U.S. efforts to promote democracy and build civic institutions in small
Pacific nations were eliminated in the
mid-1990s and replaced by policies promoting trade and open markets.
HONOLULU, Hawai‘i (June 14, 2000 ? The Honolulu Advertiser)---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 an economy 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, an ethnic Indian, 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 percent 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 U.S. State Department’s recent condemnation of the coup came much
too late. Nurturing a free press and
other fragile democratic institution 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 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 percent
cut in congressional funding.
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 present 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
the University of California, Los
Angeles, was a Fulbright scholar in Fiji in 1994.)
This site is best viewed using Netscape 4.0 or higher.
Any problems or kind suggestions, please email: webmaster@lookinglassdesign.com
last revision June 21, 2000