By Jone Baledrokadroka

Great socio-economic promise was envisaged for newly-independent Fiji in the 1970s but due to a series of military coups in 1987, 2000 and 2006, this promise has remained unfulfilled. While many scholars explain the coups with reference to ethnic politics, I’d argue that the politicisation of the Fijian military is partly due to the fact that it has developed a self-image as a mediator of political tensions and executor of coups d’état. Unlike the Indonesian military, the Fijian military’s raison d’être wasn’t determined by internal security threats; in fact, it was historically apolitical. And the development of this self-image appears to be an unintended consequence of the Fijian military’s involvement in United Nations (UN) peacekeeping operations.

Much of this development has its roots in the Fijian military’s first deployment on a UN peacekeeping operation as part of the United Nations Interim Forces in Lebanon (UNIFIL) in 1978. Participation in UN peacekeeping operations had obvious benefits to the fledgling Fijian nation, including being seen as a good international citizen, the generation of foreign exchange and improved youth employment.

However, rather than staying in Lebanon for a year or so as originally intended, the soldiers served for more than two decades, withdrawing only in 2002. Moreover, the confidence the Fijian military gained from serving with larger nations’ militaries in UN peacekeeping missions has given it an inflated corporate self-image. Participation in UN peacekeeping missions also necessitated that the military increase in size beyond what would be required to defend Fiji. By making peacekeeping the centerpiece of foreign policy, Fijian governments have unwittingly enhanced the military’s capability to intervene in domestic politics.

Fijian soldiers were also indelibly affected by the mediator role they performed when trying to defuse communal factional conflicts as part of UNIFIL. By the time the battalion pulled out of Lebanon in 2002, this mediator role was engrained in the collective military psyche and valorised by the deaths of 37 Fijian soldiers. Hailing from a small south Pacific nation, relatively isolated from partisan global politics, the Fijian military has been seen as impartial, an important quality for PKO forces. The involvement of Fijian troops in peacekeeping in the Middle East attracted much international attention, including a 1980s UN documentary featuring Fijian soldiers which further enhanced their self-perception. It also gave them a sense of self-belief in being part of a complex diplomatic solution of global proportions. Looking at Fiji today, officers who have been central to the military’s role in the successive coups—Rabuka in 1987, Filipo Tarakinikini in 2000 and Pita Driti in 2006—were all previous commanders of the peacekeeping battalion in Lebanon. The implication of a ‘Lebanon situation’ is quite obvious in Rabuka’s coup operational orders (OPORD 1/87). In the conclusion to the OPORD Rabuka clearly states that ‘You will see that the sit [sic] Fiji is in is dangerous and will develop into something much worse and resembling Lebanon and other troubled areas of the world.’

The self-styled mediator role also stems from a patron–client, or chief-warrior (Turaga-bati),relationship that has developed between elite indigenous chiefs (and their associates) and the predominately indigenous military (99 per cent indigenous Fijians). This relationship has its origins in the intensive peacekeeping tempo and swelled military numbers over the last 25 years.

The security and development agenda of the current Fijian leader Commodore Frank Bainimarama is also a throw-back to Malaya in the 1950s when, as part of British Commonwealth forces, Fijians were imbued with the notion of successfully quelling Communist insurgents. Many of the top government positions are ‘militarised’. This process of setting apart the military from society was carried into the post-independence period by the ruling elite. The military has now entrenched its authoritarian rule until September 2014 at least. The big question is whether the military will continue to play a key role in Fiji politics after the 2014 elections.

Jone Baledrokadroka is a former colonel with 26 years of service in the Fiji military and he recently completed PhD studies in the State, Society and Governance in Melanesia Program at the ANU. Image courtesy of Flickr user United Nations Photo.

The article on which this post is based is published in the December special volume of Security Challenges on ‘Security in the Pacific arc’.

A workshop was held on 8 February 2013 at the ANU to discuss the special volume. Details and registrations are available here.

God bless Fiji.

Thursday, January 31, 2013 – 07:56 By Sir Ronald Sanders

By any objective measure of the Commonwealth’s own criteria, Fiji should by now be expelled from the Commonwealth of Nations. Since September 1st 2009, Fiji has been suspended from the Commonwealth, which means that it cannot   participate in any inter-governmental meetings or in events such as the Commonwealth Games.

The decision to suspend Fiji from the Commonwealth association of 54 states followed the failure of the unelected regime of Commodore Frank Bainimarama to negotiate with the opposition and to commit to hold credible elections by October 2010.

Bainimarama deposed Fiji’s democratically elected government on 5th December 2006 in the country’s fourth coup in 20 years.  Since then, he has ruled the country with an iron fist abrogating its 1997 Constitution, imposing harsh public emergency regulations curtailing
freedom of speech and assembly, violating human rights of persons targeted as dissidents, dissolving elected municipal councils, and disestablishing the Great Council of Chiefs – the umbrella body of indigenous Fijians.  His regime has also presided over the economic decline of a once prosperous country.  The economy performed poorly for three consecutive years from 2009 to 2011 and the IMF identified “resolution of political uncertainties” as one of the priorities to spur investment and raise the growth rate. There has also been heavy emigration of both Indo-Fijians and indigenous Fijians.

The Commonwealth has remained engaged with Fiji throughout the period of its suspension.  The late Sir Paul Reeves – former Governor-General of New Zealand- as the special representative of the Commonwealth Secretary-General, worked valiantly to promote dialogue between Bainimarama and other key political leaders.  Reeves died in August
2011 having had no success.  There was no interest in discussion and compromise by the ruling regime which wanted only acceptance of its own agenda.

Bainimarama has been remarkably cunning at manipulating the international community including his largest two Commonwealth neighbours, Australia and New Zealand — both of which have been criticized for not applying stringent sanctions that could have brought down the regime.  The two largest Pacific countries have broken-off and resumed diplomatic relations with the Fijian regime in efforts to persuade it to allow the preparation of a broadly-acceptable new constitution and to hold general elections.

Early in 2011, the regime agreed to the appointment of a five-member Constitution Commission headed by the well-known Kenyan Constitutional lawyer Professor Yash Ghai.  But, Bainimarama was flattering to deceive.  On January 10, in a TV broadcast, he dispensed with the draft constitution drawn up by the constitutional committee, and assigned his Attorney General to produce a new draft by the end of the month.  Just days earlier, police confiscated 600 copies of the draft constitution that had been released by Yash Ghai.  There can be no more blatant a process of spurning the Commonwealth’s   urging for a return to democracy and the rule of law in Fiji, including a broadly-acceptable new constitution and free and fair general elections by 2014.

Once again, Bainimarama demonstrated no interest in anything but his own agenda.  In this, he is backed by his military.  Nearly 50 military officers now occupy important posts in the civil service and district administrations, and the military want to retain a significant role in the country’s governance  guaranteed by the constitution.  Bainimarama says that elections will be held in 2014 but it seems obvious that his new Constitution, to be framed by his
Attorney-General, will be such that any general elections will resolve none of Fiji’s problems or hasten its return to democracy.

On January 16, the regime issued a decree dictating new and difficult requirements for political parties to be registered.   Existing parties had only 28 days from January 18 to re-register. Many of the 16 existing parties will most likely be eliminated under the rules
laid down by the unelected regime.

All of this has become further complicated by the interests in the region of the world’s two largest economies and rival nations -– China and the United States. In 2010, in response to closer relations being developed between China and Fiji, the US announced policy of “pivot to Asia” witnessed the re-opening of a USAID office in Fiji that had been closed since 1995.  Then in September 2012, China signed several investment agreements with Fiji said to be worth hundreds of millions of dollars.

Therefore, efforts by Fiji’s Commonwealth neighbours in the Pacific, including the Pacific Islands Forum,  to urge a return to democracy by the Fijian regime are being undermined by the clash for influence by China and the US.   Of course, as countries in the Caribbean know
well, when this kind of ‘cold war’ struggle ends (as it did between Russia and the US in the Caribbean), its benefits end with it.  In any event, none of this resolves the fundamental problems in Fiji; it merely perpetuates them.  The people of Fiji continue to endure an
unelected government that has ruled, according to its own wishes, for over six years.

The Commonwealth’s record on Fiji has been commendable so far, but it should now deal firmly with the military government by again expelling the country.  In 1987, the Commonwealth expelled Fiji after two military coups.  Re-admitted 10 years later in 1997 after it introduced a non-discriminatory constitution, the Commonwealth suspended it again in 2000 after another Coup.  It was again re-admitted in 2001 until its suspension in 2009 following Bainimarama’s military coup in 2006.

Sadly, in their struggle for influence in the region, and by ignoring the unconstitutionality of the Fiji regime and its abuses, both the United States and China exert pressure on Commonwealth countries not to expel Fiji from the Commonwealth in accordance with its own rules.

But, the people of Fiji deserve better, and the 9-member Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) should hold the people’s plight uppermost in its collective mind when it meets in April.  It should also be faithful to the Commonwealth’s own principles and rules.

(Sanders was a member of the Eminent Persons Group (2010-2011) commissioned by Heads of Government to produce a report on n reform of the Commonwealth.  He is a former Caribbean Diplomat and now Visiting Fellow, London University)

Responses and previous commentaries: www.sirronaldsanders.com

Tabu soro.

God bless Fiji