Meanwhile, coup leader George Speight continues to hold the elected Fijian Labour Party-led (FLP) coalition government hostage, and the multi-racial 1997 constitution has been dissolved.

It is the capitulation by the military and the Fijian elite to Speight's demands, and their inaction towards restoring democratic rule, that concerns the FTUC.

Opposition to Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry's government began immediately following the FLP-led coalition's election victory in May last year. The FLP's political program challenged the patronage and corruption fostered during the 1990s under PM Sitiveni Rabuka.

The May 28 Melbourne Sunday Age revealed that a small group within the military was ordered last May to conduct surveillance on Chaudhry. The crack Counter Revolutionary Warfare Unit, established by Rabuka after the 1987 coups, was reported to have been involved in the latest coup and supplied Speight's terrorist gang with military weapons.

While members of the military have openly supported Speight, officially the military claims to be against his methods while having sympathy for his cause.

Corruption

Respected pacific journalist David Robie, in an article titled “A controversy over lucrative mahogany timber lurks behind the Fiji Islands hostage crisis” published by the Gemini News Service, outlined Speight's involvement in corruption which resulted in the Chaudhry government replacing him as chief executive of the Fiji Hardwood Corporation and chairperson of the state-owned Fiji Pine Board.

Speight was seen as the most influential person in the timber industry, which accounts for 1.5% of Fiji gross domestic product. Forest products are the Fiji fifth most important export commodity. Speight was reported to be a key player in the US-owned Timber Resource Management (TRM) bid to secure a harvesting and processing contract for Fiji's, and the world's, richest mahogany forests.

The FLP issued an advertisement opposing the takeover which stated: “Fiji's mahogany forest was to be secured to this company [the TRM] so that in the event of default of repayment of the bonds, they take over the forest and do what they want with it without the Fiji government or the landowners having any say at all.”

Behind the lacklustre response to the coup is the Fiji elite's underlying view that the FLP government undermined its interests. Far from championing the interests of all Melanesian-Fijians, the previous regime led by Rabuka's Melanesian-chauvinist Soqosoqo ni Vakavulewa ni Taukei (SVT) party guaranteed positions in public office and government contracts to a narrow circle of people.

Since Rabuka's 1987 coups, the number of Melanesian-Fijians in the public service increased from 48% to 58% in 1997. However, 25% of the labour force is unemployed, rising to 40% for the 18-25 age group.

A 1995 national economic summit sub-committee on indigenous Fijian participation in business said: “The deregulation policy rubs counter to enhancing Fijian business because most Fijians are involved in small enterprises which cannot compete in economies of scale and product quality with more established companies”.

Investment was “collectivised” in the hands of a small group of bureaucrats and traditional chiefs, and maintained by the division between Indian- and Melanesian-Fijians and the system of chiefly domination. The SVT's policies primarily benefited foreign companies, supplying them with cheap labour and investment opportunities.

The racial divide created and exploited during the British colonial period has been maintained. Robbie Robertson states in his book Confronting Fiji's Futures that the myth that Indian-Fijians are better off than Melanesian-Fijian is false. In the 1980s, 89% of Indian-Fijians and 79% of Melanesian-Fijians were farmers, workers, peasants or unemployed.

A 1996 survey indicated that half the people classified as poor in Fiji were Indian-Fijians and that they had incomes 14% lower than poor Melanesian-Fijian households. Melanesian-Fijians dominate the middle-income bracket, and gained ground during the Rabuka period. Only in the highest income bracket -- which includes a tiny minority of Fijians -- are Indian-Fijians over-represented.

The FLP's election victory was achieved by winning the support of poor and working-class Fijians of all races with its reformist and pro-trade union social-democratic platform. This immediately alienated the party from the business elites of both the Melanesian- and Indian-Fijian communities.

There is little support for the coup in the western part of Fiji's main island, Viti Levu. Business and the chiefs there believe their interests lie with the tourist industry. Tourism has replaced sugar as Fiji's biggest income earner. Both tourism and sugar are the mainstays of the west's economy and the coup has hit both hard. The west is also the heartland of support for the FTUC and FLP.

The extreme Melanesian-chauvinist Taukei movement, which expresses the interests of those chiefs below the Great Council of Chiefs (GCC), relies on patronage for their privileges. They have given the most support to Speight and mobilised Melanesian-Fijians to back the coup.

The GCC, which continues to have unelected positions in government and, since colonial times, has maintained close ties with government, was also probably worried about FLP policies that promote transparency in the government's decisions and deals. That explains why it has also capitulated to all of Speight's demands.

Jim Ah Koy, one of Fiji's richest businesspeople and a former finance minister, appointed Speight to his positions in the timber industry. He claimed he opposes the terrorist groups' illegal methods but “can understand fully their frustrations and anger against the Chaudhry government”.

The Fiji Employers' Federation has condemned the FTUC for organising international sanctions and strikes in Fiji. The head of the Fiji-Australia Business Council, Australian Mark Halabe, has had to apologise for attacking Australian union bans and for his comments that Fiji would be better off without a FLP government.

In contrast, the Fijian Women's Rights Movement issued a statement saying: “The rejection of democracy will further marginalise vulnerable groups. Civil society participation is a key to ensuring the voices of vulnerable groups are heard and that they play an active role in community development.”

BY MARK ABBERTON

Tools

• Bookmark This Page
• Print This Page