DEVIL NOT IN DETAILS: We wonder if NFP leader off-loaded some of his assets before declaring new ones in 2018 Declaration of Assets Form? 2014 Asset Declarations:Fijileaks: SHIELDING People's Alliance Party TREASURER Joseva Leano
Fijileaks: We wonder why Mohammed Saneem, who didn't have the requisite qualifications when he was appointed Supervisor of Elections, rush to Aiyaz Khaiyum and Frank Bainimarama and complained about the behaviour of the former Solicitor-General Sharvada Sharma, that |
Dismissed Solicitor General Sharvada Sharma’s lawyer, Jon Apted gave details about the suspension and sacking of Sharma in court today while making his submission for their application to seek leave for judicial review. Sharma filed legal action in relation to the termination of his employment on the 12th of November last year by former President Jioji Konrote. |
* The legal action is against the President of Fiji, the Judicial Services Commission and the Attorney General of Fiji.
* While making submissions, Apted says this is a case where a former public servant who had spent 24 years exclusively in government legal services – the last 10 of which in an acting or substantive capacity as Solicitor General was suspended without pay and then dismissed by the President.
* Apted told the court that Sharma says this was in breach of the relevant provisions of the constitution governing the process and he was not accorded his common law rights to natural justice. The Munro Leys partner says Sharma’s constitutional rights to due process have also been infringed.
* Apted adds the decisions being challenged have left Sharma and his family without income and they adversely affected Sharma’s psychological state. He says it has also adversely affected Sharma’s standing in the community because he held one of the highest offices in this land and there were media and social media reports about what happened.
* Apted says Sharma has law degrees from the University of Waikato and the University of London and since being admitted to the bar in 1997, Sharma has given his whole professional life to this country and has not worked for any other employer other than the Government of Fiji.
* He further says Sharma was first appointed Acting Solicitor General in 2011 and appointed substantively in 2014. Apted says the background to this case is the Niko Nawaikula case. He adds in July to August 2021, Sharma and a Principal Legal Officer in the Attorney General’s Office represented the Supervisor of Elections and the Attorney General in a petition brought in to the Court of Disputed Returns by Nawaikula.
* Apted says Nawaikula had lost his seat in parliament. He adds the court ruled in favour of Nawaikula, and the Supervisor of Elections after this decision, expressed dissatisfaction with representation by Sharvada Sharma and his associate and brought a complaint against Sharma to the Independent Legal Services Commission. Apted went on to say that Sharma was given that complaint by the Chief Registrar and responded to it and it was a complaint under the Legal Practitioners Act.
* He says Sharma continued at work. Apted told the court that on 16th September 2021, the Prime Minister summoned Sharvada Sharma to his office where Sharma was informed that the Prime Minister had been hearing things and he wanted Sharma to resign. He says Sharma denied any wrong doing and sought time to explain. Apted further says Sharma was given a short time to explain in writing which he did and Sharma explained that he had not done anything wrong and that he sees no reason to resign.
* He adds that Sharma also told the Prime Minister in writing that the Judicial Services Commission was the proper authority to consider any complaint and deliberate on it and hear the complaint in a procedurally correct manner required under the constitution. Apted says Sharma expressly reserved all of his rights.
* He also revealed that on the following Monday, the Prime Minister requested Sharma to go to his office immediately and the Prime Minister gave Sharma a pre-prepared resignation letter to sign. Apted says Sharma refused to sign it.
* He adds that as Sharma left the Prime Minister’s Office his phone was taken off him by a security guard and when he went back to the Attorney General’s Office, his laptop was taken off him by a security guard as well.
* Apted told the court that Sharvada Sharma had not been subject to any disciplinary proceedings and had not been suspended but the executive acted to remove his tools of office.
* The Munro Leys Partner says Sharma then called the Chairperson of the Judicial Services Commission and informed him about what had just happened. Apted told the court that the Chairperson of the Judicial Services Commission informed Sharma that he had received a telephone call from the Prime Minister requesting that Sharma be immediately suspended. * He says the Chairperson of the Judicial Services Commission told Sharma that he is calling a meeting of the Commission the same afternoon to consider suspension. Apted further adds that during the phone conversation, the Chairperson of the Judicial Services Commission told Sharma that his suspension would be with pay as usual.
* He says at 7.30pm that evening, the suspension letter was delivered to Sharma and it stated that it comes from the President. Apted says the letter informed Sharma that the President had received advice from the Judicial Services Commission on allegations of misbehaviour and the President was suspending Sharma pending the appointment of a tribunal. It was heard in court that the letter stated that Sharma would also be suspended without pay.
* High Court Judge, Justice Deepthi Amaratunga will deliver his ruling on May 9th.
John Apted told the High Court that on 16th September 2021, the Prime Minister summoned Sharvada Sharma to his office where Sharma was informed that the Prime Minister had been hearing things and he wanted Sharma to resign. He says Sharma denied any wrong doing and sought time to explain. Apted further says Sharma was given a short time to explain in writing which he did and Sharma explained that he had not done anything wrong and that he sees no reason to resign.
![Picture](/uploads/1/3/7/5/13759434/published/screenshot-2022-02-17-at-23-33-05-grubsheet-facebook.png?1645140884)
As one of the main opposition leaders said in a message to Grubsheet. “They are scared of you now”.
Hey fellas. BOO!
Intense paranoia has taken hold at the top of the FijiFirst government and its propaganda organs judging from the action taken against Grubsheet to ban us from the government Facebook page altogether.
For months, Grubsheet hasn’t been able to leave comments on the government’s page but now it has gone a step further and deprived us of the ability to see anything at all. When we search for the page, it simply doesn’t come up. Yet everyone else is seeing it and Grubsheet can access it from other computers. This ban extends to Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum’s official page, which we can still access but can’t read the actual postings.
Clearly the AG and his communications elves at Vatis can dish it out but can’t take it. They are evidently seething that Grubsheet exposed the industrial-scale use of fake Facebook profiles to comment favourably on government initiatives and attack FijiFirst’s political opponents. But banning us altogether is an astonishing course of action for a supposedly democratic government, especially when it had already prevented us from commenting on individual postings.
The Vatis bag of dirty tricks still includes its multiple phantom profiles, which Grubsheet will continue to monitor and expose through our network of informants who are monitoring all aspects of the government’s activities in the election lead-up. We will need to be a lot more alert and sceptical ourselves. Because there is clear evidence that having been exposed, Vatis is actively trying to be more devious in its deception.
Hey fellas. BOO!
Intense paranoia has taken hold at the top of the FijiFirst government and its propaganda organs judging from the action taken against Grubsheet to ban us from the government Facebook page altogether.
For months, Grubsheet hasn’t been able to leave comments on the government’s page but now it has gone a step further and deprived us of the ability to see anything at all. When we search for the page, it simply doesn’t come up. Yet everyone else is seeing it and Grubsheet can access it from other computers. This ban extends to Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum’s official page, which we can still access but can’t read the actual postings.
Clearly the AG and his communications elves at Vatis can dish it out but can’t take it. They are evidently seething that Grubsheet exposed the industrial-scale use of fake Facebook profiles to comment favourably on government initiatives and attack FijiFirst’s political opponents. But banning us altogether is an astonishing course of action for a supposedly democratic government, especially when it had already prevented us from commenting on individual postings.
The Vatis bag of dirty tricks still includes its multiple phantom profiles, which Grubsheet will continue to monitor and expose through our network of informants who are monitoring all aspects of the government’s activities in the election lead-up. We will need to be a lot more alert and sceptical ourselves. Because there is clear evidence that having been exposed, Vatis is actively trying to be more devious in its deception.
![Picture](/uploads/1/3/7/5/13759434/published/screenshot-2022-02-17-at-23-18-56-patrick-lumley-facebook.png?1645141208)
Of the two phantoms we exposed and banned from this page today – the African looking “Patrick Lumley” and one “Archal Kumar” - Kumar’s profile is uncommonly sophisticated compared with the crude efforts we have seen thus far of a gaggle of false “identities” using cover photos of beach scenes, islands, shadowy figures in hoodies or back shots of random individuals.
"Archal" has photos, “friends”, pretends to have attended Suva Grammar and to all intents and purposes looks genuine. It actually required a keen eye to pick her out and our thanks go to one of our readers for alerting us to this shameless fake. On closer examination, our phantom made a fatal mistake by posting photos of “her” with the Auckland-based social media commentator, Shailendra Raju, presumably to add weight to her credibility.
It’s only on closer examination that you can see that each of the photos is of a different woman (Hey Vatis, it’s called identity theft and it is illegal ). And when we asked Shailendra Raju if he knew "Archal Kumar", the response came back that he had never heard of her.
So Labasa, Vatis! And believe us - Arnold Chanel and Damien Whippy - you’ll be seeing a lot more of Labasa over the coming weeks and months as the campaign by Grubsheet and our readers gains momentum to expose you and your fraudulent conduct on behalf of your patron, Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum.
As one of the main opposition leaders said in a message to Grubsheet. “They are scared of you now”.
Hey fellas. BOO!
"Archal" has photos, “friends”, pretends to have attended Suva Grammar and to all intents and purposes looks genuine. It actually required a keen eye to pick her out and our thanks go to one of our readers for alerting us to this shameless fake. On closer examination, our phantom made a fatal mistake by posting photos of “her” with the Auckland-based social media commentator, Shailendra Raju, presumably to add weight to her credibility.
It’s only on closer examination that you can see that each of the photos is of a different woman (Hey Vatis, it’s called identity theft and it is illegal ). And when we asked Shailendra Raju if he knew "Archal Kumar", the response came back that he had never heard of her.
So Labasa, Vatis! And believe us - Arnold Chanel and Damien Whippy - you’ll be seeing a lot more of Labasa over the coming weeks and months as the campaign by Grubsheet and our readers gains momentum to expose you and your fraudulent conduct on behalf of your patron, Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum.
As one of the main opposition leaders said in a message to Grubsheet. “They are scared of you now”.
Hey fellas. BOO!
Re- Richard Jad:
We would love this 'Little Fella' and Grubsheet's regular commentator with 'no school or university' to write a column for Fijileaks. That is why we had long ago made a conscious decision to shut our comments section. There is no way to verify most identities unless, as an administrator, one is in touch with the likes of 'Richard Jad' - provided his parents allow one to establish contact with him, a minor;
otherwise one will be accused of cyber grooming of a minor.
Fijileaks: It is also ridiculous for the two to boast about PAP. The reality is Lynda Tabuya had failed to cross the 5 per cent threshold with her old party and Sitiveni Rabuka, like a 'blind duna', was snaking around since losing the 1999 general election. SODELPA welcomed them in good faith and the reward - they tried to destory the party and are now in PAP. The ridiculous d'Hondt electoral system encourages party leaders to garner most votes, to carry their parties over the 5 per cent threshold and either into Government or Opposition. That is why Rabuka had most votes. It was SODELPA voters and other candidates who had shored up his votes.
One failed candidate, Dr Mere Samisoni, claimed that the two stole 5,000 of her votes in the Lami constituency, an allegation Tabuya denied
Fijileaks:
* We find it quite unusual and totally bewildering that the PAP has been able to attract 120 applications, so it claims, to stand for the 2022/23 elections without any information at all on whether or not the Party has already adopted its Constitution and appointed its Management Board.
* Isn’t the Party putting the cart before the horse in this instance?
* Is there a plan for PAP to immediately convene a SGM to formalize the appointment of its various office bearers and approve the setting up of its constituency branches?
* Will the 120 applicants be scrutinized by a selection Committee of the duly authorized Management Board?
* Or is it back to the collapsed National Bank of Fiji style management?
"Abdul Nazeem doesn’t own the land on which the businesses are established. He hasn’t even leased the land. He has simply taken what belongs to someone else – freehold land that has been owned by the prominent Nadi family, the Ferrier-Watsons, for more than 100 years." |
![Picture](/uploads/1/3/7/5/13759434/screenshot-2022-02-16-at-10-14-05-grubsheet-facebook_orig.png)
FIJI TAKES THE ZIMBABWE ROAD
A stunning development that will rock investor confidence in Fiji to the core – the principal law officer of the land, Attorney General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, aiding and abetting a FijiFirst supporter to seize a portion of freehold land belonging to someone else and provide him with taxpayer funds to set up businesses on that land.
Readers will recall our story earlier today in which we turned a spotlight on the AG for using the opening of this venture in Nadi to give the business community gratuitous advice about running their own businesses when he is patently struggling to adequately manage the Fijian economy. Yet the real story is much bigger. And it will send a chill through anyone with an existing parcel of freehold land in Fiji or anyone from outside the country wanting to buy freehold land and invest in the country.
Some of the detail of the new venture is contained in the accompanying story in the CJ Patel Fiji Sun about how a “Nadi businessman” Abdul Nazeem, used a government allocation of $14,000 to help establish the Rose Car Wash, Restaurant Lemon Tea and Home Duty Hair Salon on the Denarau Back Road.
The AG was there to officially launch the three businesses but there is a problem. A very big problem indeed.
Abdul Nazeem doesn’t own the land on which the businesses are established. He hasn’t even leased the land. He has simply taken what belongs to someone else – freehold land that has been owned by the prominent Nadi family, the Ferrier-Watsons, for more than 100 years.
Abdul Nazeem is a squatter with no legal right whatsoever to occupy the Watson’s land. He didn’t even ask them for their permission to do so let alone offer to pay rent. Yet with the assistance of the FijiFirst government, he has not only occupied land that is not his but the Fijian taxpayer has been party to this illegal occupation by providing him with a sum of money to establish his businesses.
The AG has some very serious explaining to do. Was he aware of Abdul Nazeem’s illegal occupation of the Ferrier-Watson land when he agreed to provide him with taxpayer assistance? Was he aware of the illegal occupation when he agreed to officially open his businesses and promote them? And what processes in the government could have possibly produced this outcome - a naked assault on the universal principle of the sanctity of ownership of freehold title?
Simply put, what has happened in Nadi is no different to what we saw in Zimbabwe in the 1990s – freehold landowners having their properties invaded by squatters. And unable to remove them because they had the support of the Patriotic Front regime of Robert Mugabe. Thousands of white farmers were driven from land their ancestors had cultivated for generations after Mugabe unleashed the “war veterans” of his independence movement and encouraged them take over those properties. These invasions triggering an eventual catastrophe of food shortages in what had been the “basket of southern Africa” as work stopped on those farms altogether.
Incredibly, we are now seeing the same assault on freehold ownership in Fiji at precisely the same time as the FijiFirst government desperately tries to attract foreign investment to kick start the ailing economy. As the story of what has happened on the Denarau Back Road inevitably spreads like wildfire in the local and overseas investment community, that investment simply isn’t going to happen. Because no-one can now be confident that if they buy even a portion of the small allocation of freehold land in Fiji (8 per cent of the total land area) that their right of ownership will be protected.
Like Robert Mugabe, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum has plunged a dagger into the economy with a blatant act of favouritism to enable a fellow Muslim to take land from white Fijians who have owned it for generations. A family that has generously allocated the land it owns over the years for a variety of community purposes – including to the Methodist and Roman Catholic churches - and that has played an important role in the life of the West, including introducing tourism to the Nausori Highlands and establishing Denarau as Fiji’s foremost tourism playground.
If that’s not the Zimbabwe Road, then I personally don't know what is. Oh, except for tomorrow’s special report that is also a cautionary tale for anyone with money invested in Fiji. Or for Fijians planning to leave the country to set up a new life overseas.
A stunning development that will rock investor confidence in Fiji to the core – the principal law officer of the land, Attorney General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, aiding and abetting a FijiFirst supporter to seize a portion of freehold land belonging to someone else and provide him with taxpayer funds to set up businesses on that land.
Readers will recall our story earlier today in which we turned a spotlight on the AG for using the opening of this venture in Nadi to give the business community gratuitous advice about running their own businesses when he is patently struggling to adequately manage the Fijian economy. Yet the real story is much bigger. And it will send a chill through anyone with an existing parcel of freehold land in Fiji or anyone from outside the country wanting to buy freehold land and invest in the country.
Some of the detail of the new venture is contained in the accompanying story in the CJ Patel Fiji Sun about how a “Nadi businessman” Abdul Nazeem, used a government allocation of $14,000 to help establish the Rose Car Wash, Restaurant Lemon Tea and Home Duty Hair Salon on the Denarau Back Road.
The AG was there to officially launch the three businesses but there is a problem. A very big problem indeed.
Abdul Nazeem doesn’t own the land on which the businesses are established. He hasn’t even leased the land. He has simply taken what belongs to someone else – freehold land that has been owned by the prominent Nadi family, the Ferrier-Watsons, for more than 100 years.
Abdul Nazeem is a squatter with no legal right whatsoever to occupy the Watson’s land. He didn’t even ask them for their permission to do so let alone offer to pay rent. Yet with the assistance of the FijiFirst government, he has not only occupied land that is not his but the Fijian taxpayer has been party to this illegal occupation by providing him with a sum of money to establish his businesses.
The AG has some very serious explaining to do. Was he aware of Abdul Nazeem’s illegal occupation of the Ferrier-Watson land when he agreed to provide him with taxpayer assistance? Was he aware of the illegal occupation when he agreed to officially open his businesses and promote them? And what processes in the government could have possibly produced this outcome - a naked assault on the universal principle of the sanctity of ownership of freehold title?
Simply put, what has happened in Nadi is no different to what we saw in Zimbabwe in the 1990s – freehold landowners having their properties invaded by squatters. And unable to remove them because they had the support of the Patriotic Front regime of Robert Mugabe. Thousands of white farmers were driven from land their ancestors had cultivated for generations after Mugabe unleashed the “war veterans” of his independence movement and encouraged them take over those properties. These invasions triggering an eventual catastrophe of food shortages in what had been the “basket of southern Africa” as work stopped on those farms altogether.
Incredibly, we are now seeing the same assault on freehold ownership in Fiji at precisely the same time as the FijiFirst government desperately tries to attract foreign investment to kick start the ailing economy. As the story of what has happened on the Denarau Back Road inevitably spreads like wildfire in the local and overseas investment community, that investment simply isn’t going to happen. Because no-one can now be confident that if they buy even a portion of the small allocation of freehold land in Fiji (8 per cent of the total land area) that their right of ownership will be protected.
Like Robert Mugabe, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum has plunged a dagger into the economy with a blatant act of favouritism to enable a fellow Muslim to take land from white Fijians who have owned it for generations. A family that has generously allocated the land it owns over the years for a variety of community purposes – including to the Methodist and Roman Catholic churches - and that has played an important role in the life of the West, including introducing tourism to the Nausori Highlands and establishing Denarau as Fiji’s foremost tourism playground.
If that’s not the Zimbabwe Road, then I personally don't know what is. Oh, except for tomorrow’s special report that is also a cautionary tale for anyone with money invested in Fiji. Or for Fijians planning to leave the country to set up a new life overseas.
The Ferrier-Watsons (Beverely and her son Marc McElrath) donated thousands of dollars to FFP in 2017/18; Patricia donated $100
"The executors of Norma Athol Ferrier-Watson, had ceased to be the registered proprietors of the land before the hearing by the High Court Judge. In accordance with the will of their testatrix they had transferred the title to a family company, Kennedy Watson Limited. This fact appears not to have been disclosed to the High Court Judge or to the Court of Appeal."
Fiji Supreme Court, 1995
The FERRIER-WATSONS AND TENANTS FIGHT IT OUT IN FIJI COURTS
They had dispossessed many sitting tenants from their lands, one for being
simply late in paying his land rent to the family
1995: SUPREME COURT OF FIJI
VENKATAMMA V BRYAN CHARLES FERRIER-WATSON
The litigation has been marked by procedural irregularities on both sides. It emerged on the subsequent hearing of a stay application that the plaintiffs, who were the executors of Norma Athol Ferrier-Watson, had ceased to be the registered proprietors of the land before the hearing by the High Court Judge. After the issue of the summons, in accordance with the will of their testatrix they had transferred the title to a family company, Kennedy Watson Limited. This fact appears not to have been disclosed to the High Court Judge or to the Court of Appeal. As this Court indicated during the argument of the present appeal, the proceeding could apparently have been regularised by a simple amendment substituting the company as plaintiff, but no application for an amendment has been made, unless (which is not altogether clear) counsel for the respondents is to be understood as having made a tacit application to this Court.
http://www.paclii.org/cgi-bin/sinodisp/fj/cases/FijiLawRp/1995/3.html?stem=&synonyms=&query=ferrier-watson
In case SHAMIMA ALI has not seen this news from Malaysia:
In a two-minute video posted on Instagram called 'Mother's Tips', the deputy minister firstly advised husbands to 'discipline' their 'stubborn' wives by speaking to them. But if they did not change their behaviour, then they should sleep apart from them for three days.
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10518473/Outrage-Malaysian-female-minister-advises-husbands-beat-stubborn-wives-gently.html
Fijileaks: SHOUTING from inside the kitchen afterwards is cheap politics.
When will FIJIANS wake up and realise that the so-called all mighty United States of America doesn't give a hoot whether women were at the talk table or making tea and cakes in their burqas. The delegation was here to STOP Chinese influence and Aiyaz Khaiyum was sweetning them.
Recently, blinking Biden and Blinken fled Afghanistan, leaving the Afghan women to the mercy of the Taliban. And yet Ali and Rakuita were expecting Blinken and the US Embassy to invite women to the talks.
Where was FELIX ANTHONY? Busy scheming to pop up at the poll?
The Fiji Women’s Crisis Centre is asking why there were no women during the meeting between the Fijian Government and United States Secretary of State Antony Blinken over the weekend.
Similar sentiments have been shared by former Minister for Women, Children and Poverty Alleviation, Mereseini Rakuita.
Rakuita has posted on her Facebook page that she thinks we missed a once in a lifetime opportunity to show to a superpower the value and agency of women’s voices in national development and leadership.
FWCC Coordinator, Shamima Ali says both sides of the table were devoid of any women and if the picture of men staring at each other across the table is their idea of diplomacy, then we have obviously not learnt anything about the invaluable input of women’s participation in issues that affect our nation.
Ali says the table looked so bare without women despite the Fijian Government’s policy claims in promoting gender equality.
She says former Minister for Women Mereseini Rakuita was right that it was a missed opportunity for Fiji to have a woman speak at the high-level table.
Ali says during the meeting, Acting Prime Minister Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum spoke at length about climate change and he did so without taking into account that climate change impacts women greatly.
She says had women been given a seat at the table, they would have been able to offer invaluable insights.
Ali adds they were conspicuous by their absence and we could have done better than this.
She says Sayed-Khaiyum missed a great opportunity to show that he genuinely cares about promoting gender equality and addressing violence against women and girls.
Ali is also calling on the Minister for Women, Children and Poverty Alleviation Rosy Akbar to provide an update on the Fiji Country Gender Assessment Report that was supposed to have been launched in December last year.
She says this would greatly help the FWCC see the gaps and plan strategies to promote gender equality and equity, two issues of great importance to our nation in promoting the human rights of women.
We have sent questions to the Acting Prime Minister Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, Permanent Secretary for the Office of the Prime Minister Yogesh Karan and the Minister for Women, Children and Poverty Alleviation Rosy Akbar regarding the issues raised by Ali and are awaiting their response.
Fijivillage has also sent questions to the US Embassy who say they are looking into the matter.
Similar sentiments have been shared by former Minister for Women, Children and Poverty Alleviation, Mereseini Rakuita.
Rakuita has posted on her Facebook page that she thinks we missed a once in a lifetime opportunity to show to a superpower the value and agency of women’s voices in national development and leadership.
FWCC Coordinator, Shamima Ali says both sides of the table were devoid of any women and if the picture of men staring at each other across the table is their idea of diplomacy, then we have obviously not learnt anything about the invaluable input of women’s participation in issues that affect our nation.
Ali says the table looked so bare without women despite the Fijian Government’s policy claims in promoting gender equality.
She says former Minister for Women Mereseini Rakuita was right that it was a missed opportunity for Fiji to have a woman speak at the high-level table.
Ali says during the meeting, Acting Prime Minister Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum spoke at length about climate change and he did so without taking into account that climate change impacts women greatly.
She says had women been given a seat at the table, they would have been able to offer invaluable insights.
Ali adds they were conspicuous by their absence and we could have done better than this.
She says Sayed-Khaiyum missed a great opportunity to show that he genuinely cares about promoting gender equality and addressing violence against women and girls.
Ali is also calling on the Minister for Women, Children and Poverty Alleviation Rosy Akbar to provide an update on the Fiji Country Gender Assessment Report that was supposed to have been launched in December last year.
She says this would greatly help the FWCC see the gaps and plan strategies to promote gender equality and equity, two issues of great importance to our nation in promoting the human rights of women.
We have sent questions to the Acting Prime Minister Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, Permanent Secretary for the Office of the Prime Minister Yogesh Karan and the Minister for Women, Children and Poverty Alleviation Rosy Akbar regarding the issues raised by Ali and are awaiting their response.
Fijivillage has also sent questions to the US Embassy who say they are looking into the matter.
UNCLE MILITONI LEWENIQILA TO NEPHEW SITIVENI RABUKA:
"IF you are going to successfully execute a coup, you may have to take some lives for people to believe there is [one] because no one believes a coup is possible in Fiji.[Also] that a coup will be economically disastrous for the country...You have to go to Government House first and remove His Excellency [Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau] as Governor-General, then take over Radio Fiji.'
The Alliance MP and SPEAKER of Fiji's Parliament LEWENIQILA.
Rabuka had confided to his uncle Lewenqila two weeks before his treasonist COUP on 14 May 1987. Leweniqila was in the Speaker's chair when Rabuka entered Parliament, nodded at his uncle, and sat in the Visitor's Gallery
And what of the role of another promiment figure-Ratu Mara? He and Rabuka were 'seen playing golf-separately-at Pacific Harbour Gold and Country Club, 40 km west of Suva.
Fijileaks: After the 1987 Coups, Leweniqila, an old friend of our Editor's family from their Alliance Party days, told our Editor for his book, Fiji: Coups in Paradise that the discussion with Rabuka was NEVER intended to be translated into practice, and he still 'feels guilty that he failed to order the Sergeant-at-Arms to STOP Rabuka and his men'. As regards the late President Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, the COUPIST is lying about the role the great Lauan chief played before the COUP.
Fijileaks: Most who have emerged as overnight experts on the 1987 coups, and are trying very hard to whitewash Sitiveni Rabuka's crimes, including ONE Essex sounding propagandist AJAY BHAI AMRIT from the People's Alliance Party, are misleading the voters and the general public.
![Picture](/uploads/1/3/7/5/13759434/published/screenshot-2022-02-14-at-10-25-48-rabuka-1987-google-search.png?1644835007)
Excerpt from VICTOR LAL: Fiji: Coups in Paradise:
And what of the role of another promiment figure-Ratu Mara? He and Rabuka were 'seen playing golf-separately-at Pacific Harbour Gold and Country Club, 40 km west of Suva.
Rabuka has denied widespread speculation that Ratu Mara helped plot the coup. According to Ritova and Dean [No Other Way], Rabuka met Ratu Mara and his Samoan guests at the golf course and the latter invited Rabuka for lunch. At lunch there was wide range of casual talk and local politics, naturally enough, were raised. Rabuka was interested in Ratu Mara's opinion about the way things were heading, and his views on the status of the 1970 Constitution:
"We were talking about politics, and I asked how can the [1970] Constitution be changed? He [Mara] said the Constitution could not now be changed. The only way to change it-and to use his exact words-'is to throw it out and make a new one, and the likelihood of that is nil.'
Rabuka thinks, according to Ritova and Dean, Ratu Mara was speaking lightly, more in jest then seriousness, for the benefit of his guests, but a week later they were sharing power in Rabuka's government. When the first coup occurred, in May, Ratu Mara was co-chairing the meeting of the Pacific Democratic Union (PDU) at The Fijian hotel. Although maintaining that he had NO prior knowledge of the coup, he told a veteran Fiji journalist, Robert Keith-Reid, while on his way to meet Rabuka on 15 May, that he first heard of the military takeover at 9am on Thursday (the coup occurred at 10am) and was shocked and saddened. But after Rabuka had called on him at The Fijian for help he agreed to serve on the Council of Ministers as Minister for Foreign Affairs, an action he later justified in the following terms:
"I had to do it, because if my house was on fire with my family inside...why should I wait? I must try and rescue them. At our first meeting, Col Rabuka told us that he was a soldier and did not want to run the government...the sooner he gets back to the camp the better it would be for all. Col Rabuka then appointed me to look for ways and means of bringing about a quick return to normal life. In fact I was his matani vanua (spokesman) to Government House, until both he and the Governor-General agreed that I should advise them, because a lot of people were saying that I was responsible for bringing about the crisis, claiming there were many loopholes in the Constitution. I have now done my best in trying to rectify that matter. When Col Rabuka's constitutional council decide[s] on something, it will be good for you, and the nation as a whole.'
Ratu Mara's acceptance of a post in Rabuka's interim government, instead of condemning the racial motivation that lay behind it, cast doubts upon the sincerity of his professed belief in the concept of multiracialism. While the Australian Prime Minister [Bob] Hawke condemned the coup, his acting Foreign Affairs Minister, Senator Gareth Evans, questioned Ratu Mara's role as a member of the new government. He said Ratu Mara's earlier statements about how shocked he was by the coup appeared to be at variance with his new posiition. Prime Minister [David] Lange of New Zealand added: 'I believe a word three or four weeks ago from Ratu Mara in support of the constitutional process would have averted all this.'
And what of the role of another promiment figure-Ratu Mara? He and Rabuka were 'seen playing golf-separately-at Pacific Harbour Gold and Country Club, 40 km west of Suva.
Rabuka has denied widespread speculation that Ratu Mara helped plot the coup. According to Ritova and Dean [No Other Way], Rabuka met Ratu Mara and his Samoan guests at the golf course and the latter invited Rabuka for lunch. At lunch there was wide range of casual talk and local politics, naturally enough, were raised. Rabuka was interested in Ratu Mara's opinion about the way things were heading, and his views on the status of the 1970 Constitution:
"We were talking about politics, and I asked how can the [1970] Constitution be changed? He [Mara] said the Constitution could not now be changed. The only way to change it-and to use his exact words-'is to throw it out and make a new one, and the likelihood of that is nil.'
Rabuka thinks, according to Ritova and Dean, Ratu Mara was speaking lightly, more in jest then seriousness, for the benefit of his guests, but a week later they were sharing power in Rabuka's government. When the first coup occurred, in May, Ratu Mara was co-chairing the meeting of the Pacific Democratic Union (PDU) at The Fijian hotel. Although maintaining that he had NO prior knowledge of the coup, he told a veteran Fiji journalist, Robert Keith-Reid, while on his way to meet Rabuka on 15 May, that he first heard of the military takeover at 9am on Thursday (the coup occurred at 10am) and was shocked and saddened. But after Rabuka had called on him at The Fijian for help he agreed to serve on the Council of Ministers as Minister for Foreign Affairs, an action he later justified in the following terms:
"I had to do it, because if my house was on fire with my family inside...why should I wait? I must try and rescue them. At our first meeting, Col Rabuka told us that he was a soldier and did not want to run the government...the sooner he gets back to the camp the better it would be for all. Col Rabuka then appointed me to look for ways and means of bringing about a quick return to normal life. In fact I was his matani vanua (spokesman) to Government House, until both he and the Governor-General agreed that I should advise them, because a lot of people were saying that I was responsible for bringing about the crisis, claiming there were many loopholes in the Constitution. I have now done my best in trying to rectify that matter. When Col Rabuka's constitutional council decide[s] on something, it will be good for you, and the nation as a whole.'
Ratu Mara's acceptance of a post in Rabuka's interim government, instead of condemning the racial motivation that lay behind it, cast doubts upon the sincerity of his professed belief in the concept of multiracialism. While the Australian Prime Minister [Bob] Hawke condemned the coup, his acting Foreign Affairs Minister, Senator Gareth Evans, questioned Ratu Mara's role as a member of the new government. He said Ratu Mara's earlier statements about how shocked he was by the coup appeared to be at variance with his new posiition. Prime Minister [David] Lange of New Zealand added: 'I believe a word three or four weeks ago from Ratu Mara in support of the constitutional process would have averted all this.'
![Picture](/uploads/1/3/7/5/13759434/published/screenshot-2022-02-14-at-11-49-28-we-dont-want-this-indian-government-fiji-google-search.png?1644839422)
In an interview Ratu Mara gave to a New Zealand television team throws light on some of the questions raised shortly after the coup.
Q: Sir, you were subjected to some very harsh criticism from the Prime Ministers of Australia and particularly New Zealand. They claim you either could have stopped it or were possibly involved in the coup. What was the story? One of the criticisms that Mr Lange made against you was that you failed to say anything or do anything about the Taukei Movement, the marchers and the growing discontent, Do you think in retrospect that you should have done (more) about Apisai Tora and what he was doing?
A: No, Apisai Tora and the other leaders were merely mouthpieces of the crowd, or people who have been meeting, and they were marching against the Constitution that I helped to construct and I couldn't understand why people ask me to say something. It'll be thrown back at my face and I wouldn't have any position to speak on later, if I had made a bid then.'
As to the 1970 Constitution, Ratu Mara lay blame elsewhere: 'I felt that the Constitution was right and I had consulted a constitutional expert, David Butler by name, and his opinion was that the Constitution is right and [if] the Fijians stay united, we should still have power for a long time.' He went on to state that the 'egg has been broken now. We cannot go back to the Constitution in which we enjoyed peace and stability for a long time and we have to find a Constitution that has to accommodate what has now been shown quite clearly: the wish of the indigenous people.'
Q: Sir, you were subjected to some very harsh criticism from the Prime Ministers of Australia and particularly New Zealand. They claim you either could have stopped it or were possibly involved in the coup. What was the story? One of the criticisms that Mr Lange made against you was that you failed to say anything or do anything about the Taukei Movement, the marchers and the growing discontent, Do you think in retrospect that you should have done (more) about Apisai Tora and what he was doing?
A: No, Apisai Tora and the other leaders were merely mouthpieces of the crowd, or people who have been meeting, and they were marching against the Constitution that I helped to construct and I couldn't understand why people ask me to say something. It'll be thrown back at my face and I wouldn't have any position to speak on later, if I had made a bid then.'
As to the 1970 Constitution, Ratu Mara lay blame elsewhere: 'I felt that the Constitution was right and I had consulted a constitutional expert, David Butler by name, and his opinion was that the Constitution is right and [if] the Fijians stay united, we should still have power for a long time.' He went on to state that the 'egg has been broken now. We cannot go back to the Constitution in which we enjoyed peace and stability for a long time and we have to find a Constitution that has to accommodate what has now been shown quite clearly: the wish of the indigenous people.'
![Picture](/uploads/1/3/7/5/13759434/published/screenshot-2022-02-14-at-11-17-41-fiji-where-things-fall-apart-an-opinion-column-by-professor-brij-lal-makes-interesting.png?1644837613)
(Fijileaks: David Butler that Ratu Mara was referring to is Sir David Butler of Nuffield College, Oxford, under whose academic supervision our Editor had written this very book between 1984-1987. When our Editor showed Ratu Mara's international press statement, Dr Butler asked that his reply be added to the book: 'If the Fijians had stayed united Bavadra wouldn't have won'. I may have said what Ratu Mara attributes to me about the Constitution but I said this, not as a constitutional expert but as a sensible observer, that as long as Fijians remained united, they would always have power in Fiji.'
What did Ratu Mara know about the coup? When did he know?
A VICE-PRESIDENT of the Fiji Labour Party, SIMIONE DURUTALO, said Ratu Mara 'has kidnapped democracy and destroyed his own creation, the 1970 Fiji Constitution. He told Radio New Zealand in an interview from Hawaii (where he had fled with his wife and children on the day of the coup), that 'RABUKA IS JUST A PAWN'. The real man behind the coup is Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara and others in the Alliance Party'. Ratu Mara, said Durutalo, during his 17 years in power had 'pretended to the world that he was a multi-racial man and that he was for democracy'.
Fijileaks: Our Founding Editor-in-Chief grew up in the presence of Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau and Ratu Sir George Cakobau as part of a political family closely associated with the Alliance Party (and the Indian Alliance) since its founding in the 1960s. He later campainged for Ratu Sir Penaia and Ratu Sir George in the 1970s for their Tailevu seats in the elections. His own uncle was Alliance Party's Lord Mayor of Suva and his uncle contested elections, twice, against NFP's Mrs Irene Jai Narayan for the Suva Indian communal seat. Mrs Narayan, after the 1987 coup, joined Rabuka's Council of Ministers.
We DON'T believe that Ratu Mara was a co-conspirator with Sitiveni Rabuka but came onboard after the 14 May 1987 coup. Ratu Mara was actuely aware of the dislike of the Lauans on the mainland of Viti Levu.
On 9 October 1975, the firebrand Fijian nationalist Sakiasi Butadroka introduced a motion in Parliament for the explusion of Indo-Fijians from Fiji:
'That this House agrees that the time has arrived when Indians or people of Indian origin in this country be repatriated back to India and that their travelling expenses back home and compensation for their properties in the country be met by the British government.'
Ratu Mara described the motion as a 'pernicious doctrine, a despicable doctrine that a politician resorts to only after he has known that he is a hopeless case as a politician'.
He reminded his fellow Lauans: 'Today, it is the Indians. Tomorrow it will be Chinese, Europeans and Part-Europeans. The next it will be Lauans who must be sent back to Lau.'
Fijileaks: Our Founding Editor-in-Chief grew up in the presence of Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau and Ratu Sir George Cakobau as part of a political family closely associated with the Alliance Party (and the Indian Alliance) since its founding in the 1960s. He later campainged for Ratu Sir Penaia and Ratu Sir George in the 1970s for their Tailevu seats in the elections. His own uncle was Alliance Party's Lord Mayor of Suva and his uncle contested elections, twice, against NFP's Mrs Irene Jai Narayan for the Suva Indian communal seat. Mrs Narayan, after the 1987 coup, joined Rabuka's Council of Ministers.
We DON'T believe that Ratu Mara was a co-conspirator with Sitiveni Rabuka but came onboard after the 14 May 1987 coup. Ratu Mara was actuely aware of the dislike of the Lauans on the mainland of Viti Levu.
On 9 October 1975, the firebrand Fijian nationalist Sakiasi Butadroka introduced a motion in Parliament for the explusion of Indo-Fijians from Fiji:
'That this House agrees that the time has arrived when Indians or people of Indian origin in this country be repatriated back to India and that their travelling expenses back home and compensation for their properties in the country be met by the British government.'
Ratu Mara described the motion as a 'pernicious doctrine, a despicable doctrine that a politician resorts to only after he has known that he is a hopeless case as a politician'.
He reminded his fellow Lauans: 'Today, it is the Indians. Tomorrow it will be Chinese, Europeans and Part-Europeans. The next it will be Lauans who must be sent back to Lau.'
Shortly after the 14 May coup, Sakiasi Butadroka had joined Rabuka's Cabinet as Lands and Minerals Minister. He described RATU MARA as
'the bastard who sold Fiji'; 'the bloody Judas Iscariot'.
IN BUTADROKA'S BOOTS:
Coupist borrowed the title of his book to boast about his deeply racist 1987 Coups from Butadroka's slogan: NO OTHER WAY
So, COUPIST and SERIAL LIAR and LIU MURI
"DUNA" is lying about Ratu Mara and the 1987 Coup
Lets see how many LAUANS will run and apply to contest election under 'Duna' Rabuka's PAP Banner
“I personally think, for him to use our chief’s name now and talk about his involvement is simply to gain political mileage. It hurts us, because our paramount chief has been dragged into the gutter politics of Rabuka.
Why did he not make such a revelation when Ratu Mara was alive, it is unjustified for him to try to make these claims now. This is treachery, liumuri.”
Sisaro Temo from the bati-leka clan of Yadrana Village in Lakeba, Lau
![Picture](/uploads/1/3/7/5/13759434/published/screenshot-2022-02-14-at-11-51-38-late-chief-s-warrior-clan-hits-out-at-rabuka.png?1644839606)
The traditional warriors (bati-leka clan) of the late Tui Nayau and Tui Lau Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara have hit out at Sitiveni Rabuka’s claims.
Mr Rabuka, alleged in an interview with a former Fijian broadcaster, that the late Ratu Sir Kamisese knew about his May 1987 military coup.
He claimed Ratu Sir Kamisese supported his plans to overthrow the Dr Timoci Bavadra-led Fiji Labour Party-National Federation Party coalition government.
Sisaro Temo from the bati-leka clan of Yadrana Village in Lakeba, Lau said they were disappointed and saddened that Mr Rabuka used the late Tui Nayau’s name, when he had died almost 18 years ago.
Mr Temo is the clan leader based in Suva.
“I personally think, for him to use our chief’s name now and talk about his involvement is simply to gain political mileage,” Mr Temo said.
“It hurts us, because our paramount chief has been dragged into the gutter politics of Rabuka,” he said.
“Why did he not make such a revelation when Ratu Mara was alive, it is unjustified for him to try to make these claims now. This is treachery, liumuri.”
He said it was not only disrespectful but totally unacceptable and unbecoming of a political leader like Mr Rabuka to accuse a high chief of treason when he was not here to defend himself.
Mr Rabuka had insulted Ratu Sir Kamisese, his family, the Vanua, traditions and culture.
“Where is the respect? Especially when our chief has passed on.
“For us, we are insulted, making allegations using the name of our late chief is disrespectful. It is very disrespectful.”
He said it was their duty as a bati to protect and defend the Tui Nayau and his family
“What is he trying to achieve from doing this? Even until death he is still trying to drag his name down.”
Attempts to contact Mr Rabuka yesterday were unsuccessful. The Fiji Sun has been told that Mr Rabuka was in his village in Vanua Levu and would return on Thursday..
Mr Rabuka, alleged in an interview with a former Fijian broadcaster, that the late Ratu Sir Kamisese knew about his May 1987 military coup.
He claimed Ratu Sir Kamisese supported his plans to overthrow the Dr Timoci Bavadra-led Fiji Labour Party-National Federation Party coalition government.
Sisaro Temo from the bati-leka clan of Yadrana Village in Lakeba, Lau said they were disappointed and saddened that Mr Rabuka used the late Tui Nayau’s name, when he had died almost 18 years ago.
Mr Temo is the clan leader based in Suva.
“I personally think, for him to use our chief’s name now and talk about his involvement is simply to gain political mileage,” Mr Temo said.
“It hurts us, because our paramount chief has been dragged into the gutter politics of Rabuka,” he said.
“Why did he not make such a revelation when Ratu Mara was alive, it is unjustified for him to try to make these claims now. This is treachery, liumuri.”
He said it was not only disrespectful but totally unacceptable and unbecoming of a political leader like Mr Rabuka to accuse a high chief of treason when he was not here to defend himself.
Mr Rabuka had insulted Ratu Sir Kamisese, his family, the Vanua, traditions and culture.
“Where is the respect? Especially when our chief has passed on.
“For us, we are insulted, making allegations using the name of our late chief is disrespectful. It is very disrespectful.”
He said it was their duty as a bati to protect and defend the Tui Nayau and his family
“What is he trying to achieve from doing this? Even until death he is still trying to drag his name down.”
Attempts to contact Mr Rabuka yesterday were unsuccessful. The Fiji Sun has been told that Mr Rabuka was in his village in Vanua Levu and would return on Thursday..
Click video below. Rabuka mentions Leweniqila but NOT RATU MARA
Seruiratu had earlier told Fijivillage that his comments were aimed at the NFP and not FRIEND because he knows the work FRIEND does and they are a key partner when it comes to humanitarian work
From Fijileaks Archives, 6 June 2021
Fijileaks: FRIENDFIJI can provide PROOF of its spendings. Where is NZ's $4m that was given to draft the controversial Fiji Police Bill?
MYSTERY RESIGNATION: On 6 July 2018 PREMILA KUMAR resigned as Consumer Council CEO without giving any hint that she was planning to join FFP and stand for election
From Fijileaks Archive, 17 March 2021
ISA! The world famous Bainimarama IPAD saved for another RAINY DAY
AHWHIN Raj says he neither has the time nor any interest in engaging in some banal conversation with FLP leader MAHENDRA Chaudhry to
teach him what deconstruction of the law means.
DECONSTRUCTION: "Deconstruction is a form of criticism first used by French philosopher Jacques Derrida in the 1970s which asserts that there is not one single intrinsic meaning to be found in a work, but rather many, and often these can be conflicting. It is a method of critical analysis of philosophical and literary language which emphasizes the internal workings of language and conceptual systems, the relational quality of meaning, and the assumptions implicit in forms of expression."
Fijileaks: In Simple English:
'Deconstruction is a way of understanding how something was created.'
WORLDS COLLIDE: A son of Hungarian immigrant Jews and the descendant of Indian Indentured Labourers share global stage in Fiji. Blinken's stepfather, Samuel Pisar, was the only Holocaust survivor of the 900 children of his school in Poland. Pisar found refuge in a US tank after making a break into the forest during a Nazi death march. Like the 'Brown Jews of Fiji' in 1987 and 'No Other Way', Adolf Hitler wanted
to eradicate the Jews throughout Europe with his Final Solution
The US secretary of state’s lightning visit to Fiji may be sudden, but not surprising. That Antony Blinken is the first US secretary of state to visit Fiji in 37 years reflects just how much has changed geopolitically.It is also an indication of Fiji’s influential role in this part of the world, being a strong, if not the strongest, Pacific ally of China, the arch-rival of the US in the Pacific.
In what is an election year for Fiji, Blinken appeared keen to meet the Fijian prime minister Frank Bainimarama, who is known to be close to China, but he remains hospitalised in Australia, after a serious operation, so the acting prime minister Aiyaz-Sayed Khaiyum plays host.
Blinken’s team will use the visit to reassure Pacific Island leaders of the Biden administration’s commitment to regional concerns, chief of which is climate change, following America’s return to the Paris Agreement. Maritime security and illegal fishing will also be on the table, according to US officials, which means that China’s shadow looms large in the meeting.
Not for the first time, Blinken raised the spectre speaking this week to The Australian of China’s ambitions to become the “leading military, economic, diplomatic and political power, not just in the region, but in the world” and the need for a united front against Chinese expansionism. This is an old memo with a new sense of urgency, at least for the US and its allies, not the least because of the latest Russia-Ukraine conflict, which has seen China and Russia bonding ever more strongly over a common foe.
AdvertisementThe US clearly sees a need to draw its friends closer, even far-flung Pacific friends, but unlike the cold war, communist China is no longer seen as a threat in Fiji and the region. To the contrary, China is regarded more as a friend than a foe and a crucial partner in development, a status China has worked long and hard to achieve.
As the US downsized its presence in the region after the cold war, China quietly stepped into the vacuum, and decades of consistent work on the diplomatic front, topped by dollops of aid, grants and loans, has seen it make major inroads in the region, where it is now firmly ensconced.
According to the Australian thinktank Lowy Institute, Australia is still the chief aid donor in Fiji, but China is committing more and more money in the region, particularly in the form of loans. China’s 10 Pacific allies, including Fiji, have signed on to the US$1tn belt and road initiative.
Unlike the cold war, it will be harder for Fiji and the Pacific to choose between “friends”, if that is the US intention, judging from Blinken’s comments to The Australian this week that “our (liberal) values must be defended against whomever is challenging them.” It was China that firmly backed Fiji after the 2006 military coup, when it was suspended from the Pacific Islands Forum grouping and faced sanctions from Australia and New Zealand.
China’s longstanding foreign policy principle of non-interference in other countries’ internal affairs has endeared it to many Pacific leaders, causing some commentators to question whether western countries have adopted a similar strategy with regards to their apparent silence on human rights issues, lest any criticism drives Pacific leaders further into China’s arms.
Prof Biman Prasad, leader of Fiji’s opposition National Federation party has been vocal about what he sees as a culture of “sycophancy and servility” in the international diplomatic community in the Pacific, warning that traditional partners “pandering to dictatorial governments and ignoring basic human rights will not only serve to impede meaningful development in the Pacific, but also allow countries that do not care about democracy to have a stronger foothold in the region, shifting the geopolitical balance for good”.
Of all the Pacific countries, China certainly has a strong foothold in Fiji, which is now home to a growing Chinese population of about 10,000, a Confucius Centre located at the regional University of the South Pacific, as well as presence of Chinese state media in the capital city, Suva-symbols of Chinese soft power inroads into the island nation.
In his speech at the 2015 China-Fiji 40th Anniversary diplomatic symposium in Suva, Bainimarama lauded China as not only having “a great history but a great present and a great future”, adding that “Fiji looks to China for leadership in the global community on the great issues of our time”.
It’s clear that for Fiji and the Pacific, global warming, not China, is the clear and present danger, and US president Trump did not do America in the Pacific any favours by withdrawing from the Paris accord. If his goal is to curtail Chinese influence in Fiji and the region, Blinken has his work cut out. Pacific leaders will want some tangible outcomes from this historic meeting as concrete assurance of the United States’ commitment to the Pacific Islands.
In what is an election year for Fiji, Blinken appeared keen to meet the Fijian prime minister Frank Bainimarama, who is known to be close to China, but he remains hospitalised in Australia, after a serious operation, so the acting prime minister Aiyaz-Sayed Khaiyum plays host.
Blinken’s team will use the visit to reassure Pacific Island leaders of the Biden administration’s commitment to regional concerns, chief of which is climate change, following America’s return to the Paris Agreement. Maritime security and illegal fishing will also be on the table, according to US officials, which means that China’s shadow looms large in the meeting.
Not for the first time, Blinken raised the spectre speaking this week to The Australian of China’s ambitions to become the “leading military, economic, diplomatic and political power, not just in the region, but in the world” and the need for a united front against Chinese expansionism. This is an old memo with a new sense of urgency, at least for the US and its allies, not the least because of the latest Russia-Ukraine conflict, which has seen China and Russia bonding ever more strongly over a common foe.
AdvertisementThe US clearly sees a need to draw its friends closer, even far-flung Pacific friends, but unlike the cold war, communist China is no longer seen as a threat in Fiji and the region. To the contrary, China is regarded more as a friend than a foe and a crucial partner in development, a status China has worked long and hard to achieve.
As the US downsized its presence in the region after the cold war, China quietly stepped into the vacuum, and decades of consistent work on the diplomatic front, topped by dollops of aid, grants and loans, has seen it make major inroads in the region, where it is now firmly ensconced.
According to the Australian thinktank Lowy Institute, Australia is still the chief aid donor in Fiji, but China is committing more and more money in the region, particularly in the form of loans. China’s 10 Pacific allies, including Fiji, have signed on to the US$1tn belt and road initiative.
Unlike the cold war, it will be harder for Fiji and the Pacific to choose between “friends”, if that is the US intention, judging from Blinken’s comments to The Australian this week that “our (liberal) values must be defended against whomever is challenging them.” It was China that firmly backed Fiji after the 2006 military coup, when it was suspended from the Pacific Islands Forum grouping and faced sanctions from Australia and New Zealand.
China’s longstanding foreign policy principle of non-interference in other countries’ internal affairs has endeared it to many Pacific leaders, causing some commentators to question whether western countries have adopted a similar strategy with regards to their apparent silence on human rights issues, lest any criticism drives Pacific leaders further into China’s arms.
Prof Biman Prasad, leader of Fiji’s opposition National Federation party has been vocal about what he sees as a culture of “sycophancy and servility” in the international diplomatic community in the Pacific, warning that traditional partners “pandering to dictatorial governments and ignoring basic human rights will not only serve to impede meaningful development in the Pacific, but also allow countries that do not care about democracy to have a stronger foothold in the region, shifting the geopolitical balance for good”.
Of all the Pacific countries, China certainly has a strong foothold in Fiji, which is now home to a growing Chinese population of about 10,000, a Confucius Centre located at the regional University of the South Pacific, as well as presence of Chinese state media in the capital city, Suva-symbols of Chinese soft power inroads into the island nation.
In his speech at the 2015 China-Fiji 40th Anniversary diplomatic symposium in Suva, Bainimarama lauded China as not only having “a great history but a great present and a great future”, adding that “Fiji looks to China for leadership in the global community on the great issues of our time”.
It’s clear that for Fiji and the Pacific, global warming, not China, is the clear and present danger, and US president Trump did not do America in the Pacific any favours by withdrawing from the Paris accord. If his goal is to curtail Chinese influence in Fiji and the region, Blinken has his work cut out. Pacific leaders will want some tangible outcomes from this historic meeting as concrete assurance of the United States’ commitment to the Pacific Islands.
- Shailendra Singh is Associate Professor of Pacific Journalism at the University of the South Pacific in Suva, Fiji, and the 2022 Pacific Research Fellow at the Australian National University
[email protected]
ARCHIVES
September 2020
August 2020
July 2020
June 2020
December 2018
November 2018
October 2018
January 2018
December 2017
November 2017
October 2017
September 2017
August 2017
July 2017
June 2017
May 2017
April 2017
March 2017
February 2017
January 2017
December 2016
November 2016
October 2016
September 2016
August 2016
July 2016
June 2016
May 2016
April 2016
March 2016
February 2016
January 2016
December 2015
November 2015
October 2015
September 2015
August 2015
July 2015
June 2015
May 2015
April 2015
March 2015
February 2015
January 2015
December 2014
November 2014
October 2014
September 2014
August 2014
July 2014
June 2014
May 2014
April 2014
March 2014
February 2014
January 2014
December 2013
November 2013
October 2013
September 2013
August 2013
July 2013
June 2013
May 2013
April 2013
March 2013
February 2013
January 2013
December 2012
October 2012
September 2012