or intentionally spinning ignorant readers into the cornucopia of biased projections about Fiji.

ABC Pacific Beat program July 1st 2009 , previews the expected speech by Fiji's Interim Prime Minister, in an abrupt interview (last quarter of show)with Vijay Narayan.

Also interesting was the similar vein of questions, alluding to the question: "timing of elections", in the context of the media reports, highlighting the formulation of a new constitution in Fiji, as outlined in a speech by Frank Bainimarama. Brief audio of speech.

The common thread between Lal and Hayward-Jones' comments were undeniably similar as if they were 'peas of the same pod'. Both analysis's started off with the speech's focus on the fixing the economy and morphed in the harangue about the delay about election timing, with a pinch of monologue related to the future of the military. Neither Lal & Hayward-Jones, addressed the issue of native land which was also raised in the same speech by Bainimarama.

Another misleading angle, peddled by Professor Lal, pointed out national statistics of poverty, while conveniently ignoring that those poverty rates did not rise out of a vacuum and implied all those economic woes are directly related to the activities of the Interim Government.

It seems both Lal and Hayward-Jones selectively feel that a 3 minute democracy is the best remedy for Fiji. Undoubtedly and unsurprisingly, this flawed sentiment was also echoed by the Australian Foreign Minister, Stephen Smith.



Dr. Lal, later questioned the issue about the consultation phase, regarding this new Fiji Constitution. However the ABC host did not bother to challenge Lal's remarks or even bother to compare the present and continuing consultations, to the diluted 1997 version. Neither did ABC offer any other opposing views, apart from their favorite talking heads, in their so called forum.

A surreptitious version of due diligence; that was formed during Lal's celebrated and at times, over-glorified tenure as 'architect' of the 1997 Fiji Constitution. Irregardless of the glaring failures of the 1997 legal document; in the context of racial equality- a crucial issue which Brij Lal has vacillated on repeated occasions.

Later the Radio Australia's news forum discussed the question of Fiji's 2014 Elections and the speech contents.

In an another one sided interview-a known maker's mark of Radio Australia, featured the same celebrity expert of Fiji politics, Dr. Brij Lal; a tenured Professor of History at Australia National University (ANU).

Another SDL stalwart also on the ANU tenure, Jone Baledrokadroka, is the contracted Fiji military expert; consulted by Radio Australia and underscored in the quotes featuring Baledrokadroka, in the June 26th 2009-ABC article.

Undeniably, these series of articles by ABC, does raise eyebrows about the impartiality factor. Although, those allegations may now have a ring of truth to it; such questions are usually dismissed by the proponents of media freedom and political naysayers, as simply baseless.





In the above posted ABC article, the image shown and article is misleading to say the least and was captured few months earlier, then the event reported. It is unclear, how any times the ABC web page continues to show this out-dated image of Frank Bainimarama in uniform, along side their breaking news on Fiji?

Case in point, Fiji TV video footage (posted below) actually shows Fiji's Interim Prime Minister, Frank Bainimarama wearing a suit during the delivery of his national address.






However, these media generated 'stimuli' designed to agitate Fiji's population, a template realistically spear headed by a 2007 white paper funded by ADF's Section of Defense Science and Technology Organization.




The paper in question, with an eye-opening title "Historical Analysis of Population Reactions To Stimuli-A Case Study On Fiji", was unveiled in a thread started by 'No Sapo' on Fiji Exiles Board and does give legitimacy to the well documented and coordinated Australian media assault. Coupled with the Trans-tasman diplomatic cold shoulder and colonial mentality. Case in point, PACER Pluse negotiations.

A micro-excerpt of the paper:

1. Introduction

Previous reports [1-4] have discussed the impact that non-combatant populations can have on Australian Defence Force (ADF) operations, particularly in urban environments. Indeed, the success or failure of an operation may depend on the reactions of the civilian population, and as such, the study of population reactions becomes a matter of importance.

These reports [1-4] have demonstrated that valuable insights can be obtained by analysing the stimuli which have in the past resulted in reactions from the population (thereby creating an event). These events may range from insurgences1 through assisting/supporting one side in a conflict to popular support of a group or ideal. Hence, understanding the stimuli2 which have in the past caused (and hence might cause) the population to act in a particular way, resulting in some event, can give insights into how they might react in the future, provided there are sufficient historical trends.

This report is the fifth historical analysis of stimuli and effects of populations in the South East Asian/South West Pacific region, which was identified as of particular interest to Australia in the 2000 Defence White Paper and the 2003 National Security Update [5, 6]. Fiji falls in this region as well as having a well documented history of coups, insurgencies and violence. A timeline of these events for Fiji is in Appendix A3.

This study provides insights into how this population have reacted to past stimuli, which may have both operational and strategic applications. The resulting qualitative data could be used in war games or training exercises where the input of the reaction of a population is from a real environment. Additionally, these studies provide baseline data for futures studies, regional assessments and comparisons. They are aimed at providing contextual information and guidance on socio-cultural issues for planners in multi agency operations in the region.

2. Methodology

The methodology used in this report is similar to that used in previous reports [1-4]. Because this methodology has been explained in detail previously, only a brief description is included here. This work uses a multidisciplinary approach taken from such disciplines as operations research, political science, anthropology and qualitative historical analysis. These methods were used to extract stimuli and events from qualitative data that was obtained from a broad literature search on Fijian history. It must be stressed that this data is not 'statistically valid' in the sense that each event has only occurred once, thus rendering statistical results

1 Insurgences are defined as riots, rebellions or revolts by the Macquarie Dictionary 3rd Edition.
2 Stimuli are represented as causes and triggers throughout the report.
3 This work was undertaken prior to the coup at the end of 2006.