P 120316Z JUN 09
FM AMEMBASSY SUVA
TO SECSTATE WASHDC PRIORITY 1315
INFO AMEMBASSY CANBERRA 
AMEMBASSY WELLINGTON 
AMEMBASSY PORT MORESBY 
AMEMBASSY MAJURO 
AMEMBASSY KOLONIA 
AMEMBASSY KOROR 
AMEMBASSY LONDON 
AMEMBASSY PARIS 
AMEMBASSY TOKYO 
AMEMBASSY APIA 
USEU BRUSSELS
USMISSION USUN NEW YORK 
HQ USPACOM HONOLULU HI
SECDEF WASHDC

UNCLAS SUVA 000251 
 
 
PLEASE PASS TO EAP ACTING A/S DAVIES 
 
E.O. 12958: N/A 
TAGS: PGOV PREL FJ KDEM
SUBJECT: NOTED ACADEMIC'S SPEECH BANNED BY FIJI'S DE FACTO 
GOVERNMENT FOR TRUTH TELLING 
 
REF: A) Suva 31, B) Suva 62, C) Suva 131, D) Suva 141, E) Suva 171, 
F) Suva 186, G) Suva 189 
 
 
¶1.  (U) On June 12, Fijian police banned the opening session of the 
Fiji Institute of Chartered Accountants annual congress in Nadi 
because Fiji lawyer and outspoken critic of the de facto government 
Graham Leung and Dr. Brij Lal, Professor of Pacific and Asian 
History at the Research School of Pacific and Asian Studies, 
Australian National University, were scheduled to speak. Embassy 
obtained Dr. Lal's speech, which gives an accurate view of Fiji's 
conundrum and a way forward toward democracy and a duly-elected 
civilian government.  The speech shares the Embassy's analyses and 
conclusions regarding the situation in Fiji and the role of the 
international community (reftels). 
 
¶2.  (U) To summarize, Lal points out that the interim regime is 
engaged in an attempt to create a perfect democracy in Fiji, which 
raises the question of whether the military would actually allow 
elections by 2014.  Lal made clear that Fiji's present course does 
not bring the country closer to democracy; instead, the interim 
government would likely continue to be more repressive rather than 
inclusive.  He said that despite censorship, borders are now so 
porous that the exercise of controlling speech is futile and 
self-defeating.  In reference to Fiji's suspension from the Pacific 
Islands Forum (PIF), Lal said "Fiji needs to recognize that Pacific 
leaders are not pawns in the hands of Australia and New Zealand, and 
it is deeply offensive to Pacific Island leaders for Fiji to think 
so."  Lal concluded his remarks by quoting excerpts from President 
Obama's Cairo speech regarding human rights. 
 
¶3.  (U) Begin Text: 
 
When Mr. Murray McKenzie invited me to address your convention, I 
told him in all my naivet that I didn't know anything about 
Accountancy.  'Not many accountants do either,' he replied.  That 
put my mind at rest.  When he said that I should focus my address on 
the present and the future, I had to tell him that I made my living 
by predicting the past.  He said reassuringly, 'You will do just 
fine.'  So here I am, and I thank you for the privilege of being 
with you today. 
 
The invitation to speak at this gathering was extended to me at a 
time that is so rapidly vanishing beyond recall.  The constitution 
was still in place, even though it was observed more in the breach; 
a political dialogue process, although fraught and flawed in many 
ways, was under way; the international community was expressing a 
cautious and conditional willingness to get engaged to rescue Fiji 
from the cul-de-sac it was in; and there was a glimmer of hope - 
just a glimmer - that Fiji might finally find its feet on the ground 
again. 
 
But all that is now gone.  There is now no pretence about finding a 
solution to Fiji's political problems in a timely fashion, in 
consultation with its friends in the regional and the international 
community.  Fiji is now telling the world: we will find solutions to 
Fiji's problems on our own terms, in our own time.  The 
international community must not dictate terms.  Fiji is a sovereign 
nation.  Leave us alone.  There is a palpable sense of exasperation 
in the voice of the interim administration: we are the guys who are 
on the right side of history; we are doing the right thing; why 
doesn't the world understand us?  Why indeed. 
 
This question goes to the heart of the topic given to me: 'Fiji and 
the International Community: Acceptance or Isolation: Are these the 
only choices?'  My response is: No.  I don't think Acceptance and 
Isolation are the only two choices available to the international 
community when dealing with Fiji.  There is another alternative: 
Accommodation.  And there is an alternative to Monologue: Dialogue. 
I shall return to this theme later. 
 
This coup is in marked contrast to the first coup of 1987.  The 
world then was a simpler place.  The fax machine was the latest 
invention, and it was possible to deprive society of the oxygen of 
information and commentary.  But the world since then has changed 
beyond recognition.  Now censorship is enforced in Fiji and 
self-censorship encouraged, but technology cannot be so easily 
intimidated.  Blogsites abound, spreading information as well as 
misinformation to all those who want them across the world.  The 
boundaries are simply too porous to be easily policed.  They are 
transgressed at the click of a button.  The whole exercise of 
controlling speech is futile and self-defeating. 
 
There is another difference with 1987.  Then the message was clear, 
even though it was based on spurious assumptions.  The message was 
the defense of indigenous rights against the interests and 
aspirations of an immigrant community.  The international community, 
unable or unwilling to decipher the more unseemly motives of the 
principal actors, was willing to believe the message.  But the 
message this time around is not clear, which is one reason for the 
present confusion.  Initially the coup was justified as a 'Clean Up 
Campaign.'  A few months later, another rationale crept in: 
electoral reform and the implementation of a so-called Peoples' 
Charter, the latter a kind of development plan, presented to the 
people as the military's exit strategy and as a panacea for all the 
ills afflicting the nation.  More recently, another rationale has 
crept in: to create a perfect, corruption free, politics-free 
society.  As the interim prime minister puts it, 'I want to rid 
politics from decision making that has an impact on our economy, our 
future.  We cannot be beholden to petty politics, communal politics, 
provincial politics and religious politics.'  He did not use the 
word, but he could have been talking about creating a utopia.  And 
when you are engaged in that mammoth task, timeliness and 
accountability are irrelevant. 
 
In 1987, the military coup was always intended as a means to an end, 
and not an end in itself.  The end was the entrenchment of Fijian 
control of the political process.  After a few chaotic months, 
Sitiveni Rabuka eventually handed power back to civilian rulers who 
then chalked the path back to parliamentary democracy.  Now the 
situation is different.  You do not have on the national stage 
chiefs of mana and overarching influence, such as Ratu Sir Kamisese 
Mara or Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau, who can exercise a moderating, 
stabilizing influence on developments.  Now, the military, having 
hobbled indigenous institutions of power, is much more intent on 
being centrally involved in reshaping the future of the country in 
its own image.  They are here to stay: that message comes out loud 
and clear from a whole raft of things the interim administration has 
done since abrogating the constitution on April 10th.  Whether it is 
civil society organizations, the media or the Fiji Law Society, the 
message from the military is the same: we are in control, and we 
intend to remain in control for a very long time. 
 
The military and the interim administration have tried very hard to 
convince the international community that their main aim is to 
create a truly democratic society in Fiji that is just and fair to 
everyone.  They want an allegedly very undemocratic constitution to 
be re-written so that every citizen has equal rights.  One would 
have to admit that there are some - perhaps many - people both in 
Fiji and abroad who are willing to believe this, and give the 
interim administration the benefit of the doubt.  That is, they 
believe that the military is dead earnest about creating a perfect 
democracy, after which it would voluntarily leave the stage for 
politics to operate as normal. 
 
I am prepared to accept this assertion for the sake of argument, 
just as those who embrace the military's vision must, by the same 
token, accept the position of those who express grave reservation, 
as many in the international community do.  There is the argument 
that by simply having a non-racial system of voting will not remove 
race as a factor in politics.  Just look at Guyana or Malaysia, to 
take just two examples, and the evidence is clear.  There are those 
who argue that an electoral system, however perfect, is a means to 
an end, and not an end in itself.  So a prior question has to be 
asked: what kind of political culture do you want to create in Fiji? 
 I do not believe that this debate has taken place here.  A view has 
been asserted, but it has not been properly argued. 
 
But let us, again for the sake of argument, assume that the interim 
administration's proposed electoral system is adopted.  Two 
questions then arise.  What is the quid pro quo?  Will the military 
then retreat to the barracks?  And what happens if the results 
thrown up by the new system, whatever they are, are deemed 
unacceptable to the military?  There is another point to consider. 
Now that we have no constitution in place, the interim 
administration can simply decree its preferred electoral model into 
existence and then proceed to hold elections under it, as happened 
under the 1990 constitution.  At the back of my mind is another 
thought that I want to express in the hope of having it debated. 
And it is this.  Increasingly, it seems to me, the powers-that-be 
are engaged in a project that goes beyond tinkering with the 
electoral system.  They are intent on fundamentally re-structuring 
of society.  To put it another way, they are engaged in creating 
utopia in Fiji, as I suggested earlier.  This plants seeds of doubt 
in my mind about elections being held in 2014. 2024 perhaps, but 
certainly not 2014.  I hope I am wrong. 
 
A central plank in the interim administration's defense of its 
defiant stance is the notion of sovereignty.  Sovereignty, simply 
defined, is the line that distinguishes one nation state from 
another.  Historically, there have been two philosophical positions 
on sovereignty: one by Thomas Hobbes and another by John Locke.  The 
difference between the two lies in the extent of the obligation the 
state has to its citizens: in one minimal, in the other 
considerable.  There is now another dimension to consider: 
globalization, which renders national boundaries porous through the 
impact of travel and technology.  Sovereignty is now not an absolute 
concept, but a contingent one, intersected at various points by 
provisions of international law.  From the Nuremburg trials onwards, 
the world has understood international law as not only adjudicating 
disputes between states but also holding states accountable for the 
fundamental violations of the human rights of its citizens.  Look at 
international intervention in Afghanistan, Iraq, Rwanda, Somalia, 
East Timor and Kosovo, and you will see what I mean.  So Fiji cannot 
and should not expect immunity or exception from international 
disapproval for what has happened here.  The consciousness of civil, 
political and human rights is now too deeply entrenched in many 
international instruments and conventions to be ignored or violated 
with impunity. 
 
Indeed, Fiji is a signatory to many of these instruments.  Let us 
take the Biketawa Declaration.  Its seven or so principles include 
'Upholding democratic processes and institutions which reflect 
national and local circumstances, including the peaceful transfer of 
power, the rule of law and the independence of the judiciary, and 
just and honest government,' and 'Recognizing the importance of 
respecting and protecting indigenous rights and cultural values, 
traditions and customs.'  And the Declaration stipulates the precise 
steps to be taken in the event of strife in a member country: the 
convening of Forum Foreign Ministers meeting, creating a Ministerial 
Action Group, appointing a fact-finding mission, and so on.  And 
this is precisely what happened in the case of Fiji.  So I am 
puzzled at Fiji's umbrage.  A few days ago, Forum Secretary General 
Slade expressed a view that is worth pondering: 'The welfare of the 
region is inextricably tied up with the welfare of Fiji.  But the 
present situation in Fiji involves clear disregard of the core 
values of democracy, good governance and the rule of law recognized 
by all Forum members, as well as the vast majority of the 
international community, as crucial to the future peace and 
prosperity of the Pacific Forum region.'  That sentiment is 
unexceptionable. 
 
Let me take another declaration, the Cotonou Agreement, about which 
many of you probably know a great deal.  There are four fundamental 
principles which underpin the Agreement: Equality of Partners and 
Ownership of Development Strategies; Partnership; Dialogue and 
Mutual Obligation, and finally Differentiation and Regionalization. 
I would be happy to elaborate on these principles during discussion. 
 But what is important in the context of Fiji is an additional 
provision in the Cotonou Agreement.  Article 8, titled 'The 
Political Dimension,' provides that all parties to the Agreement 
'shall contribute to peace, security and stability and promote a 
stable and democratic environment.'  The dialogue 'shall also 
encompass a regular assessment of the developments concerning the 
respect for human rights, democratic principles, the rule of law,' 
and 'shall take full account of the objective of peace and 
democratic stability in the definition of priority areas of 
cooperation.'  It is all there in black and white, and I am again at 
a loss to understand Fiji's puzzlement at being told that what it is 
doing is wrong and unacceptable.  The EU will not relax its stance. 
That much is certain.  This is not necessarily what I or many of us 
want.  This is, quite simply, the way things are.  And the sooner 
the people of Fiji are told the truth, the better it will be for 
everyone. 
 
It is no secret that the interim administration is unhappy with the 
reaction of the international community, and it has singled out 
Australia and New Zealand for particular criticism in relation to 
their alleged interference in Forum decision making about Fiji. 
There are several points to consider.  The Forum position has 
hardened over time in direct response to Fiji's intransigence. 
Tonga's Fred Sevele was sympathetic to Fiji in the beginning, as was 
PNG's Michael Somare.  Both were disappointed at Fiji's snub of 
Pacific leaders' meeting in Niue and then in Port Moresby.  Fiji 
needs to recognize that Pacific leaders are not pawns in the hands 
of Australia and New Zealand, and it is deeply offensive to Pacific 
Island leaders for Fiji to think so.  And there is a further point 
to consider.  Why should anyone express surprise that Australia and 
New Zealand are using their diplomatic leverage in the region to 
effect an outcome they want?  You would surely expect democratic 
countries to champion values that underpin their own political 
culture and not condone practices which seek to subvert them.  But 
having said that, I know that the international community does want 
to help, provided there is genuine willingness on the part of the 
interim administration to engage in inclusive dialogue.  Fiji's 
siege mentality in the circumstances is understandable, but it is 
also a hindrance to progress. 
 
It is perhaps this closed mindset that obscures a clear perception 
of the international reaction to Fiji.  I recall what then Minister 
Mahendra Chaudry said when the Rudd Labour government was elected 
into office.  He welcomed the new government and said that he was 
hopeful that Canberra would show a more sympathetic appreciation of 
the situation in Fiji.  I was asked to respond to this on a Hindi 
radio talk show.  The whole world came crashing down on my head.  I 
said that the change of government would not alter Australia's 
position on Fiji, and gave three reasons.  One was that no 
Australian political party would ever condone a military coup 
against a democratically elected government.  Two, that after 
thirteen years in the wilderness, the ALP having won power at the 
ballot box could hardly be expected to condone its violation in its 
own neighborhood.  And three, Australia would not take a position on 
Fiji without consulting its closest partner New Zealand, which had 
already condemned the coup in the strongest terms possible.  All 
this was, or should have been, common sense. 
 
Today, some in the interim administration are making a similar noise 
about China.  Let me say at the outset that I hope the interim 
administration is right and that Chinese aid, trade and investment 
will flow into Fiji in ample measure in the years to come.  But I am 
not optimistic.  Why?  We have been on this route before, soon after 
the 1987 coups when Fiji embarked on a 'Look North Policy' with 
great enthusiasm, not the least to teach Australia and New Zealand 
the lesson that they were not indispensable to Fiji's development. 
Nothing tangible came from that initiative.  Nothing.  And I am not 
sure that much will come out of the current China drive either. 
China's strategic interest in Fiji is limited.  Its regional policy 
is driven by the Taiwan factor.  At this time of global financial 
crisis, no country, including China, will invest in an environment 
characterized by systemic instability and periodic eruptions.  And 
for China, Australia and New Zealand are far more important than 
Fiji.  For that reason alone, China is unlikely to do anything in 
direct defiance of Canberra and Wellington. 
 
The interim administration has repeatedly told the international 
community and anyone else who would listen, that merely having 
elections will not solve Fiji's problems.  I agree.  Elections by 
themselves don't solve anything.  That is common sense.  What they 
do is to provide the basis of legitimacy for governance.  This 
fundamental point has escaped many who place trust and confidence in 
the military and the interim administration.  Fiji tells the 
international community that Fiji's constitution is 'undemocratic' 
and that it has to go if Fiji is to develop into a fair and just 
society.  I have alluded to this before, but let me make some 
additional points.  I do not know what criterion is used to define 
democracy.  What I do know is that international laws allow for a 
certain margin of appreciation to accommodate a country's unique 
culture and history and traditions and for these to be incorporated 
into its constitutional structure.  There is no one-size-fits-all. 
 
Second, I know that the 1997 constitution attempted to deal with the 
most fundamental problem that has beset Fiji since the inception of 
party politics in 1966.  That problem was not a flawed electoral 
system (although the first-past-the-post most certainly was), but 
the systematic exclusion of one community, the Indo-Fijians, from 
sharing power.  They were the perennial 'Other' of Fijian politics. 
The compulsory power-sharing provision in the 1997 constitution was 
designed to address that problem.  And in 2006, for the first time 
in Fiji's political history ever, there was a genuinely 
multi-ethnic, multi-party government in place.  A new beginning was 
being made, however tentatively.  Consider the sweet irony: Fijians 
and Indo-Fijians were in government, while the opposition was led by 
a General Voter! 
 
Third, I know that there are other forms of democracy other than the 
Westminster variety, respected and practiced in many stable 
democracies.  One such, upon which the 1997 constitution was partly 
founded, was what Arend Lijphart has called 'Consociationalism' 
whose principal characteristics are: a grand coalition of elites 
representing different segments of society; guaranteed group 
representation so that no major community is excluded from power; 
mutual veto over matters of particular concern to the different 
communities; proportionality in political representation; and 
segmental autonomy that allows for the maintenance of different 
cultural identities.  This, too, a model of democracy, and Fiji's 
1997 constitution meets its test fully.  In this version, reserving 
seats for distinct communities is not the evil that the advocates of 
the Westminster model make it out to be. 
 
Fourth, I know that no country will ever enjoy political stability 
so necessary for economic development unless there is basic respect 
for the rule of law.  You may have the most perfect constitution in 
the world, the most perfect model of democracy on paper, but as long 
as you have a large standing military in an environment 
characterized by violence and disorder, there will always be a 
threat to peace. 
 
The time for apportioning blame about what happened is over.  The 
question now is: where do we go from here?  First, we need to 
confront the inescapable truth that Fiji cannot go it alone, that 
sooner rather than later, it will have to engage with the 
international community Fiji will have to adopt a more open and 
inclusive approach.  Many initiatives contemplated by the interim 
administration are praiseworthy, and I have no doubt that there 
would be a meeting of minds on many of them.  That is why there is 
an urgent need of tact and diplomacy.  Fiji is an island, I have 
said so many times before, but it is an island in the physical sense 
alone.  The words of John Donne come to mind: 'No man is an Island, 
entire of itself; every man is a piece of the Continent, a part of 
the main; if a clod be washed away by the sea, Europe is the less, 
as well as if a promontory were, as well as if a manor of the thy 
friends or thine own were; any man's death diminishes me, because I 
am involved with Mankind.' 
 
As a practical matter, the interim administration, if it is serious 
about returning Fiji to parliamentary democracy in a timely fashion 
- and I have already expressed my doubts before - it should design 
backwards from 2014 and draw up a timetable for taking the country 
to elections.  Without that demonstrable commitment, the 
international community will not engage.  That much is clear.  No 
one wants to be taken for a cheap ride. 
 
It would also be helpful if the interim administration set out in 
specific detail what aspect of the abrogated 1997 constitution it 
finds problematic so that areas of agreement and disagreement among 
the different stakeholders can be clearly identified.  The problems 
Fiji faces are huge, but they are surmountable.  The international 
community will come to the party, but it will have to be convinced 
of Fiji's genuine desire to engage in an inclusive dialogue.  In the 
end, though, solutions to Fiji's problems will have to be found 
here, devised by the people of this country.  And no solution will 
be sustainable and enduring unless it is based on tolerance and a 
sensitive understanding of this country's diverse inheritance.  It 
must be based on the understanding that dissent does not mean 
disloyalty.  President Obama said it well in Cairo earlier this 
month.  He said that 'in order to move forward, we must say openly 
to each other the things we hold in our hearts and that too often 
are said only behind closed doors.  There must be a sustained effort 
to listen to each other; to learn from each other; to respect one 
another; and to seek common ground.'  Fiji can realize its potential 
that is so within its reach.  That is its challenge and its 
opportunity. 
 
I want to end by quoting again words from President Obama's Cairo 
address which are apt for my purposes.  He said: 'I do have an 
unyielding belief that all people yearn for certain things: the 
ability to speak your own mind and have a say in how you are 
governed, confidence in the rule of law and equal administration of 
justice; government that is transparent and doesn't steal from 
people; the freedom to live as you choose.  These are not just 
American ideas; they are human rights, and that is why we will 
support them everywhere.' 
 
End Text 
 
MCGANN