Fiji Forum Working Group may have to be dismantled
   
By Samisoni Pareti

Relations between members of the Pacific Islands Forum and Fiji have suffered a setback with the interim government in Fiji’s decision to withdraw from the Forum’s joint working group.

The working group comprising diplomats of Forum member countries stationed in Suva was established in 2007 following the second meeting of foreign ministers of Forum member countries on Fiji in Vanuatu.

It is under the chairmanship of Papua New Guinea’s High Commissioner in Fiji, Peter Eafeare.

In a letter to the current chair of the Pacific Islands Forum, Tonga’s prime minister Dr Fred Sevele, Fiji’s interim prime minister Commodore Frank Bainimarama, said his government sees no point in continued participation in the joint working group.

He accused Forum members Australia and New Zealand of dominating the work of the group, and in “procrastinating” about recognising his government.

“Largely influenced by Australia and New Zealand, the working group has continued to not appreciate the existence of genuine initiatives and efforts of the interim government to take Fiji forward, such as the National Council for Building a Better Fiji and the proposal to develop a People’s Charter for Change, Peace and Progress,” Bainimarama wrote in his letter to Sevele.

“If anything, they have also tried to frustrate our efforts by consistently penalising anybody stepping in to help the interim government move forward, with a travel ban.

“All this leads me to wonder whether or not Australia and New Zealand are genuinely interested in engaging with Fiji either bilaterally or through the regional mediums such as the working group.”

Bainimarama got his information department to release the content of his letter to Sevele, and it came five days after he directed his attorney-general Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum to inform the Forum joint working group of his intention to pull out.

Sayed-Khaiyum’s presentation to the working group on June 20 was harsh and pointed.

Among other things, he accused the governments of Australia and New Zealand of being “insincere, hypocritical, unconstructive and obstructionist in moving Fiji forward”.

“In 2000, when a democratically elected government was illegally removed, the constitution illegally abrogated and the Qarase interim government illegally appointed (as held by the High Court and the Court of Appeal), Australia and New Zealand did not place travel bans on the then interim government nor did they place any bans on persons appointed by the Qarase interim government to various boards and statutory positions,” a copy of Khaiyum’s presentation released later by the information department revealed.

“Yet, this time, when the constitution has not been abrogated, when the government is seeking engagement with the community at large through the NCBBF process, when the Prime Minister is engaged in political dialogue, when a forum has been organised under the auspices of the UN and Commonwealth Secretariat, and when the constitutionality of the government is before the courts, the Australian and New Zealand governments continue to impose travel bans and refuse to actively engage in a meaningful basis with the government. 

“A recent example of the absurdity and arbitrary nature of the imposition of the travel ban is that of Mr Robyn Storck, who is the recently appointed chairman of the publicly listed company Fijian Holdings Limited.”
Storck had to resign from the appointment because of the travel bans, saying he would need to travel to New Zealand for regular medical check-ups.

Sayed-Khaiyum, according to members of the Forum working group, also lambasted Forum member countries for their “obsession” with the March 2009 elections.

Fiji’s interim attorney-general was told the working group was only adhering to its mandate that was given to the working group by Pacific Islands leaders and to which Bainimarama himself signed up to.

He was also told the travel bans were the sovereign decisions of Australia and New Zealand.

This magazine was told with Fiji suspending its participation in the working group, it will have to be dismantled.

It is now unclear how this will affect the positions of other international organisations like the Commonwealth, the European Union and the United Nations.

All three bodies had used the Pacific Islands Forum as the basis for its engagement with Bainimarama’s regime.

Already following a request from Fiji’s president, Ratu Josefa Iloilo, the Commonwealth has agreed to use its special envoy on Fiji, Sir Paul Reeves of New Zealand, to help organise a political forum in Fiji.

As a former governor-general of New Zealand, Sir Paul was due to embark on his second visit to Fiji before the end of June.

Also last month, a fact-finding mission from the EU was in Suva to meet members of the interim government, as well as other political leaders, pro-democracy supporters and heads of institutions like the Fiji Law Society.

Called the EU Troika, the delegation comprised Dr Tjasa Zivko, the current EU president, Patrick Roussel, the incoming EU president, Roger Moore, European Commission director and Marco Solaini of the EU secretariat.

The visiting delegation was to measure progress in Fiji with the promises the interim government gave the EU in April 2007 relating to human rights, democratic principles and the rule of law.

The Europeans declined to comment about the results of their consultation only saying their report would be presented to the European Commissioner for Development and Humanitarian Aid, Louis Michel.

By late last month, Forum chair Dr Sevele was asking Bainimarama to let dialogue between him and the Pacific Islands Forum to continue.

He had suggested that the Forum ministerial contact group that included foreign ministers of Australia and New Zealand— Stephen Smith and Winston Peters respectively—be allowed to visit Fiji in July.

---

From leaders to losers: the Cooks coup that wasn’t

As spectacular storms in teacups go, the June proclamation of a leadership takeover by a pocket of Cook Islands’ traditional leaders—and their reversal just days later amid a public outcry—couldn’t have dealt the nation’s image a worse blow.

Beyond the legality issues which make it unlikely the proclamation had any real teeth, its appearance draws attention to the quality and calibre of traditional leadership alongside the zen thought: if some of the highest chiefly titles in the land put their signature to a document sacking the government and claiming ownership of crown resources, does that amount to treason, however unintentional?

Those questions, as well as investigations into the person at the centre of the Cook Islands coup that wasn’t, help to ensure the truth behind this wry comment from the Cook Islands first ever speaker of the House, Marguerite Storey—“at least our country can’t be said to be boring”.

Other adjectives, far less complimentary, have been earned by traditional leaders for their recent lapse of logic. A not-so-secret secretive meeting held in early June at the behest of a Bruce Ruatapu Mita without doing a background check or referring him to relevant officials could have passed as a small, internal blip for those paramount titled leaders who attended.

One phone call to the Prime Ministers Office would have confirmed that the Sydney-based Mita, described in an online search as a funeral director, had already been turned down after pitching his think-big billion dollar scheme for futures trading in manganese nodules lining the Cook Islands seabed to government in 2007. He had met with Deputy Prime Minister Sir Terepai Maoate, who would have been well aware of previous government research and feasibility studies which shelved the idea given the technology and environment challenges.

But the call was never made, and the Mita blip escalated into a self-administered bullet when the President of the House of Ariki and seven other signatories came up with the now-infamous and short-lived proclamation effectively telling the elected government of the day it was out of a job and that the House of Ariki was stepping up to the task. 

A claim to ownership of Cook Islands’ airspace, seabed and EEZ resources whilst citing the potential of the offshore manganese clarified the agenda and set the scene for the backlash from Cook Islanders at all levels who lost no time letting their traditional leaders know they were being gullible, greedy, and foolish.

The whole episode would have prompted a laugh for many had it been a training script for a local drama. The reality is far from funny. Even with the recanting of the initial document and the question of its possible abuse in the wrong hands, the drubbing received by traditional leaders who had backed a man already sent packing by the government has damaged more than pride and egos. Up until the proclamation, the House of Ariki had enjoyed a hard-won prestige and respect as an umbrella for the tangata-rikiriki, the little people. A watchdog of sorts—not as ferocious as local media at keeping government on its toes, but able to deliver statements supporting the public interest. That watchdog perspective and popular representation often saw former presidents such as Pa Te Upokotini Marie at loggerheads with political leaders and draws on popular perceptions that those with rank, while given titles by birthright, are vested with the responsibility of caring for their clans. And so it was that Cook Islanders already seasoned on the antics and spending habits of their political leaders, responded with a rousing and public confirmation that their Ariki should get back to the role of caring for their communities. While it’s unlikely the strongest call for abolishing the House of Ariki (from its former President Pa Ariki), will be taken up, the damage to the integrity of the House of Ariki has been done.

Whether that will help or lessen the ability of the Koutu Nui, a second tier of traditional leadership, to grow its own profile as those with a deeper duty of care for their people, remains to be seen.

To its credit, the government and Queen’s Representative have taken a gentle approach to their traditional counterparts. They can afford to. Those Ariki who signed the ill-fated proclamation are already taking a bashing via the media and open meetings held at the Taputapuatea Palace grounds.

Making the most of the detraction from their own performance, government is also focusing fury on Mita as a ‘foreigner’ who has manipulated his links (he is married to a Cook Islander, and is a New Zealand Maori, which implies ancestral lineage to the early Cook Islands settlers) to gain a foothold from which he could play on greed, ignorance, and gullibility.

And while the shenanigans may have raised a royal eyebrow at Buckingham Palace, regional leaders may yet enjoy a chuckle at the Cook Islands expense. While they will join the Cooks’ Prime Minister Jim Marurai in dismissing the whole affair as a pile of nonsense, he will still most likely have to endure some friendly jibing from his colleagues in Niue come August over the Melanesian ‘arc of instability’ wielding its influence on that world-famous Kia Orana spirit.

—Lisa Williams-Lahari