Editors Note: As debate on the role of the Fiji military in the affairs of our nation intensifies, we have decided to reproduce excerpts of the highly controversial and secretive Defence White Paper whose contents contributor Victor Lal had exposed shortly before the 2006 coup. Coupfourpointfive argues the Report was one of many factors which prompted the dictator to seize power.
We also assert that Police Commissioner Andrew Hughes (pictured) was thrown out of Fiji because the dictator had no intention to allow the Fiji Police to take control of internal security
The DWP and Fiji Police
The Defence White Paper strongly recommended that internal security should be the preserve of the police rather than the military. Likewise, domestic intelligence gathering should be the task of the police and not the military, as the latter was engaged in during the 2001 general election.
The Fiji Police Force (FPF) has statutory responsibility for law and order, including internal security and anti and counter-terrorism. However, the DWP recommended that the military role in assisting the police maintain order in times of crisis be continued, when so authorised by the Minister for Home Affairs.
It also recommended that the police and the military agree on a list of possible assistance tasks and initiate or revise appropriate contingency plans and joint training. In its introduction to the DWP, the Committee noted that the FPF had a newly appointed Commissioner of Police, Andrew Hughes, who had begun instituting reforms that will take several years to reach fruition.
To succeed, however, police reform must be accompanied by reform of the whole justice sector as outlined in the SDP. As the FPF was preparing a 5 year strategic plan for endorsement by the National Security Council (NSC), the DWP on the FPF was restricted to those law and order issues that required external coordination and clarification of responsibilities.
They included (a) the requirement for military assistance in times of crisis or emergency; (b) counter-terrorist responsibilities; (c) the division of responsibility between the RFMF Naval Division, or its successors, and the FPF; and (d) specialist skills, particularly divers and explosive experts.
Although the FPF was responsible for maintaining order and internal security, the RFMF had also been involved from time to time. If the RFMF was disbanded, the DWP suggested the police would have to maintain law and order and internal security against all corners.
If the RFMF was to be retained, as recommended previously, a decision had to be made about what police functions, if any, they might be called upon to perform and, correspondingly, what functions the police need not develop.
The 2004 Budget authorised the FPF to employ 2170 regulars and 1220 special constables giving a police population ratio of 1:266 citizens (assuming a population of 900,000), more than adequate by world standards. However, the archipelagic nature of Fiji, the poor road systems, the relatively large and dispersed rural population, and the volatile politics of Fiji, warranted the authorised manpower base and probably more.
The Police Mobile Force (PMF) was being rejuvenated and will comprise about 200 men, the DWP observes. The PMF was being modelled on the South Australian Star Force and will have responsibility for armed hold-ups, counter-terrorist incidents, search and rescue, riot control, explosive ordinance disposal (EOD), and diving.
However, according to the DWP, given the deep seated political tensions in Fiji there might be times when these resources could be overwhelmed by mass political movements or dissent. In these military assistance will be sought.
The DWP noted that the FPF was rundown over the last 15 years and the RFMF usurped or was required to exercise some police functions on a routine basis. The Government had now given priority to rebuilding the FPF, including the PMF, but this will take several years. Nevertheless, the threshold at which military support is needed is rising as FPF resources and professionalism rebound.
Consequently, the DWP recommended, when police reform has produced the desired result, final decisions could be made on whether to retain a military backstop to assist the police maintain order. Meanwhile, the DWP strongly recommended, the FPF should discuss with the RFMF the sorts of tasks that they could be expected to undertake should they be called out to assist the police and develop or maintain the appropriate plans and joint training.
On counter-terrorism, the DWP stated that the Government should be aware that the FPF’s specialist assault capability, if required. Consequently, the FLP will need to develop understandings with potential suppliers of specialist assault units, particularly Australia and New Zealand, about how such operations will be conducted. A Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) has been signed with Australia covering many of these issues but it will need to be complemented by procedures, and practice.
Regarding maritime and waterway security, the DWP recommended that the current division of responsibility for maritime patrol between the FPF and RFMF Naval Division, or its successor, be retained due to the need for close coordination between inshore and shore based security needs. However, provision will have to be made for establishing and maintaining the water police units (or private security units) in the major ports and waterways.
The DWP, like its recommendation on the RFMF, recommended that the FPF should be encouraged to maintain the racial balance and accommodate female representation to the maximum degree possible. Moreover, although the CEO Ministry for Home Affairs and Immigration had no responsibility under the 1997 Constitution for the administration for the administration or operation of the FPF but he should retain the capacity to advise the Minister for Home Affairs on major policy and resource issues.
The FPF had played a substantial role in peacekeeping and continues to do. This experience, the DWP noted, will be useful in the future regional peacekeeping missions. Nevertheless, the DWP recommended that the Government and the FPF agree to a cap on UN peacekeeping commitments.
The DWP examined Fiji’s strategic interests globally, regionally, and domestically and has identified and assessed the threats and challenges to Fiji’s security. It concluded that (a) there is no external military threat to the sovereignty of Fiji; (b) trans-national crime and unsustainable resource exploitation is a growing threat to Fiji: and (c) that the greatest threats to Fiji’s security are internal.
At the broadest level, the DWP concluded, the threat to internal security derives from the fundamental division of Fiji population into two large ethnic communities, and from the problems experienced in any cultural transition from traditional social and political life to modernity. The ‘wild cards’ most likely to challenge Fiji’s national interests, ignoring global phenomena such as pandemics, major global economic collapses, and terrorist attacks elsewhere are:
(a) governments that ignore the relentless drumbeats of progress and fail to implement the development plans effectively;
(b) systemic decay from failing to tackle domestic and international crime and institutionalised corruption; or
(c) the convergence of events that might be managed individually but in concert can overwhelm the community, for example, the convergence of economic stagnation or decline with political instability, systemic decay and natural or man-made disasters.
TO BE CONTINUED
About a million people visit Washington DC's National Archives Experience each year, many wanting a glimpse of its prized exhibit - the American Declaration of Independence. Dating from 1776, the parchment document is stored behind bullet-proof glass, in a guarded, humidity-controlled cabinet, to ensure its preservation for future generations.
However, as Fiji celebrated the 40th anniversary of winning independence from the UK, its government admitted it had lost the legal Independence Order presented to ministers by Prince Charles in 1970.
And after five years of scouring files in government departments, it was forced to take the embarrassing step of asking its former colonial masters for a photocopy.
But when a country loses such a document, does the right to independence go with it? Almost certainly not, according to Catherine Redgwell, professor of international law at University College London.
But when a country loses such a document, does the right to independence go with it? Almost certainly not, according to Catherine Redgwell, professor of international law at University College London.
"If it's recognised as a state and fully participates in the international community, the loss of documents isn't going to affect its existence [as an independent state]."
The UK Parliament's Fiji Independence Act 1970 granted that to the Pacific nation, made up of 800-plus volcanic and coral islands.
"On and after 10 October 1970 Her Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom shall have no responsibility for the government of Fiji," it read, before spelling out the nation's free powers to make laws.
Independence papers, meanwhile, are largely symbolic items. In the same way that losing your birth certificate does not mean you cease to exist, the legitimacy of a state does not rest on a piece of paper, agrees Prof Roda Mushkat.
Neither should its loss affect a state's constitution, says the international law expert from Brunel University, west London.
"I cannot foresee any case where somebody would argue on the basis of constitutional law that Fiji is not an independent state," she says.
Thankfully for Fiji - and any other states which mislay a vital document - copies of many can, in any case, be found at the UK's National Archives at Kew.
All are stored in repositories with controlled temperature and humidity, while some are stored in a safe room. One recent beneficiary of this was research student Julia Gaffield, from Duke University in Durham, North Carolina. In April, she came across Haiti's declaration of independence from France within the National Archives' colonial correspondence relating to Jamaica.
The second-oldest such document in the world, it was attached to a letter sent on 25 January 1804 by Edward Corbet, HM Agent for British Affairs, to Sir George Nugent, Lieutenant-Governor of Jamaica. While several reprints had been made, researchers had spent years trying to find the original.
Picture: Haiti's declaration of independence was found by a student in the National Archives at Kew.















