Features
The Resurrection of Fiji
Law, Diplomacy and the Politics of Human Rights
by Dr. SinhaRaja Tammita-Delgoda
Sri Lanka will shortly be facing renewed scrutiny at the United Nations Human Rights Council in Geneva, where elements of the international community have been calling for action over unsubstantiated war crimes allegations. This may lead to sanctions against senior officers of the Sri Lanka armed services and even political leaders.
Sri Lanka’s response has been characterized by the usual lack of preparedness, last minute flurries of activity and panic. There has been very little research, serious study or thinking. This has been the hallmark of Sri Lankan strategic and diplomatic thinking over the years.
The current president of the UNHRC is Fiji’s ambassador in Geneva, Nazhat Shameem Khan, a diplomat and former judge, who has been the Permanent Representative of Fiji to the United Nations since 2014. Khan, who served as the council’s vice president in 2020, was elected on January 15, 2021.
This story began at the UN Headquarters in New York in 2018 when Fiji won its bid for a seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council, receiving the second highest number of votes among all the candidate. This was a moment of global success for Fiji, giving this small Pacific nation international recognition for its advancement and protection of human rights.
What is not widely known is that since independence Fiji has had a tumultuous recent history, characterized by ethnic tensions, military coups and recurrent suspensions of the democratic process. A closer look will reveal strong historic parallels and many commonalities between Sri Lanka and Fiji. Both countries have had to face similar problems and the challenges. These parallels and commonalities are clear and immediate and deeply relevant.
Like Sri Lanka, an island nation, Fiji was colonized by the British during the 19th century. The second Governor of Fiji (1875-1880) was the Liberal Party politician and colonial administrator Sir Arthur Hamilton-Gordon, who went onto become the 16th governor of British Ceylon (1883–1890).
Hamilton- Gordon’s policies were to have decisive influence in the shaping the history of modern Fiji. He presided over the suppression of an uprising against the British in the central highlands. As with the suppression of the Kandyan rebellion in 1818, the British adopted a scorched earth policy, burning rebel villages and destroying fields.
In 1878 Gordon decided to import indentured labourers from India to work on the sugarcane fields which had replaced the cotton plantations. As in Sri Lanka, this began a wave of emigration which completely transformed the social, ethnic and political dynamics, leaving an enduring impact on the country. Whereas native Fijians, iTaukei, remain the majority (54 %), Indo-Fijians, the descendants of these Indian laborers now comprise 38% of the population. The tension between these two ethnic groups has dominated the politics of the islands since independence.
Unlike Sri Lanka, which has remained a democracy since independence in 1948, Fiji has seen several coups and many political revolutions. It also has a history of military rule, first by Colonel Sitiveni Rabuka, later Prime Minister from 1992-1999, and then Commodore Voreqe(Frank) Bainimarama, Prime Minister since 2007. Both men seized power when they were serving officers, before going onto to become elected political leaders
In 1970 Fiji gained independence as the Dominion of Fiji. Until April 1987, it was governed by the Alliance Party, which championed policies of “multiracialism.” This government, which had a majority of Indian members in the legislature, was overthrown twice in 1987 in military coups led by Colonel Sitiveni Rabuka. These coups were driven by demands for the protection of majority rights and sought to entrench native Fijian dominance in any future government. To this end, Fiji declared itself a republic and revoked the 1970 constitution. In 1990 a new constitution, designed to concentrate power in the hands of Fijians, was established. Fiji was expelled from the Commonwealth in the same year.
Under the 1990 constitution, Colonel Rabuka was elected to parliament and went on to become prime minister in 1992. In 1999 Mahendra Chaudhry became Fiji’s first prime minister of Indian origin. Chaudhry’s premiership was bitterly opposed by Fijian nationalists, and in May 2000 he and his government were taken hostage and deposed by a military backed group, claiming to be acting for indigenous Fijians. A counter coup was launched by the Commander of the Armed Forces, Voreque (Frank) Bainimarama. The rebels were neutralized and an interim military government was formed. This led to the restoration of democracy and new elections.
However, the tensions between the military and the elected government remained. In December 2006, Bainimarama seized power in another coup, removing the prime minister and establishing himself as the country’s sole leader. In January 2007 he restored executive powers to the President, Ratu Josefa Iloilo(2000-2006, 2007-2009), who then named Bainimarama as the head of an interim administration. In 2009, the Fiji Court of Appeal ruled that the Bainimarama government was illegal. In response, President Iloilo abrogated the 1997 constitution and dismissed the country’s judges. National elections were postponed and another interim government appointed, again with Bainimarama as prime minister.
During this period Fiji was isolated and largely ostracized by western powers such as Australia, New Zealand, UK and Europe. Fiji’s participation in UN peacekeeping operations was also suspended. Neighbouring Australia and New Zealand were the loudest international critics and in 2009 Fiji expelled both the Australian and the New Zealand ambassadors, accusing them of interfering in the Fijian judiciary. Fiji also shut down many NGOs. In the same way as Sri Lanka, Fiji was forced to look beyond its traditional partners towards China, who refrained from involving herself in domestic politics.
Only in 2014, after years of delays, did a democratic election take place. The parliamentary elections of 2014 were won by Bainimarama’s Fiji First party. Bainimarama, who had resigned as head of the military in March, was sworn in as prime minister. In the 2018 general election the Fiji First Party won again an outright majority for the second time and Bainimarama was sworn in as Prime Minister for a second term.
In 2017 Fiji presided over the United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP23).It was the first time a small island developing state had assumed the presidency of the negotiations. Fiji’s ability to preside over an international meeting of this calibre signalled its growing reinstatement within the international order. This was followed a year later, by Fiji’s election to the seat on the United Nations Human Rights Council.
It is an extraordinary story, the resurrection of a nation which was an international outcast and its transformation into a human rights champion and a pillar of the international community. How did this turnaround take place?
Many of the answers appear to lie in the efforts of Fiji’s Permanent Representative in Geneva, Nazhat Shameem Khan. Fiji opened its first Mission in Geneva in 2014, barely months before the country’s Universal Periodic Review at the Human Rights Council. Under this process the human rights situation of all UN Member States are reviewed every five years. Every year, 42 States are reviewed during three Working Group sessions. The result of each review is reflected in the Final Report of the Working Group, which then lists the recommendations which each country will have to implement. Khan proved herself a skilled diplomat and negotiator and a convincing advocate. Not only did Fiji succeed in passing the review. In less than three years, she has managed to secure the Presidency of United Nations Climate Change Conference and now the UNHRC.
One of Fiji’s pre-eminent judges, Khan was educated at Sussex University and Cambridge, where she obtained a Master of Philosophy in Criminology. In 1983 she was admitted to the Bar of England and Wales at the Inner Temple in London. In 1994 Khan became the first woman in Fiji to be appointed as the Director of Public Prosecutions and in 1999, she became Fiji`s first female High Court judge. In 2009 she became a private practitioner, concentrating on training lawyers and judges in human rights law, sentencing law, governance and litigation.
There is a background of law and human rights in the family. Khan’s sister, Shaista Shameem, also a lawyer, was the director and then chairman of the Fiji Human Rights Commission (FHRC), later serving as United Nations Special Rapporteur on the Use of Mercenaries (2004-2005) and becoming a member of the UN Working Group. During her time as chairman of the FHRC, Shameem published a report defending the 2006 coup, an action which was strongly criticized by Human Rights Watch. What is striking is that despite their legal and human rights background, both sisters have played an important role in defending and rehabilitating their country.
What appears to have gone unnoticed is the role played by many Sri Lankans in helping revive Fiji’s judicial sector and resuscitate the country’s international reputation. During the years when Fiji was frantically trying to establish law and order, many Sri Lankans played key roles in rebuilding the country. Some of the most important judicial offices were all held by Sri Lankans and until 2014 the Fijian judiciary was heavily dependent on Sri Lankan expertise. This was despite the considerable pressure which was put on many Sri Lankans not to live or work in Fiji. In 2009 Fiji’s chief justice, Anthony Gates, accused Australia and New Zealand of telling a number of Sri Lankan judges that they would be banned from entering Australia or New Zealand if they took up appointments on the Fiji bench.
Although as a country Sri Lanka has not helped Fiji, there remains a deep recognition and gratitude towards the many Sri Lankans who lived and worked in the country during this time. There are strong connections and in some cases enduring relationships. Shameem Khan herself has worked alongside Sri Lankan jurists and is very conscious of their skill, expertise and integrity.
The prima facie evidence suggests that Sri Lanka could be dealing with a sympathetic interlocutor with whom it already has many connections. Even at this late stage however, there are options and strategies which can be pursued.
This administration has three to four research institutions at its disposal, the BCIS, the Institute of National Security, the Lakshman Kadirgamar Centre and the Kotalawela Defence University. Yet there has been no study or appraisal of these potential links and their possible connections. It is clear from the public discourse that we have no idea of whom we are dealing with, what their backgrounds are and where their skills and attitudes lie. Perhaps we have not even begun to think about it.
The resurrection of Fiji seems to have taken place within a decade, much the same decade that Sri Lanka found itself being gradually isolated and targeted. Through the use of law, human rights and diplomacy, Fiji has rebuilt its place in the world. The parallels suggest that this has been achieved through the implementation of a carefully calibrated national strategy, one which has been concerted, sustained and informed. It shows what could have been done and how.
Author
- News Advertiesment
See Kapruka’s top selling online shopping categories such as Toys, Grocery, Flowers, Birthday Cakes, Fruits, Chocolates, Clothing and Electronics. Also see Kapruka’s unique online services such as Money Remittence,News, Courier/Delivery, Food Delivery and over 700 top brands. Also get products from Amazon & Ebay via Kapruka Gloabal Shop into Sri Lanka.
Author
-
There’s an ill more dangerous and pervasive than the Coronavirus that’s currently sweeping Sri Lanka. That is the fear to express one’s convictions. Across the public sector of the country in particular many persons holding high office are stringently regulating and controlling the voices of their consciences and this bodes ill for all and the country.
The corrupting impact of fear was discussed in this column a couple of weeks ago when dealing with the military coup in Myanmar. It stands to the enduring credit of ousted Myanmarese Head of Government Aung San Suu Kyi that she, perhaps for the first time in the history of modern political thought, singled out fear, and not power, as the principal cause of corruption within the individual; powerful or otherwise.
To be sure, power corrupts but the corrupting impact of fear is graver and more devastating. For instance, the fear in a person holding ministerial office or in a senior public sector official, that he would lose position and power as a result of speaking out his convictions and sincere beliefs on matters of the first importance, would lead to a country’s ills going unaddressed and uncorrected.
Besides, the individual concerned would be devaluing himself in the eyes of all irrevocably and revealing himself to be a person who would be willing to compromise his moral integrity for petty worldly gain or a ‘mess of pottage’. This happens all the while in Lankan public life. Some of those who have wielded and are wielding immense power in Sri Lanka leave very much to be desired from these standards.
It could be said that fear has prevented Sri Lanka from growing in every vital respect over the decades and has earned for itself the notoriety of being a directionless country.
All these ills and more are contained in the current controversy in Sri Lanka over the disposal of the bodies of Covid victims, for example. The Sri Lankan polity has no choice but to abide by scientific advice on this question. Since authorities of the standing of even the WHO have declared that the burial of the bodies of those dying of Covid could not prove to be injurious to the wider public, the Sri Lankan health authorities could go ahead and sanction the burying of the bodies concerned. What’s preventing the local authorities from taking this course since they claim to be on the side of science? Who or what are they fearing? This is the issue that’s crying out to be probed and answered.
Considering the need for absolute truthfulness and honesty on the part of all relevant persons and quarters in matters such as these, the latter have no choice but to resign from their positions if they are prevented from following the dictates of their consciences. If they are firmly convinced that burials could bring no harm, they are obliged to take up the position that burials should be allowed.
If any ‘higher authority’ is preventing them from allowing burials, our ministers and officials are conscience-bound to renounce their positions in protest, rather than behave compromisingly and engage in ‘double think’ and ‘double talk’. By adopting the latter course they are helping none but keeping the country in a state of chronic uncertainty, which is a handy recipe for social instabiliy and division.
In the Sri Lankan context, the failure on the part of the quarters that matter to follow scientific advice on the burials question could result in the aggravation of Islamophobia, or hatred of the practitioners of Islam, in the country. Sri Lanka could do without this latter phobia and hatred on account of its implications for national stability and development. The 30 year war against separatist forces was all about the prevention by military means of ‘nation-breaking’. The disastrous results for Sri Lanka from this war are continuing to weigh it down and are part of the international offensive against Sri Lanka in the UNHCR.
However, Islamophobia is an almost world wide phenomenon. It was greatly strengthened during Donald Trump’s presidential tenure in the US. While in office Trump resorted to the divisive ruling strategy of quite a few populist authoritarian rulers of the South. Essentially, the manoeuvre is to divide and rule by pandering to the racial prejudices of majority communities.
It has happened continually in Sri Lanka. In the initial post-independence years and for several decades after, it was a case of some populist politicians of the South whipping-up anti-Tamil sentiments. Some Tamil politicians did likewise in respect of the majority community. No doubt, both such quarters have done Sri Lanka immeasurable harm. By failing to follow scientific advice on the burial question and by not doing what is right, Sri Lanka’s current authorities are opening themselves to the charge that they are pandering to religious extremists among the majority community.
The murderous, destructive course of action adopted by some extremist sections among Muslim communities world wide, including of course Sri Lanka, has not earned the condemnation it deserves from moderate Muslims who make-up the preponderant majority in the Muslim community. It is up to moderate opinion in the latter collectivity to come out more strongly and persuasively against religious extremists in their midst. It will prove to have a cementing and unifying impact among communities.
It is not sufficiently appreciated by governments in the global South in particular that by voicing for religious and racial unity and by working consistently towards it, they would be strengthening democratic development, which is an essential condition for a country’s growth in all senses.
A ‘divided house’ is doomed to fall; this is the lesson of history. ‘National security’ cannot be had without human security and peaceful living among communities is central to the latter. There cannot be any ‘double talk’ or ‘politically correct’ opinions on this question. Truth and falsehood are the only valid categories of thought and speech.
Those in authority everywhere claiming to be democratic need to adopt a scientific outlook on this issue as well. Studies conducted on plural societies in South Asia, for example, reveal that the promotion of friendly, cordial ties among communities invariably brings about healing among estranged groups and produces social peace. This is the truth that is waiting to be acted upon.
Author
By Sanjeewa Jayaweera
It was on 3rd January 1972 that our family arrived in Karachi from Moscow. Our departure from Moscow had been delayed for a few weeks due to the military confrontation between Pakistan and India. It ended on 16th December 1971. After that, international flights were not permitted for some time.
The contrast between Moscow and Karachi was unbelievable. First and foremost, Moscow’s temperature was near minus 40 degrees centigrade, while in Karachi, it was sunny and a warm 28 degrees centigrade. However, what struck us most was the extreme warmth with which the airport authorities greeted our family. As my father was a diplomat, we were quickly ushered to the airport’s VIP Lounge. We were in transit on our way to Rawalpindi, the airport serving the capital of Islamabad.
We quickly realized that the word “we are from Sri Lanka” opened all doors just as saying “open sesame” gained entry to Aladdin’s cave! The broad smile, extreme courtesy, and genuine warmth we received from the Pakistani people were unbelievable.
This was all to do with Mrs Sirima Bandaranaike’s decision to allow Pakistani aircraft to land in Colombo to refuel on the way to Dhaka in East Pakistan during the military confrontation between Pakistan and India. It was a brave decision by Mrs Bandaranaike (Mrs B), and the successive governments and Sri Lanka people are still enjoying the fruits of it. Pakistan has been a steadfast and loyal supporter of our country. They have come to our assistance time and again in times of great need when many have turned their back on us. They have indeed been an “all-weather” friend of our country.
Getting back to 1972, I was an early beneficiary of Pakistani people’s love for Sri Lankans. I failed the entrance exam to gain entry to the only English medium school in Islamabad! However, when I met the Principal, along with my father, he said, “Sanjeewa, although you failed the entrance exam, I will this time make an exception as Sri Lankans are our dear friends.” After that, the joke around the family dinner table was that I owed my education in Pakistan to Mrs B!
At school, my brother and I were extended a warm welcome and always greeted “our good friends from Sri Lanka.” I felt when playing cricket for our college; our runs were cheered more loudly than of others.
One particular incident that I remember well was when the Embassy received a telex from the Foreign inistry. It requested that our High Commissioner seek an immediate meeting with the Prime Minister of Pakistan, Mr Zulifikar Ali Bhutto (ZB), and convey a message from Mrs B. The message requested that an urgent shipment of rice be dispatched to Sri Lanka as there would be an imminent rice shortage. As the Ambassador was not in the station, the responsibility devolved on my father.
It usually takes about a week or more to get an audience with the Prime Minister (PM) of a foreign country due to their busy schedule. However, given the urgency, my father spoke to the Foreign Ministry’s Permanent Sectary, who fortunately was our neighbour and sought an urgent appointment. My father received a call from the PM’s secretary around 10 P.M asking him to come over to the PM’s residence. My father met ZB around midnight. ZB was about to retire to bed and, as such, was in his pyjamas and gown enjoying a cigar! He had greeted my father and had asked, “Mr Jayaweera, what can we do for great friend Madam Bandaranaike?. My father conveyed the message from Colombo and quietly mentioned that there would be riots in the country if there is no rice!
ZB had immediately got the Food Commissioner of Pakistan on the line and said, “I want a shipload of rice to be in Colombo within the next 72 hours!” The Food Commissioner reverted within a few minutes, saying that nothing was available and the last export shipment had left the port only a few hours ago to another country. ZB had instructed to turn the ship around and send it to Colombo. This despite protests from the Food Commissioner about terms and conditions of the Letter of Credit prohibiting non-delivery. Sri Lanka got its delivery of rice!
The next was the visit of Mrs B to Pakistan. On arrival in Rawalpindi airport, she was given a hero’s welcome, which Pakistan had previously only offered to President Gaddafi of Libya, who financially backed Pakistan with his oil money. That day, I missed school and accompanied my parents to the airport. On our way, we witnessed thousands of people had gathered by the roadside to welcome Mrs B.
When we walked to the airport’s tarmac, thousands of people were standing in temporary stands waving Sri Lanka and Pakistan flags and chanting “Sri Lanka Pakistan Zindabad.” The noise emanating from the crowd was as loud and passionate as the cheering that the Pakistani cricket team received during a test match. It was electric!
I believe she was only the second head of state given the privilege of addressing both assemblies of Parliament. The other being Gaddafi. There was genuine affection from Mrs B amongst the people of Pakistan.
I always remember the indefatigable efforts of Mr Abdul Haffez Kardar, a cabinet minister and the President of the Pakistan Cricket Board. From around 1973 onwards, he passionately championed Sri Lanka’s cause to be admitted as a full member of the International Cricket Council (ICC) and granted test status. Every year, he would propose at the ICC’s annual meeting, but England and Australia’s veto kept us out until 1981.
I always felt that our Cricket Board made a mistake by not inviting Pakistan to play our inaugural test match. We should have appreciated Mr Kardar and Pakistan’s efforts. In 1974 the Pakistan board invited our team for a tour involving three test matches and a few first-class games. Most of those who played in our first test match was part of that tour, and no doubt gained significant exposure playing against a highly talented Pakistani team.
Several Pakistani greats were part of the Pakistan and India team that played a match soon after the Central Bank bomb in Colombo to prove that it was safe to play cricket in Colombo. It was a magnificent gesture by both Pakistan and India. Our greatest cricket triumph was in Pakistan when we won the World Cup in 1996. I am sure the players and those who watched the match on TV will remember the passionate support our team received that night from the Pakistani crowd. It was like playing at home!
I also recall reading about how the Pakistani government air freighted several Multi Barrell artillery guns and ammunition to Sri Lanka when the A rmy camp in Jaffna was under severe threat from the LTTE. This was even more important than the shipload of rice that ZB sent. This was crucial as most other countries refused to sell arms to our country during the war.
Time and again, Pakistan has steadfastly supported our country’s cause at the UNHCR. No doubt this year, too, their diplomats will work tirelessly to assist our country.
We extend a warm welcome to Mr Imran Khan, the Prime Minister of Pakistan. He is a truly inspirational individual who was undoubtedly an excellent cricketer. Since retirement from cricket, he has decided to get involved in politics, and after several years of patiently building up his support base, he won the last parliamentary elections. I hope that just as much as he galvanized Sri Lankan cricketers, his political journey would act as a catalyst for people like Kumar Sangakkara and Mahela Jayawardene to get involved in politics. Cricket has been called a “gentleman’s game.” Whilst politics is far from it!.
Author
Believe me, seeing certain videos, on social media, depicting action, on the dance floor, at some of these entertainment venues, got me wondering whether this Coronavirus pandemic is REAL!
To those having a good time, at these particular venues, and, I guess, the management, as well, what the world is experiencing now doesn’t seem to be their concerned.
Obviously, such irresponsible behaviour could create more problems for those who are battling to halt the spread of Covid-19, and the new viriant of Covid, in our part of the world.
The videos, on display, on social media, show certain venues, packed to capacity – with hardly anyone wearing a mask, and social distancing…only a dream..
How can one think of social distancing while gyrating, on a dance floor, that is over crowded!
If this trend continues, it wouldn’t be a surprise if Coronavirus makes its presence felt…at such venues.
And, then, what happens to the entertainment scene, and those involved in this field, especially the musicians? No work, whatsoever!
Lots of countries have closed nightclubs, and venues, where people gather, in order to curtail the spread of this deadly virus that has already claimed the lives of thousands.
Thailand did it and the country is still having lots of restrictions, where entertainment is concerned, and that is probably the reason why Thailand has been able to control the spread of the Coronavirus.
With a population of over 69 million, they have had (so far), a little over 25,000 cases, and 83 deaths, while we, with a population of around 21 million, have over 80,000 cases, and more than 450 deaths.
I’m not saying we should do away with entertainment – totally – but we need to follow a format, connected with the ‘new normal,’ where masks and social distancing are mandatory requirements at these venues. And, dancing, I believe, should be banned, at least temporarily, as one can’t maintain the required social distance, while on the dance floor, especially after drinks.
Police spokesman DIG Ajith Rohana keeps emphasising, on TV, radio, and in the newspapers, the need to adhere to the health regulations, now in force, and that those who fail to do so would be penalised.
He has also stated that plainclothes officers would move around to apprehend such offenders.
Perhaps, he should instruct his officers to pay surprise visits to some of these entertainment venues.
He would certainly have more than a bus load of offenders to be whisked off for PCR/Rapid Antigen tests!
I need to quote what Dr. H.T. Wickremasinghe said in his article, published in The Island of Tuesday, February 16th, 2021:
“…let me conclude, while emphasising the need to continue our general public health measures, such as wearing masks, social distancing, and avoiding crowded gatherings, to reduce the risk of contact with an infected person.
“There is no science to beat common sense.”
But…do some of our folks have this thing called COMMON SENSE!
