UN pact favours indigenes

VERENAISI RAICOLA

Wednesday, September 26, 2007

+ Enlarge this image

A yaqona ceremony, part of a traditional welcome accorded to visiting dignitaries

Two weeks ago the UN General Assembly adopted a non-binding declaration protecting human, land and resources rights of the world's 370 million indigenous people including more than 470,000 Fijians.

After 22 years of debate the treaty sets down protection for the human rights of native peoples and for their land and resources.

The general assembly passed the declaration with 143 countries voting in favour and 11 abstaining.

Many wondered why four nations Australia, Canada, New Zealand and the United States each with large indigenous populations of their own, voted against it.

While many indigenous people have hailed the declaration some have warned that it must not be misinterpreted or used against other races.

USP academic Doctor Ropate Qalo said the declaration or international law did not just represent the viewpoint of the UN or the indigenous people solely.

"It combines both views and interests setting the framework on which to build the future we long for.

"It is a tool with which we could build peace, justice and dignity," said Dr Qalo.

Countries that opposed the treaty said they did so because it was incompatible with their laws.

He said the four countries had their own Native Rights Treaty with their own aboriginal people which they had to closely view with regards to the Declaration which has evolved over 20 years.

"It is interesting to note that some African states wanted to renegotiate aspects of the draft when it went to the UN last year in December 2006.

"The fact that Australia, Canada, NZ and USA have their own views and their own laws or treaties does not mean that we should stop there and drop everything.

"No, that is the very essence of building understanding with regards to the mistakes of the past peacefully with justice and dignity," said Dr Qalo.

Pacific Conference of Churches moderator Bishop Apimeleki Qiliho, on behalf of member churches and the National Councils of Churches (NCCs) in the Pacific region, like indigenous groups, welcomed the formal adoption of the declaration.

"It is a most liberating moment for many of our indigenous peoples in the Pacific who belong to our churches," he said.

He said for many years, their people had been waiting for this recognition, many were still here and many had gone on before us.

"I recall the struggles that indigenous peoples in the Pacific went through to have their rights recognised.

"In some ways, political independence of some of our countries was a partial recognition of our indigenous peoples' rights.

"The Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific (NFIP) movement in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s was a continuation of the struggle for full recognition of indigenous rights," said Mr Qiliho.

The adoption of the Declaration, he says, however is not a blanket permission to begin chastising other ethnic groups and depriving them of their livelihood. Mr Qiliho said as indigenous peoples of the Pacific, many of whom are Christians, we must be mindful of one of the greatest lessons of the Exodus experience in the Old Testament we must not do to others what others have done to us.

"The formal adoption of the declaration should be used as the full recognition that indigenous peoples have a special place in our societies however small or large their numbers.

"Being indigenous people is humbling because on our shoulders rests the burden of responsible stewardship and governance.

"The adoption of the Declaration also brings into sharp focus the continual oppression of the indigenous peoples of West Papua and New Caledonia," he said.

He asked the international communities to address the abuse of human rights, the exploitation of natural resources and the right to self-determination of the people of West Papua.

Mr Qiliho said it was sad Australia and New Zealand, voted against the adoption of the declaration.

"It is harder now to find credibility in their pronouncements on democracy and human rights when their governments voted against the full recognition of the rights of their very own indigenous peoples.

"We call on churches to set aside a day of prayer, a day of worship to remember this significant and indeed liberating event to many of our people, and to be modest in our remembrance of it," he said.

Viti Landowners Resources Association president Ratu Osea Gavidi said Fijians needed to hail the declaration.

"Now that we know about the votes taken against us as indigenous people Fijians must be careful of changes that may be introduced from countries that voted against us.

"The petition made so passionately by people from these countries against the Qoliqoli, Bill the Indigenous Claims Tribunal and the Reconciliation, Truth and Unity Bill last year indicated their attempts to abolish customary laws," he said.

Ratu Osea said the declaration was a reminder to those trying to suppress indigenous rights to surrender their attempts.

He said it was time indigenous Fijians decided matters concerning what they traditionally owned and not allow "others" to influence their God-given resources.

"This declaration is a milestone achievement after 22 years of debate," he said. The Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua party welcomes the adoption by the United Nations General Assembly of the UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People's, says party president Ratu Kalokalo Loki.

Ratu Kalokalo said although the declaration was not binding on member states, the resolution was a great step for indigenous people around the world. "For Fiji the declaration provides the moral foundation for the enactment of laws such as the Qoliqoli Bill and Land Claims Tribunal Bill that protects the rights of indigenous Fijians instead of the narrow-minded People's Charter proposed by the interim regime," he said.

The SDL party, like other groups that welcomed the declaration, said it provided an excellent basis for the preparation of the plan for the development of indigenous Fijians as set out by the ousted government.

Party president Ratu Kalokalo Loki said the resolution was a huge step forward for indigenous people around the world.

"For Fiji the declaration provides the moral foundation for the enactment of laws such as the Qoliqoli Bill to promote and preserve Fijian customs and traditions," he said.

In a letter to the editor the Citizens Constitutional Forum executive director Reverend Akuila Yabaki warns those who welcomed the declaration that it did not over-ride the basic human rights of all people guaranteed in the 1997 Constitution and in the UN's Universal Declaration on Human Rights.

"The UN Declaration of Human Rights provides support for the rights of the indigenous people as long as it does not contravene basic human rights for all," he said.

Chief returns home to his seat

by Serafina Qalo - www.fijitimes.com
Friday, September 28, 2007

+ Enlarge this image

Tui Sawana Ratu Lausere Vakadrigi at Vunivutu VillageT

AFTER 27 years working as a civil servant in Suva, Ratu Lausere Vakadrigi returned home to Vunivutu Village to assume traditional obligations handed down by birthright.

He took up the title of Tui Sawana in the district of Nadogo in the province of Macuata in Vanua Levu.

Taking up the role was not easy for Ratu Lausere but with support from family and villagers, he took the challenges that came with the chiefly title.

"I was born in the village but when I was five years old, an aunt of mine came from Suva to take me with her," he said.

"I grew up in the city, went to school and work there.

"The only time I came to the village was during the holidays and during leave from work.

"Taking up the chiefly title was not easy because I had to adjust to the village system, especially after spending my whole life in the city," Ratu Lausere said.

He said handling traditional duties and manner and adjusting to an environment where villagers now showed him respect as a chief was new to him.

"It's a totally different lifestyle for me because in Suva and before coming to the village, I looked up to my dad and aunt, who held the title before me and I was used to obeying their wishes.

"This time, the lifestyle I lived to obey orders from the top is a duty I have to carry out now.

"It is not easy because if anyone sees the way I socialise and talk to the villagers, one will not be able to make out who is the chief and who is the commoner."

Ratu Lausere said mingling and socialising with people without having to be treated as a chief was the lifestyle he had lived and enjoyed until now.

"I enjoy that lifestyle but now the responsibility has been given to me by the vanua and I have no choice but to serve the vanua and ensure that the interests of the village are looked after," he said.

"Most important, that the vanua and the people continue to work together and support each other in looking after our interests."

As part of his traditional obligations to the people, Ratu Lausere revived the fundraising for their electricity project.

"When I came in 2005, the villagers had started fundraising for the project but it came to a standstill.

"There was no more fundraising and the villagers had started to lose hope. So I called a meeting and told them to take up the challenge as adults and elders.

"I told them they had an obligation to the education of our young generation.

"What I told them seemed to wake them from their slumber and I could see that there was a renewed hope in them."

It was as if the villagers of Vunivutu and people of the vanua of Sawana had been temporarily lost without a leader but now the heir had assumed the throne, so to speak, and with a leader, the people had regained their sense of direction.

"From that day they promised to fulfill the village mission of having electricity for the sake of the villagers, especially our children to make it easier for them during the night when they did their homework and studied."

Electricity finally arrived in the village last week.

The villagers raised $25,000 in one day from a soli by people of Vunivutu in the village or working in other parts of Vanua levu and Viti Levu and last week was the launching of the project and the Fiji Electricity Authority connected light and power to Vunivutu.

Ratu Lausere said the villagers were united and worked together to bring electricity to the village but they needed to be challenged and reminded that as adults, they had a role to play for the sake of their future generation.

He said fulfilling their goal boosted their ego and now they want to develop their village by improving their living standards.

"We are now working on improving all the houses in the village," he said.

"I have been reminding the villagers that a clean village with beautiful neat homes always reflects what they have in their heart for their vanua."

Fijian Governance Structures

The enemy lies within

www.fijitimes.com - Thursday, June 14, 2007

I LEARNT a lesson from one of my sons a few years ago when he directed me to the book of Romans chapter 7, verse 14 in the Bible's New Testament about the conflict within us.

In St Paul's letter to the Romans, he says both good and evil live within each of us. Either way, one's destiny is what you make of it.

A similar lesson was brought home to me at the Kadavu Provincial Council meeting held last month in Tavuki, where our chiefs made two very important announcements to the people of Kadavu:

The forefathers of Kadavu left a legacy for the present generation. Hard work and perseverance were not new to Kadavu and that Fiji's current situation was not exceptional to Kadavu;

Chiefs must take a backward step to allow God to take the lead.

Beautiful, profound and powerful statements of wisdom that echoed in the Ratu Nacagilevu meeting house and beyond, as we witnessed the honouring of our past', and using lessons learnt from the present', to steer us forward' to our vision of, "Ko Kadavu me Vanua Bula Sautu".

Under the Fijian administration, the provincial councils were established after the Deed of Cession in 1874 to ensure good governance and coordinate development for the well being of the Fijian people. There are 14 provinces where each has a provincial council plus Rotuma totalling the number at 15. The traditional chiefs preside in these councils either as advisors or working members.

The traditional equivalent of the provincial council is the Bose Vanua. Membership is privy only to a few by inheritance and it is the overarching authority over the vanua including introduced systems of governance like the provincial councils. Whilst the Bose Vanua is supposed to be independent, I have noted ambitious politicians who would traditionally not qualify to speak in such a forum participate at such a meeting to lobby for support for their political party. This therefore raises the question on the sustainability of the Bose Vanua.

For those who work in rural community development, I am sure they will agree with me when I say that one of the best legacies left behind by the British colonial administration is the provincial council. The provincial council is the top (of three) echelon in the hierarchy of an introduced governance system at provincial level. The next step down from the provincial council is the tikina or district council. At the bottom of the rung is the Bose Vakoro or village council. In Fiji, there are 1170 villages and 187 tikina. The turaga ni koro is the village representative to the tikina or district council.

The mata ni tikina is the district representative to the provincial council.

The provincial council is a body capable of building strong communities. It has a checks and balances system and a consultative process in place that allows for the top down and bottom up approach' of communication. For example, a decision made at the provincial council meeting is relayed down to the district or tikina council meeting which then takes the decision further to the village council meeting or Bose Vakoro. And, vice versa.

Furthermore, the provincial council is a helpful avenue for mobilising and monitoring development and a great facilitator for building social capital.

Because of its nurturing role, the provincial council can be likened to the role of motherhood where it is supposed to ensure its children or members of its province are well looked after.

The taxpayers through the Government provide funding support for provincial and tikina/district councils. The taxpayers also provide a monthly allowance for the turaga ni koro, who coordinates development at village level and acts as the secretariat at Bose Vakoro or village council meetings.

In addition to support from the Government, provincial councils also receive an annual levy from the members of the province, for development purposes.

With such an ideal structure in place to support rural community development, and millions of dollars spent on development assistance programs these past 40 years, why does Dr Wadan Narsey, a respected and renowned economist say in the Sunday Times (10 June) that Fijians have the largest share of poor people?

And, why do our relatives in the villages continue to find it difficult to survive on idealistic sun, sand and sea, and sooner or later migrate to Viti Levu to add to our increasing squatter population?

The Paki family's story in Sunday's issue (10 June) tells of poverty to access quality education faced by people in the outer islands and their struggles and pain as they make their way to Suva, to try to experience what many of us who live in urban areas take for granted. I am sure there would be many similar stories entwined with both pain and joy.

Why then should this be when successive Fijian led governments have always provided for the Fijians through various development program and the recent affirmative action?

Where have all the dollars gone?

Fijian Holdings Limited was initially set up to ensure that people like the Paki family and others like them in the maritime and hinterland provinces enjoyed quality education and reliable health, communication and transport services just as their urban cousins do. Unfortunately, however, evil in the form of greed got the better of the two (that St Paul wrote about in his letter to the Romans), and instead of a fair distribution of the Fijian Holdings Limited wealth, only a handful of sons of some of the provinces enjoyed the bigger piece of the pie including all of its whipped cream.

Then there is the case of the divisive mother. The provincial council in allowing politics to take precedence over social and economic development for its people has sadly neglected its nurturing role and instead has become a political football.

For example, the provincial announcement of candidates belonging to a preferred political party for election is synonymous to a mother's pet child.

I am never sure whether this is an act of ignorance or arrogance.

Wouldn't any right thinking person who is aware that the provincial council is funded by taxpayers regardless of political affiliation quickly conclude this to be ethically wrong? One cannot be blamed for assuming this to be a conniving form of cheap campaign by capitalising on the ignorance of the people. Before the May elections last year, the organisation I work for had raised this out of concern that the dignity of the people was no longer respected. Where ever one went, the turaga ni koro was found to be busily carrying out tasks for the preferred political party of the provincial council, at taxpayers cost.

Another example. In the past, we have witnessed major fundraising events facilitated by provincial councils some easily totalling more than the $1million mark.

Buildings, scholarship funds and business ventures that exist today are testimony of the funds collected by various provinces. In most provinces, the noble objective behind this accumulation is to maintain a revolving fund to ensure the well being of the people of the province.

In reality however, only a small percentage of the population of the province is privy to information on how funds earned are actually utilised. Whether the financial accounts are audited does not matter.

Do you remember those that posed as employment agents for security companies in far away Middle East? They visited villages with promises of immediate employment. By the time they left, the village trust fund that was set aside to send the children for tertiary level education had been emptied into the agents' pockets. The employment agents needed the money to pay for the passports of the expectant villagers.

Years on, the people are still waiting and the children have lost a golden opportunity for further study.

With the few above examples in place one wonders whether we Fijians are our own worst enemies and may have perhaps allowed the evil enemy within to thrive and to overtake the good that has gone to sleep within.

The author is executive director of Pacific Community Development Fiji

Poverty in Fiji

www.fijitimes.com - letter to Fiji Times - Poverty speech

I REFER to Dr Wardan Narseys statistical methodology and congratulate him on his research to explain poverty levels according in Fiji to various ethnicity.

I believe we should be prepared to have our views and results shaped by the research done by Dr Wardan.

I also believe he did not go far enough in terms of being strategic in the new social, economic and political order of the market information civilisation of the 21st Century.

In this regard, his research methodology appears to have failed to balance out quantitative data with qualitative data.

In the past, economists were so good at calculating economic formula to solve all our problems that in their enthusiasm, they factored out human elements such as creativity, perseverance, honour, etc. These are some of Gods gifts to humanity and indeed we must be continuously cognisant of such factors so as to properly account for social capital.

Accounting for such qualitative data allows for more appropriate information surveys to underpin public policy, factors and differentiators from a strategic marketing perspective.

Taking such a holistic perspective within Dr Wardans framework, I would like to point out a couple of caveats to his article.

First, Dr Wardans conclusions are certainly valid with respect to educational poverty (people who are poor because they cant afford an education) but they are not necessarily valid for supply-side poverty (people who are poor because of scarce or restricted opportunities).

For example, affirmative action quotas rectify glass ceilings to promotion opportunities for women or minorities most effectively.

My own research confirms that ethnicity (as indicative of cultural suitability) is in fact a universal success factor that needs to be measured in this regard as an indicator to formulate local domestic intervention policies.

This leads me to my second caveat, which concerns the top 10 per cent wealthiest of the general population.

This group largely comprises the business community and this is another area where market opportunities are restricted because of the market dominance of established players and networking cliques. That disposes it toward limited affirmative quota inventions.

My research shows that this group is made up of 52 per cent Indians, 27 per cent Other Races and 21 per cent indigenous Fijians and Rotumans.

Of course there are real ethical difficulties in recommending affirmative action interventions at this level but if one accepts the normal Pareto breakdown that the top 20 per cent of wealthy people probably own 80 per cent of the (local) national wealth, then clearly this is the area where most can be done to redress the perceived wealth disparity between the major races.

I look forward to reading my own copy of Dr Narseys book but in view of my comments here and the typically self-righteous attack by the FLP, the way forward may not be as straight forward as he might have hoped.

Mere Tuisalalo Samisoni
Lami

The Qoliqoli Bill

Letter to Fiji Daily Post 5-Jun-2007

Sir,

With the recent resurrection of land tenure in Fiji, I would like to bring up again the topic, what is unlawful or immoral about the Qoliqoli Bill that had hoteliers up in arms claiming it would ruin their businesses and the military rejecting it on the basis that it was racially divisive.

Whilst it is not disputed the bill still needed further refining after going to the committee, the hoteliers claim about the ruining of their businesses was nothing but a smear campaign.

As for the military’s stance that it had to be shelved because it was racially decisive lacks merit and wholly unsubstantiated.

Ever since 1970, respective Governments have implemented policy or law that specifically benefited a particular racial group and mainly Fijians on the grounds of positive discrimination or paramount interests.

These laws or policy were never rejected by the people, although they may not have approved of it, but it was accepted that it was the prerogative of the government of the day.

For instance, to mention only a few the Alliance supported the FAB which had scholarships exclusively for indigenous Fijians, so they can get better educated and compete in the workplace.

The SVT government funded the Fijian Holdings with $21m and this was specifically set up to assist indigenous Fijian businesses.

The Chaudhry Labour government created a resettlement policy for cane farmers whose ALTA leases were not renewed to be resettled in the Navua plains and these benefited mainly Indian farmers. Then the SDL introduced the Qoliqoli Bill to return to the indigenous Fijians what has always been theirs since time immemorial, which they gave away ownership and control of their lands and qoliqoli to Her Majesty in the Deed of Cession in 1874.

The lands belonging to the indigenous Fijians have been returned and is now administrated by the NLTB, however the qoliqoli have remained with the State.

When you consider the few examples I have mentioned above, it seems to be conveniently ignored by the critics of the bill, that in all cases, they were new rights which never existed before, which were conferred to the targeted group.

However, with the qoliqoli bill, it is totally different because it is an existing legal, traditional, cultural and moral right, which is being given recognition by the government of the day as it seeks to complete what needed to have been done back in 1970.

UN protocols recognises indigenous rights and the qoliqoli bill was the legal way of returning to indigenous Fijian what is rightfully theirs. The critics have succeeded in delaying the implementing of the qoliqoli bill, but it will one day be passed by Parliament.

The military has been used as a scapegoat again during this coup and the big players behind them have a totally different agenda for Fiji which is not in the best interest of the indigenous Fijians.

Before you respond to my letter, let me ask you this:

Who is guilty of discrimination and in contravention of international protocols? The SDL Government in endeavoring to return to indigenous Fijians their qoliqoli through the qoliqoli bill or the objectors who seek to permanently deprive the indigenous Fijians from reclaiming what has always been rightfully theirs since time immemorial?
So I ask again, what is unlawful or immoral about the qoliqoli bill?



Tui Savu,
Honiara,

Charter ‘to heal racism wounds’

WWW.FIJIDAILYPOST.COM -5-Jun-2007

THE two military takeovers of governments in 1987 and the civilian led coup in 2000, both heightened and deeply magnified the dominance of race-based politics and governance resulting in a severe erosion of confidence and massive exodus abroad of the country’s skilled and educated people, mainly Indians.
This is one of the background factors that led to the compilation of “A PEOPLE’S CHARTER FOR CHANGE & PROGRESS”, according to a statement by the Information Ministry.
The Charter in its draft form was made possible with the support of Government ministries.

The overall objective of the Charter will be “To rebuild Fiji into a non-racial, culturally vibrant and united, well governed, truly democratic nation that seeks progress and prosperity through merit based equality of opportunity and peace.

The Charter highlights that in the Post-1987 coup period related developments caused severe ruptures in the very fabric of Fiji society, resulting in a loss of confidence that has been debilitating Fiji’s economy and hampering developmental progress and prosperity.

It is noted that while the 1997 Constitution was somewhat more progressive and broadly more representative of Fiji’s communities in the political governance arrangements that it promulgated, it maintained the race-based architecture with emphasis on the communal in the make up of Parliament and put in place structures that continued to emphasise racial divisions in Fiji society.

The Charter also highlights that more recently in the wake of the 2000 civilian–led overthrow of government the military had initially installed the Interim Civilian Government.

Then following the 2001 and 2006 General Elections, Fiji’s political governance has been characterised by the politicisation of the prison services, criminal justice system and the public service.

There was a significant weakening of the key institutions of governance, pervasive increase in corruption, serious economic decline, a significant deterioration in the law and order situation and a deepening of the racial schism in the country.

Copies of the Chater have been circulated to various civil society groups, the media, businesses and corporate bodies with the intention that they come on board to promote it and help push it to realisation.

Bills good for Fijians: Ro Teimumu

www.fijilive.co -Wednesday May 30, 2007
Ousted Education Minister Ro Teimumu Kepa maintains that the controversial 'Qoliqoli Bill' and other so-called pro indigenous Fijian Bills are "good for Fijians" and should be reintroduced. She said even though more consultation was needed on the Bills, the military should not have taken her Soqosoqo Duavata ni Lewenivanua-led Government by force.

"This was a major factor in the takeover of government," said Ro Teimumu, who is also the highest ranking chief in one of Fijis three confederacies.

"But this did not give the military powers to take over the government because we were in the process of holding more talks with them.

"It was the people's idea that such Bills be brought about after a survey was carried out by the SDL government and we were acting on the mandate of the people."

Ro Teimumu admits there were a few 'hitches' in the Qoliqoli Bill that could have been changed before consultation with other stakeholders was done.

"We had believed that what we were doing was good for the indigenous Fijians and that it would help them greatly."

However, the military says that such programmes would not benefit all races as it will benefit only the elite indigenous Fijians.

Military spokesman, Major Neumi Leweni had earlier said the SDL government was creating racial tension by introducing such Bills.