Fiji turns the screws on the media

Opponents of Fiji’s media censorship want to set up a pirate radio station in international waters to broadcast news and music currently banned by the Frank Bainimarama dictatorship. Usaia Waqatairewa, the Sydney-based president of the Fiji Democracy and Freedom Movement, told the ABC today they wanted to put an antenna on an American or Australian registered ship located outside Fiji's legal jurisdiction. Waqatairewa says Internet access was rare in Fiji and people needed another means of getting news the Bainimarama government isn't letting them hear. “What we're planning to do is to if we could in some way set up a freedom radio that does not have the control of the regime in Fiji and be able to broadcast out the real news, instead of their propaganda and what they have censored themselves,” he said. (photo by Jachin Sheehy)

The announcement comes just days after the Fijian dictator, who has ruled since 2006, claimed the country would probably not be “ready” for elections in 2014. It also comes less than a month after strict new laws further inhibited Fiji’s media from honestly reporting on what is happening there. On 29 June the military backed regime introduced its new "Media Industry Development Decree 2010" which brought in a new set of strict rules governing Fiji’s media. The laws strengthen already tough laws governing the media, military intimidation of reporters, censors in newsrooms and the deportation of foreign-born newspaper executives.

One of those executives was Russell Hunter who was the former managing-director of the Fiji Sun before he was deported in 2007. Hunter called the laws draconian and an erosion of freedom and basic human rights. The laws give the media authority the right to demand the name of confidential sources if the story relates to government corruption. Journalists could be fined $50,000 and jailed for two years for work deemed against the “public interest or order”. The most well-known provision is the 10 percent limit on foreign ownership as it directly affects the News Ltd owned Fiji Times, which is the country’s oldest and largest newspaper.

The Fijian Government has now given News Ltd three months to sell the paper or be forcibly shut down. It also casts huge doubts over the viability of foreign investment in the country at the very time it is most needed. News Limited boss John Hartigan said the laws eroded the "basic tenets of democracy" in Fiji. "This illegal government has retrospectively withdrawn permission for foreign media investment in Fiji, which is not only grossly unfair but will inevitably be enormously damaging to Fiji's reputation as an attractive investment opportunity," he said.

In response, the Fijian media regulator said the country’s media needs to be a part of the regime not an opponent. Former Canberra-based academic Satendra Nandan, chair of the Media Industry Development Authority, said action needed to be taken against newspapers such as The Fiji Times, which had acted against the Bainimarama government. Nandan told The Australian the Times’ coverage of the scrapping of the judiciary and constitution last year was “abusive and scurrilous”. "The Fiji Times took a strong stand against the current government and the abrogation of the constitution and they didn't consider the national interest,” Nandan said.

The New Zealand Herald says the media laws are part of an ongoing removal of Fijians' rights including quashing the constitution, removing dissent and empty promises on a new election. With 60 percent of Fiji’s tourist income coming from New Zealand and Australia, the Herald rightly suggest the time is now right to reconsider holiday plans in Fiji. “Tourists might like to say that Fijian businesses and jobs should not be penalised for the sins of the regime,” the paper said. “But they are undermining their own country's diplomatic efforts."

Freedom of Information session in Brisbane

I went along to a Walkley Foundation Night at the Regatta Hotel tonight to listen to four Brisbane media personalities talk about press freedom issues. The event was moderated by Cathy Border, Channel Ten’s political editor and featured ABC’s Pacific Correspondent Sean Dorney, fellow ABC journalist and state 7.30 Report producer Peter McCutcheon and The Australian’s Queensland political reporter and FOI editor Sean Parnell.

Sean Dorney began the discussion by discussing his recent experiences in being expelled from Fiji. Given that the material is similar to the ground relating to his 14 April expulsion from Fiji, which I covered in his QUT speech, I don’t propose to rehash his comments tonight. However Dorney did have a few important updates. He noted that all Fiji lawyers will be forced to re-register as of the end of June in an attempt to weed out law practitioners unsympathetic to government. Dorney said that Fijian journalists are unhappily waiting for a similar decree to come their way.

Sean Parnell spoke next. Parnell began his career as a photojournalist for The Inverell Times newspaper and then worked in radio and TV before writing for the Courier-Mail for ten years. He is now the Queensland bureau chief of The Australian and specialises in Freedom of Information (FOI) laws. Parnell lamented the gradual dumbing down of political debate and the increasingly strained relationship between politicians and journalists. He talked about the “leap of faith” required to believe the Queensland overhaul of state FOI laws will work.

Parnell lamented how the “spin cycle” made getting even simple information from governments an extraordinarily difficult task. He applauded the John Faulkner efforts at a federal level to reform the FOI laws despite the tight media management of the Rudd Government. Parnell said journalists should not rely on FOI which was “just another tool” to get information out of governments. He also noted that given the usual three month delay between making FOI requests and getting the information means that journalists need to look beyond the news cycle to determine what to request.

ABC’s Peter McCutcheon spoke next. McCutcheon agreed with Parnell that communication between politicians and journalists had deteriorated. He said that whenever he requests an off-the-record briefing on an issue, he has to wait for several weeks and even then all he gets are “weasel words” from a minister. McCutcheon also mentioned how journalists who successfully get FOI data are penalised as they only have 24 hours to use the fruit of their hard work before the same information is released to all other media. Parnell interjected to say that this is the media’s own fault. He used the example of where a media outlet FOI output turns out to be useless, but they use one damning statistic in “paragraph 340” as a lead. Parnell says governments will then deliberately reveal the entire file to show the news lead was taken out of context.

While the mix of Fijian content from Dorney did not always sit well with the FOI message from Parnell and McCutcheon, the session did highlight that Australia cannot afford to be complacent about freedom of the press. As I wrote here a few days ago, governments in Australia employ 4,000 people as part of their PR arm, outnumbering the total of journalists by a staggering four to one. No wonder then, says Peter McCutcheon, whenever he speaks to ministers, all he gets is “a tightly controlled message with not a lot of content”. The wider question then is, if messages do not carry content, what exactly is it they are conveying instead?

Fiji has a long way to go to be as bad as Burma

Last week the journalism watchdog group Reporters San Frontieres slammed Fiji's censorship saying the island nation was heading dangerously towards a Burmese-style system "in which the media are permanently subject to prior censorship and other forms of obstruction". However as bad as things are in Fiji and they are very bad, they would have to get a lot worse to compare with the terrible conditions Burmese media workers have had to put up with for the last 47 years.

To understand the nature of Burma’s media, it is important to understand the nature of Burma’s governance. Buddhism has long been at the heart of Burmese political culture and in pre-colonial times religion informed people’s belief that government was an evil to be endured and that kings were unaccountable to the people. A more secular polity emerged in the 19th century under the influence of European colonisation. Lower Burma was established as a British colony after the Treaty of Yandabo in 1826 and the northern part of the country was assimilated 10 years later.

Japan attempted a return to the old monarchical tradition when it ruled Burma during World War II but this idea was quickly swept away after the war. Burma gained independence from Britain in 1948 with a democratically elected civilian political leadership. In 1962 General Ne Win staged a coup under the pretext of preventing ethnic breakaway states and installed a military regime that remains in power to this day. Under his junta, Burma outlawed all other political parties and adopted a central planned economy he called the “Burmese way to socialism”. The effect was disastrous and by 1988 Burma was one of the poorest countries in the world. In 1988, the government violently suppressed a peaceful revolution. Two years later Aung San Suu Kyi (the daughter of a murdered independence hero) led the National League for Democracy to overwhelming victory in free and fair elections only for the military to declare it invalid. They created a new ruling body, the State Law and Order Restoration Council (SLORC) which later metamorphosised into the State Peace and Development Council (SPDC). The SLORC/SPDC continues to rule with an iron fist and violently put down the Saffron Revolution in 2007.

Burma remains beset by major issues today. The SPDC continues to string out Aung San Suu Kyi’s house arrest on a year-by-year basis. Major ethnic groups such as the Shan and the Karen continue insurgencies against a central administration implacably opposed to a federal style of government. All sides of the conflict use unregulated commerce including the thriving opium trade to finance their operations. And Burma is also a geo-political pawn. China wants Burma’s access to the Indian Ocean shipping lanes while both China and India covet Burma’s abundant oil, natural gas, uranium and minerals.

But the Burmese media are unable to report on any of these issues. According to Aung Zaw “the plain fact is that most Burmese have no clue what is happening in their country”. It wasn’t always this way as Burma has a long and rich tradition of journalism. Within ten years of British colonisation of Lower Burma the first western-style newspapers appeared in both English and Burmese. By 1919 Burmese language agenda setting nationalist newspapers such as Myanmar Alin (New Light of Burma) were agitating for change. At the time of independence, Burma had a vibrant network of over 30 newspapers which operated with considerable freedom in a country of much natural wealth and widespread literacy. Until 1962 the Burmese people enjoyed political and civil rights protected by the constitution, a free press and national secular education.

After 1962, the military junta clamped down hard. The new regime installed a system of press licensing that required the registration of all publications. The rulers also issued a warning that seditious news was not to be published. Ne Win soon began to act as a “tyrannical king”. In 1963 the junta closed down the prestigious Nation and began to publish its own propaganda in the Working People’s Daily. By 1966, they banned all private newspapers and expelled Reuters and Associated Press correspondents. In 1993 there remained just one permitted newspaper, the Government run Working People’s Daily, printed in Burmese and English.

Similarly, the broadcast media of radio and television remain tightly controlled by the Government. Radio was a wartime legacy and the Burmese followed the British model when they set up the Burma Broadcasting Service (BBS) after independence. Programmers on the BBS operated with similar freedom to the press until it too was abruptly ended by the military takeover in 1962. Myanmar TV began in 1980 and was supplemented by a military channel in 1990. Both channels are owned and operated by the Government and the military. But the Government doesn’t totally control the airwaves. While foreign stations such as STAR TV are officially available only to high ranking officials and five-star hotels in Yangon (Rangoon), enterprising citizens in northern towns have smuggled satellite dishes across the border from China.

In the so-called Saffron Revolution (2007), the government did not restrict the flow of international news but instead concentrated on crushing the watch-dog function of local media by censoring news sources, reporters and editors. The Reporters San Frontières report on Burma for 2006 confirmed the military had not released its grip on the military. The Press Scrutiny and Registration Division check every article, editorial, cartoon, advertisement and illustration ahead of publication. Burma also insists that all fax machines be registered and journalists can earn a seven year prison sentence for having an unauthorised fax, video camera, modem or a copy of a banned publication. The Committee for the Protection of Journalists describe Burma as one of the most repressive places for journalists, trailing only North Korea on their “10 Most Censored Countries” list.

Censorship is not the only major impediment facing Burmese journalists. Even minimal attempts to report the facts are ruthlessly crushed. Reporting on detained opposition leader Aung San Suu Kyi is banned as is debate about Government policy. In 2006 two journalists were imprisoned for attempting to film outside the country’s controversial new capital at Naypidaw and at least seven journalists were behind bars, making Burma the world’s fifth leading jailer of journalists. Burmese journalists cannot report on diverse activities such as natural disasters, plane crashes, student brawls, regional turmoil and activities of opposition political parties lest they lead to criticism of authorities. Last year a blogger was sentenced to 45 years in jail for daring to report on Cyclone Nargiss. In short, journalism in Burma is not so much about agenda-setting as agenda-avoiding.

Burma’s media regime is a good example of an authoritarian communication model in that the authority of power exists and limits, suppresses and attempts to define its people’s thought and expression. The Internet remained tightly proscribed as of 2002 with just 14,000 email accounts for a population of 50 million people. Yet news is stilling getting through despite intense repression. Because government news sources are unreliable, Burmese people tune in to foreign shortwave radio services from the BBC, Voice of America and Radio Free Asia. Burmese are also turning to older technologies such as videos, tapes, facsimiles, photographs, and printed materials to get messages across. Uncontrolled ideas do get out as the 2007 Revolution showed, even if it was eventually brutally suppressed. While the prognosis for Burma is not good in the short to medium term, the military can never fully defeat the power of communicable ideas.

Sean Dorney speaks out on Fiji censorship

Journalist Sean Dorney spoke publicly today about Fiji's intimidating media censorship and how he and two New Zealand journalists were expelled from the country last week. Speaking to a Brisbane audience, he praised the courage and friendship of the local journalists he left behind to face the country's new draconian press laws. Dorney, who is the ABC’s long-time Pacific correspondent, was kicked out of Fiji because the newly reinstalled (and supposedly) “interim” government did not like what he was writing about. (Note: picture above shows Dorney reading from his expulsion order to today's audience. Credit: Lee Duffield).

As documented in detail here at Woolly Days, Fiji descended into mayhem over Easter when the country’s High Court declared the Interim Government illegal only for the president to swiftly sack the court, abrogate the constitution, and re-install the Bainimarama government all within a matter of days. Having re-established power, the government then clamped down on the media and expelled foreign journalists Sean Dorney and a crew from New Zealand’s TV3.

Professor Alan Knight introduced Dorney today to a room of educators and student journalists at QUT’s Kelvin Grove campus. Knight said that 40 Australian & New Zealand journalists and journalism educators signed a statement of support last week (full text of statement here) which called on governments to “seek to protect all Fiji journalists striving to perform their duties in these difficult circumstances.” The statement also supported Dorney and other foreign journalists who were expelled from Fiji because “they sought the truth in the public interest.”

Dorney then began his talk by showing the audience the deportation notice the Fijian Permanent Secretary of Information issued him just one hour before he was bundled onto a plane back to Sydney. Dorney commended the bravery of the local journalists he left behind many of whom have been arrested and intimidated by authorities. The military government is now taking a direct involvement in their work. “There are censors in the newsrooms headed by a military major,” he said.

Dorney spoke about the three new decrees Fiji has introduced to clamp down on press freedoms. The first decree controls publications and broadcasts and gives the censor the right to control all media output. The second decree says that publishers and broadcasters must submit all materials to be vetted prior to publication or broadcast. The third decree states that any publisher or broadcaster who does not fully comply must “cease operations and all activities”. Essentially all Fijian media are now under the control of Major Neumi Leweni, the newly appointed (and Orwellian sounding) Permanent Secretary of Information.

Leweni has now posted officials in all five of Fiji’s main newsrooms (the three papers; The Sun, The Post, The Times, as well as the Fiji Broadcasting Corporation and Communications Fiji) to monitor operations and ensure the media are complying to the new decrees. However Leweni reserves the right to intervene directly if he feels the media are not compliant enough.

Dorney explained how the media initially hit back with creative protests only to encounter threats from the government. The Fiji Times printed blank pages instead of news and a title “this story could not be published”. Leweni told them if they did that again he would shut them down forever. The Post meanwhile, ran sarcastic stories such as “Man gets on bus” which had lines such as “It was easy...I just lifted one leg up and then the other and I was on”. Again Leweni intervened and, according to Dorney, told them “any more funny business and you are shut down”.

Dorney says he was warned in advance he was likely to be thrown out. On Friday he got a text message saying “brace yourself to depart” and he was expelled a day later. After sending a story about the censorship back to Australia, the Information department phoned him and asked him to come into the office. There he was told that Major Leweni didn’t like his reporting but was not detained. When he emerged he told ABC what had happened before being called in a second time a few hours later. This time the authorities asked would he leave voluntarily. Dorney refused and a short while later he was taken into custody. “I didn’t feel as though I was going to be beaten up,” he said, “but if handed to the military, that could have happened”.

Dorney said the only time he was worried was when a New Zealand cameramen (who was also held) tried to surreptitiously film proceedings. He was quickly spotted and officers demanded he delete all material from the camera and threatened to search his accompanying female reporter. After five hours of questioning, the journalists were all handed over to the Immigration authorities in a car park. Dorney could hear an Australian consular official who yelled out “are you OK?” The official then rang Dorney’s wife with an update while Dorney and the New Zealanders were allowed to spend the night in a hotel under the guard of Immigration officers.

The following morning they were escorted to the airport in Nadi. There they were taken to a special counter to be processed. The airline official told him she could see a booking to Sydney for Dorney but no ticket. “I do have tickets for Brisbane a month later,” he told her. Dorney was the last to board the flight and neither the tourists on board, nor the cabin crew were aware he was being deported.

Dorney praised the courage of Fijian journalists and thanked them for their support for him in the days before he was deported. He also attacked the conditions they now work under. “[The journalists] have been told - don’t be disloyal” he said. “They are trying to be loyal to Fiji, but Bainimarama (pictured) wants them to be loyal to him”. Dorney also said the military regime doesn’t care about international pressure and a military attack would be counter-productive. “The Fijian military is a formidable force,” he said. Dorney said pressure on the regime would have to emerge internally and might happen if economic conditions deteriorate further.

Elsewhere. Another view on Dorney’s talk from Lee Duffield at EU Australia Online, a good potted history of Fiji’s troubled history from Legal Eagle at Scepticlawyer and Andrew Bartlett on the response from Fiji’s bloggers.

Something rotten in the state of Fiji

Political matters are moving with bewildering speed in Fiji, something that was not apparent to me as recently as last weekend. I was there for a wedding and I saw no signs of impending political crisis on the streets of Nadi and Lautoka. Nor were there any hints in the paper, both the Fiji Times and the Sun led with the story of a fight over chiefly titles in one of the smaller islands. The only front page Fijian political story I brought back, actually originated in Australia and was about the military appointment of judges. However there was no sign of a judgement in the Qarase case, named for the last elected PM who was deposed in 2006.

Then in a matter of days, the country went haywire. On Thursday, judges ruled in favour of Qarase thus ruling “Interim Prime Minister” Bainimarama’s three year regime illegal. Yesterday the Commodore resigned and today the President went on radio where he sacked the judges and annulled the constitution. Barely pausing for breath, Bainimarama now claims he’s not behind it and the Fiji Human Rights Commission has accepted the President’s decision in a press release. “President Ratu Josefa Iloilo had no option but to annul the Constitution and appoint himself Head of State,” said the Commission.

The FHRC’s website is down at the time of writing, so I cannot confirm if the release was indeed as edited in the Fiji Times but it is safe to assume it was close enough. “The Commission understands that His Excellency felt that the Court of Appeal decision in the Qarase case left him... with no option but to abrogate the Constitution" said Commission head Dr Shaista Shameem.

The opposition movement Citizens Constitutional Forum also quoted Shameem on Thursday saying the President would “be aware of the need not to leave a political vacuum in Fiji and the Appeals court has only indicated to the President what it would be advisable to do so.” Assuming the “so” at the end of that quote adds no value, what I think Shameem meant is they advised the President to follow the CCF advice to call on him to appoint “distinguish[ed] people as caretaker Prime minister and ministers who are independent of this litigation and who can take the country to elections.”

These quick events are unlikely to lead to quick elections. Though the speedy chain of events has now been accepted in Suva, they have not been accepted elsewhere. The Fiji Islands have once again incurred the wrath of neighbouring giants. In Canberra, Prime Minister Kevin Rudd’s office called it an “abrogation” of the constitution while the Islands' other big brother New Zealand also condemned the sacking. According to the Australian Government, the Court of Appeal ruled the 2006 coup was invalid and that Bainimarama’s interim Government was illegal. Australia said Commodore Bainimarama was behind it all and said “elections should be held promptly.”

It would be difficult to describe 2014 as prompt but that is the timetable outlined by President Iloilo. It remains hazardous to predict what will happen next. Navy commodore Bainimarama still has the control of the armed forces. The Commissioner of Police Commodore Esala Teleni is also considered a staunch ally of Bainimarama.

The unknown is how much power does President Ratu Josefa Iloilo hold? At 88, he is the world’s oldest head of state. He was the paramount chief of the Vuda district of Ba in Fiji's northwest coast and he has been in the job of president for almost ten years. He has been elected twice (2000, 2005) to the position by the Great Council of Chiefs. When Frank Bainimarama seized power in December 2006 the commodore also briefly assumed presidential powers but gave them back to Iloilo a month later when he (Iloilo) agreed to give legal immunity to coup plotters. It is likely we are now seeing the fruit of their Faustian pact.

Human rights groups don’t distinguish between Iloilo and Bainimarama. When HRW issued their concerns about the slow return to democracy, they sent a letter to both of them. “We urge you [both] to ensure the swift transition to an elected government, and call on you and your officials to immediately and publicly make an unambiguous commitment that fundamental human rights will be respected and those who exercise them will be protected,” wrote HRW in 2007. Despite the recent rush of blood to the head, HRW’s complaint is still valid today and still unanswered.

UPDATE Saturday 11/4/09. Looks like Bainimarama is pulling the strings. This morning Iloilo re-appointed him "Interim" Prime Minister.

Australian Press Council throws out Fiji judge’s "main burden"

Today’s edition of the Fiji Times had an article about a recent Australian Press Council (APC) judgement of interest to the troubled islands. In truth, it wasn’t great journalism from the Times and deservedly had no by-line as it was almost a direct word-for-word steal from the council judgement itself. And the one addition by the Times sub-editor was mostly incorrect. The headline read “Judge’s gripe upheld”, however according to the APC, the gripe was dismissed “in the main burden”. Nonetheless the case is an interesting one, and one that says a lot about the murky world of the Fijian political and judicial system.

The case was brought by the Australian-born Justice Jocelynne Scutt, who is currently a judge of the High Court of Fiji. The WA-educated Scutt is a distinguished human rights lawyer and former Anti-Discrimination Commissioner for Tasmania. She raised the complaint with the APC about an article in The Australian published on 10 March 2008. This article by Nicola Bercovic was entitled “Judge criticised over Fiji posting”.

Bercovic’s story related how Scutt was appointed to serve on Fiji’s High Court in November 2007 hearing primarily on family law matters. Scott was offered the job after six expatriate judges from the Court of Appeal resigned the year before over concerns about the acting chief judge appointed by the supposedly “Interim” Bainimarama government. The article quoted Fiji Women's Rights Movement spokeswoman Tara Chetty who said they could not support any judicial appointments by the interim government. The article quoted two other prominent Australian lawyers who also questioned Scutt’s decision to take the role.

A few days later (APC says 15 March, but I can only find an article on 13 March), The Australian followed up with a second article from Chris Merritt entitled “Jocelynne Scutt named in human rights report”. This article gave some of Scutt’s background and then implicated her in “a major report on the rule of law in Fiji prepared by the International Bar Association's Human Rights Institute.” Merritt claimed that Scutt was involved in proceedings that were "a chilling use of judicial powers" against free expression. Scutt was unavailable to comment.

However my reading of the IBAHRI report (available here in pdf format) does not fully support Merritt’s insinuation that Scutt was responsible. In the matter cited, Scutt was one of three judges who had judicial concerns about a Fiji Sun article criticising the Interim government’s choice of judges. It was Justice Shameen who had four issues with the article but they did not find against the paper. Scutt did not comment and nothing further came of the case (though I agree it does have “a chilling effect”).

Merritt’s article and the IBAHRI report both quote Angie Heffernan, the director of Fiji's Pacific Centre for Public Integrity. Heffernan had called on Scutt to resign after she (Scutt) commended the Fiji Human Rights report which cast doubt on the credibility of the 2006 Election (and provided Bainimarama the excuse he needed to launch the coup). Heffernan said the report contents were now sub judice and Scutt compromised her position “reflect[ing] the disturbing developments within the judiciary since the December 5, 2006 military coup.”

Justice Scutt complained to the APC that The Australian articles were 'highly critical', 'highly defamatory' and 'damaging'. She sought a retraction of the published materials and the publication by the newspaper of an apology. She claimed her appointment was not political as it was made by the President of Fiji on the recommendation of a Judicial Services Commission and not by 'the military-backed regime'. However The Australian dismissed this complaint as “disingenuous” and the APC agreed.

They also agreed with the paper that Scutt’s high profile made her a genuine subject of public interest. Her acceptance of a judicial appointment in a country under the control of a military regime was a newsworthy story, it stated. It was also unimpressed by her claim that the fact the matter of judicial appointment in Fiji was currently sub judice meant the articles should not be published at all. The APC dismissed this by saying “[t]his provides no effective or convincing justification for her complaint.”

The APC was critical of The Australian’s initial inability to obtain a quote from Scutt prior to the publication of the first article. But even then they noted she declined to comment when finally contacted. "This refusal by Justice Scutt to provide comments based on her belief that, as a judge she was 'not able to speak on the matter'," wrote the APC, “did not preclude the newspaper from continuing to report, and comment on, her appointment.”

The only complaint upheld (and with it the dubious rationale for the Fiji Times headline) was that The Australian went too far linking Scutt with the military regime. These were the statements about "links with Fiji's military rulers" and "is involved with the military regime", which incorrectly implied collaboration with the regime. The APC said the newspaper offered no evidence to justify these statements. Nonetheless Scutt can take little comfort from the judgement. The current political situation in Fiji is too damaged for a truly independent judiciary to function properly. I agree with Greg Barns in another article in The Australian from August last year that Scutt should resign. “If she does that, she will be helping to restore democracy to Fiji and will enhance her standing in the eyes of her peers and the Australian community,” wrote Barns.

Media expulsions keep Fiji on the Commonwealth outer

The Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) has decided to continue the suspension of Fiji from its organisation. The 53-nation bloc readmitted Pakistan due to its recently elected government but decided Fiji would remain outside the pale. CMAG made the announcement in London saying it doubted Fiji would honour its intention to hold elections in the next 12 months. According to Commonwealth Secretary General Kamalesh Sharma, said that both judicial independence and freedom of the media were seriously compromised with media personnel being deported in contravention of court orders.

Fijian dictator Frank Bainimarana rebuffed the criticisms of his regime saying CMAG has failed to “recognise the realities in his country”. He said it was “most unfortunate” Fiji was being judged from a distance without taking the on-ground situation into account. Bainimarana lamented the fact that Fiji was not invited to the meeting to explain its position. "There seemed to have been insufficient effort to understand the practical difficulties of the situation in Fiji," Bainimarama said. However he did not explain his heavy-handed treatment of Fijian media including the expulsion of two Australian newspaper editors in three months despite court orders preventing the actions.

The latest Australian to be deported is Evan Hannah, publisher of the News Corp owned Fiji Times. Hannah was forcibly removed from his home in Suva on 1 May and taken to Nadi airport leaving behind his Fijian wife and young son. From Nadi, he was forced to board a plane to Incheon in Korea before finding a flight back to Australia. The extraordinary dogleg diversion was necessary because none of the local airlines would take Hannah aboard due to the court order explicitly forbidding his deportation. Only Korean Airlines were unconcerned by the writ of habeas corpus keeping him in Fiji. Hannah says the deportation order he saw says he breached his work permit but didn’t say why.

Australian foreign minister Stephen Smith expressed his outrage at Hannah’s treatment one day later. Smith said the Australian High Commission made urgent but unsuccessful representations to Bainimarana and his Foreign Minister to seek an explanation for what happened. Smith called it “unconscionable” that Fiji did not provide any notification or explanation to the Australian High Commission for Hannah’s summary detention and expulsion. “Equally outrageous,” continued Smith, “is the fact that the Fiji regime, despite repeated requests, did not allow appropriate consular access to Mr Hannah.”

Undaunted by the Australian rebuke, Bainimarana threatened further expulsions in the wake of Hannah’s forced departure. In a meeting with heads of news media and the Fiji Media Council in Suva, he refused to explain why Hannah was deported and said others were likely to follow. Bainimarana claimed that “the last thing he would want to do” is close down the media. He called on them to work with the government to move the country forward. Media representatives at the meeting wanted better responses from the government on various issues and agreed to meet Bainimarama on a monthly basis to iron out their differences.

The Hannah incident follows less than three months after the deportation of Fiji Sun editor Russell Hunter. Both were deemed a threat to national security and found guilty without trial of attempting to destabilise Bainimarana’s illegal regime. Both men were hustled suddenly out of the country leaving family behind and both deportations defied court orders forbidding the action. Reporters Without Borders condemned both actions saying “it seems that the summary removal of government critics is becoming the norm in Fiji.” But Bainimarana may not be able to shut everyone up; the Fiji Times retaliated a day after Hannah’s expulsion with the headline “we won’t shut up”.

Fiji clamps down on free speech

In the wake of the Russell Hunter deportation, Fiji’s military rulers have now announced further crackdowns on the country's media. The so-called Fiji Human Rights Commission has released a report (pdf) on media independence and freedom which recommends that all existing work permits in Fiji's media industry not be renewed, and no further permits be issued. The commission also advocates law changes imposing penalties on media outlets that publish material that incite sedition or breach the Public Order Act.

The sedition laws are based on similar draconian laws that hamper Singapore’s media. The report was completed without any input from Fiji's media industry, which says it had no confidence in its author, Hawaiian based academic Doctor James Anthony. The deported Russell Hunter said Fiji's interim government doesn't want anyone working in the country's media who it can't control. "It's a blatant attempt to exclude people who they fear, or dislike," Hunter told Radio Australia.

Hunter himself was declared a prohibited immigrant on Tuesday under the Immigration Act which stated that a non-citizen became a prohibited immigrant if the minister deemed the person had been conducting himself in a manner prejudicial to the peace, defence, public safety, public order, public morality, public health, security or good government of Fiji. The real reason for his eviction was the fact that his newspaper had run a series of articles accusing Fiji's Finance Minister, Mahendra Chaudhry, of tax evasion. The junta’s response, according to the New Zealand Herald, was “a blatant act of intimidation against a newspaper trying to do its job”.

Hunter was the editor of the Fiji Sun. Today his newspaper reported the discrepancies in the story between the Immigration department and Fijian court officials over a court order to prevent Hunter’s deportation. The order was issued by High Court judge Justice Jiten Singh early on Tuesday morning before the Air Pacific flight left the airport. A senior court officer at the registry in Suva faxed the order to the immigration office in Nadi before the aircraft departed. However, immigration officers at the airport denied the existence of such an order. A lawyer for the Fiji Sun said that the order was sent and would have been received by immigration officers well before the flight departed. This, he said, was a very strong case of contempt of court.

Hunter’s deportation was strongly condemned by Australian and New Zealand governments. Meeting in Canberra this week, Prime Ministers Kevin Rudd and Helen Clark condemned the Fiji government's decision and demanded the country’s military leader Frank Bainimarama keep his promise to hold elections in 2009. However, Helen Clark suggested she didn’t believe this was likely to happen, saying it was “inconceivable that you can hold open, free and fair elections if you have media intimidation”.

International media organisations have also joined in the chorus of disapproval. Press freedom body Reporters Without Borders said his expulsion is unacceptable and contrary to all of the Fiji government’s international undertakings. The International Press Institute, which represents editors, media executives and leading journalists in over 120 countries, called on authorities to stop using Fijian immigration laws to silence outspoken journalists. The Australian newspaper said the “deplorable abduction and deportation of newspaper publisher Russell Hunter underlines that nation's standing as a banana republic ruled by a sinister dictatorship”.

Fiji has long had issues with the notion of freedom of the press. One of the first actions of the 2000 armed coup was to shut down the website of the journalism department of the University of South Pacific in Suva. The student online newspaper “Pacific Journalism Online” had been covering the crisis with stories, pictures and updates since the violence started in May 2000. University administrators shut it down after ten days due, they said, to threats against the university and students.

That same year, the government under Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry also introduced a government-imposed media council to replace Fiji’s independent self-regulatory council. They issued a directive for all government advertising to be placed on the government-controlled Daily Post. As part of a systematic campaign against the Fiji Times, the authorities told its Scottish born editor-in-chief they had rejected his application for a renewed work permit and gave him 28 days to leave the country. That man was Russell Hunter, for whom history has now repeated itself. Today’s military junta are little different – all Fiji’s rulers seem intent on waging a war of attrition against independent media.

Fiji military declares war on bloggers

The Fijian military has told students at the University of the South Pacific that if they are responsible for contributing to anti-Government blogs, their Fijian Affairs Board scholarships will be terminated. Land force commander, Colonel Pita Driti warned the students they would be tracked down and several were taken in for questioning earlier this week. The move is the latest salvo in the war between Fiji’s unelected government and the country’s bloggers. Most of these sites have sprung up since last December’s military coup that took Frank Bainimarama into power.

Fiji International Telecommunications Limited (FINTEL) is the only provider of internet technology in the country. Last month a FINTEL spokesman confirmed the interim administration asked them to shut off access to the offending blogs. The government had asked for access be cut off for "national security" reasons.

A senior administration officer of the Public Service Commission has also been questioned by army officers in relation to anti-army and anti-regime blogs. Sites including Intelligentsiya, Why Fiji is Crying, and Discombobulated Bubu have broken stories that have embarrassed the interim government since the coup.

The mainstream media has also suffered censorship in the wake of the new regime. In December last year, the country’s largest newspaper the Fiji Times was forced to temporarily suspend publication after the military ordered the paper not to publish any "propaganda" against the new political leadership. The military raided the papers offices and shut it down saying it would not tolerate it publishing any views that opposed those of the Army.

Commodore Frank Bainimarama seized power in Fiji in December last year. For months prior to the coup, he had threatened to throw Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase from office over what he called government corruption and controversial proposed laws that planned to give amnesty to the failed 2000 coup plotters. When Bainimarama finally did take over in a bloodless coup, he claimed the takeover would be temporary, and that a caretaker government would be installed and fresh elections held.

But having established himself as Prime Minister in January this year, Bainimarama has changed his tune about the freshness of the elections. In February he set out a “roadmap” that would lead to elections in 2010. He claimed the long lead-up time was needed to restore Fiji's poorly performing economy and reflected the military's "aspiration'' to remove corruption from government.

His announcement came just a day after the 16-nations Pacific Islands' Forum Eminent Persons’ Group Report (pdf) called for elections in 18 months to two years to restore democracy. That report did not comment on the legality of the coup, which it said was a matter for the Fijian courts to resolve but expressed concern that Bainimarama had linked the election timetable to the anti-corruption drive. The report also condemned the ongoing state of emergency which it said was a major obstacle to the return of normality.

The coup was Fiji’s fourth coup in twenty years. All are related to tensions between ethnic Indians and native Fijians. The first two coups occurred in 1987. In May that year, Lieutenant Colonel Sitiveni Rabuka led armed soldiers into parliament and seized power from Prime Minister Timoci Bavadra, head of a recently-elected multi-racial coalition government. Rabuka’s aim was to restore power to indigenous Fijians. Unhappy with political progress from the subsequent negotiations, Rabuka staged a second coup in September. He declared Fiji a republic with himself as its leader, and withdrew from the Commonwealth.

Rabuka held on to power for another 12 years. In 1999 Mahendra Chaudhry came to power on another multi-racial ticket. A year later his government and Fiji’s economy was wrecked when businessman George Speight launched another coup. His support was boosted by claims that ethnic Indians were plotting to seize indigenous-owned land. Speight led a gang who stormed the government buildings and kidnapped 36 government officials including Chaudhry. They held them captive for two months. While the siege continued, President Ratu Mara sacked the government for being “unable to exercise their duties”. Commodore Bainimarama then stepped in and announced on radio and television that he had taken over the government. He signed an accord with Speight to end the hostage crisis and release the prisoners. Speight was arrested shortly afterwards.

Bainimarama handed back power to civilians and appointed Qarase as the new prime minister. Although the Fijian High Court would later declare the interim government as illegal, Chaudhry would never return as leader. However since the 2006 coup he is now back in favour. Bainimarama appointed him interim Finance, Sugar Reform and National Planning Minister in the military-backed interim administration.

However evidence of abuse of freedom of speech is mounting since the coup. Reporters Without Borders gave several examples of censorship in the direct aftermath of Bainimarama’s latest takeover. They include the arrest and deportation of editor-in-chief of the Fiji Daily Post, Australian national Robert Wolfgramm and the threatening of the Post’s reporter Jyoti Pratibha’s family. The army has also questioned businessman Imraz Iqbal and trade unionist Kenneth Zinck who both made critical comments of the regime. At least two people who write regularly to the letters editor of the Fiji Times have also received threats.

Reporters Without Borders have now condemned the decision of military authorities in Fiji to block access to blogs. The group issued a press release stating it objected to the misuse of "national security" argument to increase Internet control. "This is an unprecedented step in Fiji. In a country where the press is regularly threatened by the authorities, the new policy of filtering the Net is worrying," it said. However Tony Yianni of the Fiji Times remains undaunted by the government’s heavy-handedness. "I think the military needs to remember an age-old truism in a battle between guns and pens, pens always win,” he said.

Fiji on verge of another coup

It’s almost coup o’clock in Fiji. The leader of Fiji’s armed forces, Commodore Frank Bainimarama called up a thousand army reservists on the weekend. He also warned Australia against intervention and called for Australian Andrew Hughes to be sacked as Fiji's police commissioner. Bainimarama has form as the organiser of the counter-coup that ousted George Speight in 2000. Fiji has had three coups in the last two decades.

The Australian government will now host an emergency summit of Pacific Island foreign ministers on Friday 1 December to discuss the risk of another military coup in Fiji. The meeting was called under the forum's Biketawa Declaration under which member nations can request assistance to deal with threats to security. Australian foreign minister Alexander Downer said he is very concerned that Bainimarama will undertake a coup when he returns from New Zealand, where he is attending a granddaughter's christening.

In May 2000 a gang led by George Speight stormed the parliamentary buildings and kidnapped then Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry and other senior members of the government. The aim was to depose the first ethnic Indian prime minister in favour of indigenous Fijians. Fiji's ethnic Indians make up around 40% of the 900,000 population. Speight anointed himself as Prime Minister but never succeeded in wresting control outside the building. Bainimarama led the army negotiators and hammered out an agreement to release Chaudhry. But as soon as he was released, Bainimarama repudiated the deal, stormed the building and arrested Speight and his co-conspirators.

Voreqe Bainimarama, more popularly known as Frank, moved to impose martial law after days of chaos in 2000 following the racially-motivated coup by businessman George Speight. Speight is now serving life for treason. A former naval commander, Bainimarama was appointed head of an interim military government for three months until a new president was appointed. He was also instrumental in bringing in current Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase - a move he says he has since come to regret.

Bainimarama has been the power behind the scenes ever since. He has repeatedly entered the political arena to criticise government policy especially its leniency towards those responsible for the coup. He was a strong critic of the Reconciliation and Unity Commission to depose the first ethnic Indian prime minister in favour of indigenous Fijians. Fiji's ethnic Indians make up around 40% of the 900,000 population but have been oppressed since the events of 2000. The Reconciliation and Unity Commission wasset up in 2004 and planned to compensate victims but also give amnesties to coup plotters.

The Commission is the brainchild of incumbent Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase. Like the coup plotters, Qarase strongly favours a pro-Indigenous Fijian policy. The proposal generated a storm of protests from opposition politicians, many of whom were victims of the coup. Bainimarama joined the Indian opposition in condemning the commission. He issued a statement in July 2005 warning the government was heading towards the same anarchy as 2000. He also said the military would act against “destabilisers” issuing a warning, “the military will dish out the same fate we dealt George Speight and his group to anyone whom we think deserves this treatment."

Australian Andrew Hughes was initially an ally of Bainimarama but has now fallen foul of him. Hughes was appointed police commissioner in the wake of the 2000 coup succeeding local-born Isikia Savua who was implicated in the coup. The Fijian constitution allows for a foreigner to lead the police force and Hughes was recruited from the Australian Federal Police as an impartial figure to lead the post-coup investigations. However Hughes’s vigorous pursuit of suspects saw him clash with government ministers especially Home Affairs minister Josefa Vosanibola over the coup amnesty plans. Vosanibola has also clashed with Bainimarama and declared him a threat to Fiji’s stability.

Hughes meanwhile has claimed Bainimarama was a front for a highly organised group trying to undermine the Government. He told the ABC on Friday “they operate in the shadows, under anonymity, manipulate and so on, and then they get off, scot-free”. Hughes’s term is due to expire in 2007 and he has the support of Qarase to continue. The prime minister said “looking at our recent past it may be best for Fiji to continue with an expatriate Police Commissioner." It remains to be seen whether Qarase will retain the power to make the decision.