|
|
 |
Consequences of a Corporatized Diplomacy
By ROBERT A. HOOPER
SAN DIEGO--On May 19, the Pacific island nation of Fiji, known more as a South
Seas paradise than a Third World trouble spot, erupted in violence.
Hundreds of shops were looted and burned, homes sacked, the nation's new
television station trashed and a policeman killed.
Armed followers of a bankrupt businessman marched past what remains of
the U.S. Embassy in Suva, the capital, to Parliament, where they took
Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry and his cabinet hostage. As events
escalated to a full-blown coup, its enigmatic leader, George Speight,
seized power on behalf of indigenous Fijians in opposition to a
government dominated by Fiji's Indian minority. Speight wants the
constitution changed so that only indigenous Fijians can hold the
country's top political jobs. Fiji's 1997 constitution had enabled
Chaudhry to come to power.
Fiji, like many small nations emerging from the ashes of poverty and
colonialism, was an accident waiting to happen. It also occurs at a time
when U.S. policy emphasizes trade and open markets over the development
of democratic institutions.
In the late 1800s, English colonists sought to revive a sagging Fijian
economy by increasing production of copra and sugar. In a 30-year period,
they imported about 70,000 indentured laborers from India. Yet, while
British colonial law restricted native Fijians to rural villages, the
indentured Indian immigrants were free to open businesses in town once
they paid off their debts.
Upon independence in 1970, Fiji's Indian minority controlled the
economy, and Fiji's indigenous majority owned 87% of the land. Forbidden
to buy land for agriculture, Fiji's Indian sugar growers must apply for
10-year leases. Disputes over renewal of land leases have proved a major
source of conflict between the ethnic groups.
Such disputes are fertile soil for demagogues, and Fiji has had its
share. In 1987, after 17 years of independence and parliamentary
democracy, a coalition government with substantial Indian representation
was formed. Soon after, Fijian military leaders staged a series of coups.
It took 12 years to rebuild the foundation for a multiracial democracy.
Chaudhry, the first prime minister from Fiji's Indian minority, was
elected last year.
The current crisis is rooted in continuing power struggles among
Fiji's traditional ruling chiefs. Before the arrival of the British,
rival warlords fought incessantly for control of the islands. The most
powerful, Ratu Seru Cakobau, allied with the British in 1874, and Fiji
was united and ceded to Britain as a colony. British authorities soon
organized the warlords into a Great Council of Chiefs to administer
colonial law. The resolution of the crisis is in the hands of the heirs
of these traditional leaders, each with historic allegiances within the
armed forces. Fiji is now in danger of splitting into regional
nation-states, each with its own militia.
The U.S. State Department's recent condemnation of the coup came much
too late. Nurturing a free press and other fragile democratic
institutions is critical at this moment in Fiji's history; it is the only
antidote to the forces of tribalism and superstition that can easily
overwhelm developing nations.
But U.S. efforts to promote democracy and build civic institutions in
Fiji and other small Pacific nations were eliminated in the mid-1990s and
replaced by policies promoting trade and open markets. For years, the
U.S. Agency for International Development had helped Pacific islanders
fight AIDS and malaria and develop local market economies. In 1994, the
agency closed its regional office in Suva. The Asia Foundation, once
active in supporting journalism and democratic media, withdrew from the
Pacific after a 70% congressional-funding cut. Peace Corps and Fulbright
exchanges to the region were also terminated.
Americans should understand that in this era of corporatized
diplomacy, with its boundless confidence in the democratizing power of
open markets, developing nations would be better served if the United
States helped them build civic institutions and pluralistic governments.
To reduce America's public engagement with other lands, as has happened
in Fiji, to a matter of trade and open markets will ultimately privatize
U.S. diplomacy and place it in the hands of corporations and other
interests that may not share the values and aspirations of Americans.
Why should Americans care about sad, little Fiji? Except for a few
tour operators, hotel chains and McDonald's, Fiji is of little economic
significance. Which is why it is now doubly ironic to threaten sanctions.
In light of the U.S. failure to help build democracy in Fiji, such
threats by the State Department are a bit like locking the hen house once
the fox is inside. They represent the arrogance of a disengaged
superpower, and a shameful retreat from what Winston Churchill once
regarded as the responsibility of great powers. *
- - -
Robert A. Hooper, Visiting Associate Professor of Film and Television at Ucla, Was a Fulbright Scholar in Fiji in 1994. he Helped Train the Staff of Fiji's Tv Station, Which Was Ransacked Last Week
Search the archives of the Los Angeles Times
for similar stories.
You will not be charged to look for stories, only to retrieve one.
|
Print this story