Fiji’s Military Regime Deploys More Personnel To UN Ops Than Australia, Canada, New Zealand Combined

Fiji’s Military Regime Deploys More Personnel To UN Ops Than Australia, Canada, New Zealand Combined

Dispatch/Forecast – by Selwyn Manning.

The comparative report for April 30 2011 showed Fiji had deployed 278 soldiers and/or police to UN operations. That snapshot report showed Australia had contributed 109 personnel, Canada 213, and New Zealand 24 personnel.

The data shows that the governments of Australia and New Zealand have not impeded the participation of Fijian troops in UN peace-keeping operations in spite of their public calls to that effect, and in fact have not impeded a rise in the number of Fiji troops being deployed to United Nations operations since the December 2006 military coup.

Despite Fiji’s military being warned by the United Nations secretariat in November 2006 that if it conducted a coup, overthrew its government, and installed a military-led regime, then its contribution to UN-led operations would be reduced or suspended, the United Nations increased the number of Fiji personnel deployed in the immediate post-coup period.

That trend has increased in the six years since.

In December 2006, at the time of the Fiji military coup, Fiji had 275 troops serving in UN peacekeeping missions. By April 30 2007, a report published by the United Nations’ Department of Peacekeeping Operations (DPKO) showed Fiji had 17 extra soldiers deployed to UN missions – with a grand total of 292 soldiers participating in UN peace missions.

Background:

On the eve of the December 2006 Fiji coup the then United Nations secretary general Kofi Annan warned of consequences for Fiji’s military should it go ahead with a coup. Annan’s spokesperson said Fiji soldiers who took part in the coup d’etat would be unwelcome in UN missions.

In the immediate post-coup period, Kofi Annan also stated: “Any Fijian personnel, who are alleged to have committed human rights abuses or other illegal activities, will be repatriated at the expense of the troop-contributing country.”

But throughout 2007, the UN’s position began to soften. In January 2007 Ban Ki-moon replaced Annan as the UN secretary general. At the time, Ban Ki-moon was under considerable pressure by Australia and New Zealand UN-based diplomatic representatives.

In a response to questions from this author in 2007, New Zealand’s then permanent representative to the UN, Rosemary Banks, stated: “The former UN secretary-general (Kofi Annan) said before the coup ‘…further prolongation of the crisis may damage Fiji’s international standing, which it has built carefully over the years, as an important contributor to UN peacekeeping operations…’ Current secretary-general Ban Ki-moon reiterated previous UN calls for an immediate restoration of constitutional democracy in a statement on 5 January.” Rosemary Banks added: “That same day his spokesperson was asked about his stance viz-a-viz Annan’s comments on Fijian peacekeepers. The response from the spokesperson was that ‘what was previously said, stands.’“.

In January 2007, New Zealand’s then prime minister Helen Clark said at her post-Cabinet press conference: “Shortly after the Fiji coup, when we announced the measures we were taking, our Ambassador herself went to the UN. So we did it at the most senior level in New York, and made it very clear that we did not think that Fiji troops should be supporting these exercises.”

By April 2007, Ban Ki-moon announced he had instructed UN officials to conduct a fact finding mission to Fiji as a basis for establishing a firm policy response in the post-coup period.

In response to questions in May 2007, Rosemary Banks said: “According to a release from the Secretary-General’s spokesperson, the report (when completed) will be confidential and will not be released beyond the Secretariat. We have not seen the report and do not know what its current status is.”

In response to further questions, the UN secretary general’s office replied: “The mission concluded some 10 days ago and the team is now working on drafting the report. It will be some time before we can answer your question.”

Further responses from the UN secretary general’s spokesperson followed: “There has been no increase in Fijian troops or police contributions to UN peacekeeping operations since December 2006, nor has Fiji contributed to any new UN missions since then.”

However, the UN’s own reports showed this statement to be incorrect.

In May 2007, a spokesperson for New Zealand’s then foreign minister, Winston Peters, said: “New Zealand believes it is inappropriate for troops from Fiji to take part in UN operations at a time when the Fiji military has overthrown a democratically-elected government. We are also aware of the financial value of peacekeeping duties for Fiji’s military.”

He said: “However we also understand the difficult balancing act that the United Nations faces. The United Nations did strongly condemn last year’s coup in Fiji and has continued to push for a return to democratic rule there. However, the United Nations also struggles to recruit professional and well-trained troops for peacekeeping duties in areas where those soldiers are potentially preventing civilian deaths from conflict. As a result they have often been forced to accept deployments from nations whose domestic human rights records are questionable,” the spokesperson said.

This appears accurate. UN reports in 2012 suggest Fiji’s troops in particular are valuable in combat operations. Fiji personnel have been deployed to some of the globe’s most serious hotspots. For example, Fiji’s contribution to the United Nations Assistance Mission For Iraq (UNAMI) increased from 221 personnel in April 2011, to 301 personnel in June 2012. That’s an increase of 36 percent, and shows Fiji’s troops make up 75 percent of the UN’s total contingent operating inside Iraq.

Over the past two years, there has certainly been a rapid increase in the use of Fiji military and police personnel. This runs parallel to a relationship thaw between Fiji and the USA, particularly since the Obama Administration deployed its former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State, Frankie Reed, as its ambassador to Suva in October 2011.

The move ended the US’s apparent estrangement policy with regard to Fiji. Immediately prior to Reed’s Suva appointment, Commodore Bainimarama was issued an open visa to visit the US and had engagements in Connecticut, Florida and Tennessee. Officially, the rapprochement Between the US and Fiji runs counter to Australia and New Zealand’s travel sanctions policy against Fiji’s military regime leadership and their immediate families.

Then and Now:

From May 2006 to May 2012 the numbers of Fiji personnel deployed to UN missions is (at a 144 percent increase) over four times that of the increase in global deployed personnel numbers (36 percent).

In July 2012  36th Parallel sought a response from New Zealand’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade (MFAT) asking: In 2006-07 the New Zealand Government openly advocated Fiji be excluded from UN peacekeeping operations. Has the New Zealand Government’s position changed, if so why?

A spokesperson for the Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade responded: “New Zealand has in the past made clear its concerns about Fijian military personnel being used as peacekeepers because of the 2006 coup. Our future position will depend upon developments that take place in Fiji.”

Additionally, 36th Parallel sought a clarification from the United Nations secretary general exactly what its position is on Fiji asking: Can you confirm whether the United Nations has formerly engaged Fiji as a contributing nation to UN-led peacekeeping operations and if so when was the UN-Fiji commitment resumed?”

The UN’s chief public affairs section, Departments of Peacekeeping Operations and Field Support, Kieran Dwyer, responded: “There was no formal suspension of Fijian contribution to United Nations peacekeeping. Since 2006, the United Nations has carefully reviewed any offers from Fiji on a case by case basis.”