Colonial mindsets still cloud Anzac nations' outlook
During the colonial days the metropolitan powers that ruled over the Pacific Islands formed their own group, the South Pacific Commission. SPC dealt with some of the common problems that they faced such as the eradication of rhinoceros beetles that affected the coconut plantations in all the islands. Initially the islanders were not included at all in the SPC but later they attended the meetings as observers.
After Fiji’s independence Prime Minister Ratu Mara took the initiative to form a group consisting only of the leaders of the Pacific island nations, the South Pacific Forum (later known as the Pacific Island Forum). He was against colonialism and wanted to keep Australia and New Zealand also out of the Forum as he knew that otherwise slowly the Forum would become dominated by these two countries.
Ratu Mara knew that they would act as the ‘big brothers’. He had earlier described colonialism as “the western people, people who come from the western hemisphere and brought up in the western civilization” thinking that “they are the only people who know anything in this world and no one else knows anything”. This, of course, included Australia and New Zealand who are part of the western civilisation.
It was not easy to keep Australia and New Zealand out of the Forum for long. Slowly but surely they started penetrating and over the years they have become dominant in the regional organisation. Today they seem to be able to dictate to the small nations what is good for them. One of the things they consider good is democracy where the majority rules. They fail to realise that majority rule may not always be the best form of government, especially if the country is multiethnic. This is the problem that Fiji has faced since Independence.
Indigenous Fijians did not want the British to leave their country ushering in democracy for fear of Indian domination because Indians had become the majority ethnic group. The Fijian commoners very reluctantly agreed to independence when their chiefs persuaded them to accept it and Indians agreed to certain safeguards to protect the Fijians’ position as the original settlers. These provisions included the protection of their land rights and veto powers in the Senate to any legislation that affected the indigenous people.
In 1987 Indians were fifty percent of the population outnumbering indigenous Fijians by more than ten per cent so the majority rule worked against the Fijians. That was why in 1987 the Fijians supported the coup almost to the last man. In 2000 George Speight tried to pose as a champion of indigenous Fijian rights but it failed for several reasons. Not only Speight was not an indigenous Fijian; there was also no threat to the indigenous people as they had already asserted their position by then. Indians no longer were the majority ethnic group in Fiji as a large percentage had left the country after the coups of 1987. Ethnic Fijians did not support Speight unlike in 1987 when they stood solidly behind Rabuka because they realised that by 2000 there was no threat to their rights or even to the image of the country as a Fijian nation.
After locking up George Speight in 2000 Commodore Bainimarama had made Laisenia Qarase the interim Prime Minister. Qarase subsequently got elected to the position and brought into his cabinet some of the “convicted and suspected coup-makers”. The policies that Qarase had were very popular with Fijian nationalists as they were given preference over other ethnic groups. Qarase got elected for a second term in 2006 because of this popularity and he wanted to consolidate his Fijian support by continuing with such policies.
In 2006 Bainimarama wanted the Qarase Government to drop two key pieces of legislation: an amnesty for those involved in George Speight's 2000 coup and a bill that would give indigenous Fijians the right to claim money from other ethnic groups for using coastal waters. The military chief maintained neither was in the national interest, noted Graham Davis, a Fiji-born Australian journalist.
Davis wrote a month before the 2006 coup: ‘I'm not alone among Fiji-born Australians in being perplexed at the Howard Government's support for the Qarase Government. It is a racist Government pursuing racist policies, and has in its ranks many of the shadowy figures behind the 2000 coup who are desperate to avoid justice.’
Davis believed that what was not appreciated in Australia (and New Zealand) was “the intensity of [Bainimarama’s] rage at what he saw as Qarase's betrayal of the understandings between them, especially the need to punish those behind the coup”. Instead, Qarase brought many of the coup-makers into government and wanted a general amnesty that would have led to the likes of Speight being pardoned.
The policies that the Qarase government followed, though they seemed pro-Fijian, were not in the best interests of the long term welfare of the indigenous people. Trouble had already started in the tourism industry with the Fiji Times reporting on November 20, 2006 that tourists and hotel guests were held ransom in exchange for money over the use of beaches and coastal waters, which Qarase’s government wanted to give back to the indigenous owners.
Bainimarama had warned that when all the investors left Fiji because of the policies of the Qarase government then the Fijians would be left with their grass skirts and canoes! Foreign countries like Australia and New Zealand who supported Qarase, believing in the rights of an elected government, perhaps did not understand the deeper implications of his government’s policies.
When Helen Clark’s government facilitated a meeting of Qarase and Bainimarama in Wellington a little before Qarase was removed from power, New Zealand had a good opportunity to influence events in Fiji for the better. Qarase should have been told that New Zealand would not support an amnesty for convicted traitors and that they did not agree with legislations that discriminated against a significant proportion of its own citizens. Then the talks between the two Fijian leaders perhaps would have been fruitful.
New Zealand was blinded by its faith in democracy. The NZ leaders saw Qarase as the elected leader who could do no wrong and Bainimarama as the military strongman who was trying to usurp power. They seemed to have forgotten that the ideal of democracy was not just majority rule but it also involved providing good governance. When Bainimarama seized power “he was only taking back what he gave Qarase when he invited him to form a government after arresting Speight in 2000,” wrote Davis.
During the colonial days the metropolitan powers that ruled over the Pacific Islands formed their own group, the South Pacific Commission. SPC dealt with some of the common problems that they faced such as the eradication of rhinoceros beetles that affected the coconut plantations in all the...
During the colonial days the metropolitan powers that ruled over the Pacific Islands formed their own group, the South Pacific Commission. SPC dealt with some of the common problems that they faced such as the eradication of rhinoceros beetles that affected the coconut plantations in all the islands. Initially the islanders were not included at all in the SPC but later they attended the meetings as observers.
After Fiji’s independence Prime Minister Ratu Mara took the initiative to form a group consisting only of the leaders of the Pacific island nations, the South Pacific Forum (later known as the Pacific Island Forum). He was against colonialism and wanted to keep Australia and New Zealand also out of the Forum as he knew that otherwise slowly the Forum would become dominated by these two countries.
Ratu Mara knew that they would act as the ‘big brothers’. He had earlier described colonialism as “the western people, people who come from the western hemisphere and brought up in the western civilization” thinking that “they are the only people who know anything in this world and no one else knows anything”. This, of course, included Australia and New Zealand who are part of the western civilisation.
It was not easy to keep Australia and New Zealand out of the Forum for long. Slowly but surely they started penetrating and over the years they have become dominant in the regional organisation. Today they seem to be able to dictate to the small nations what is good for them. One of the things they consider good is democracy where the majority rules. They fail to realise that majority rule may not always be the best form of government, especially if the country is multiethnic. This is the problem that Fiji has faced since Independence.
Indigenous Fijians did not want the British to leave their country ushering in democracy for fear of Indian domination because Indians had become the majority ethnic group. The Fijian commoners very reluctantly agreed to independence when their chiefs persuaded them to accept it and Indians agreed to certain safeguards to protect the Fijians’ position as the original settlers. These provisions included the protection of their land rights and veto powers in the Senate to any legislation that affected the indigenous people.
In 1987 Indians were fifty percent of the population outnumbering indigenous Fijians by more than ten per cent so the majority rule worked against the Fijians. That was why in 1987 the Fijians supported the coup almost to the last man. In 2000 George Speight tried to pose as a champion of indigenous Fijian rights but it failed for several reasons. Not only Speight was not an indigenous Fijian; there was also no threat to the indigenous people as they had already asserted their position by then. Indians no longer were the majority ethnic group in Fiji as a large percentage had left the country after the coups of 1987. Ethnic Fijians did not support Speight unlike in 1987 when they stood solidly behind Rabuka because they realised that by 2000 there was no threat to their rights or even to the image of the country as a Fijian nation.
After locking up George Speight in 2000 Commodore Bainimarama had made Laisenia Qarase the interim Prime Minister. Qarase subsequently got elected to the position and brought into his cabinet some of the “convicted and suspected coup-makers”. The policies that Qarase had were very popular with Fijian nationalists as they were given preference over other ethnic groups. Qarase got elected for a second term in 2006 because of this popularity and he wanted to consolidate his Fijian support by continuing with such policies.
In 2006 Bainimarama wanted the Qarase Government to drop two key pieces of legislation: an amnesty for those involved in George Speight's 2000 coup and a bill that would give indigenous Fijians the right to claim money from other ethnic groups for using coastal waters. The military chief maintained neither was in the national interest, noted Graham Davis, a Fiji-born Australian journalist.
Davis wrote a month before the 2006 coup: ‘I'm not alone among Fiji-born Australians in being perplexed at the Howard Government's support for the Qarase Government. It is a racist Government pursuing racist policies, and has in its ranks many of the shadowy figures behind the 2000 coup who are desperate to avoid justice.’
Davis believed that what was not appreciated in Australia (and New Zealand) was “the intensity of [Bainimarama’s] rage at what he saw as Qarase's betrayal of the understandings between them, especially the need to punish those behind the coup”. Instead, Qarase brought many of the coup-makers into government and wanted a general amnesty that would have led to the likes of Speight being pardoned.
The policies that the Qarase government followed, though they seemed pro-Fijian, were not in the best interests of the long term welfare of the indigenous people. Trouble had already started in the tourism industry with the Fiji Times reporting on November 20, 2006 that tourists and hotel guests were held ransom in exchange for money over the use of beaches and coastal waters, which Qarase’s government wanted to give back to the indigenous owners.
Bainimarama had warned that when all the investors left Fiji because of the policies of the Qarase government then the Fijians would be left with their grass skirts and canoes! Foreign countries like Australia and New Zealand who supported Qarase, believing in the rights of an elected government, perhaps did not understand the deeper implications of his government’s policies.
When Helen Clark’s government facilitated a meeting of Qarase and Bainimarama in Wellington a little before Qarase was removed from power, New Zealand had a good opportunity to influence events in Fiji for the better. Qarase should have been told that New Zealand would not support an amnesty for convicted traitors and that they did not agree with legislations that discriminated against a significant proportion of its own citizens. Then the talks between the two Fijian leaders perhaps would have been fruitful.
New Zealand was blinded by its faith in democracy. The NZ leaders saw Qarase as the elected leader who could do no wrong and Bainimarama as the military strongman who was trying to usurp power. They seemed to have forgotten that the ideal of democracy was not just majority rule but it also involved providing good governance. When Bainimarama seized power “he was only taking back what he gave Qarase when he invited him to form a government after arresting Speight in 2000,” wrote Davis.
Leave a Comment