Logo: Clean up Fiji - Fiji Times

Pacific.Scoop
Opinion – By Crosbie Walsh

All acts have consequences. In Professor Brij Lal’s case, from one act (and a history of previous acts) there were three consequences in Fiji and more, in happier circumstances, in Australia.

The act? Giving interviews to foreign media when on a visitor’s visa to Fiji where emergency regulations are in place expressly forbidding such activities.

While his criticism of the government was relatively mild, any such statement put him in breach of his visa requirements and the Public Emergency Regulations. This assessment makes no judgment on PER. It merely recognised its reality.

The consequences? First, the detention. We may not like it, and it certainly should have been by the police, and not the army, but the detention was almost inevitable because of what Lal said, where and when he said it, and who he is. And surely Brij must have known this.

Secondly, the interrogation at the Queen Elizabeth Barracks. He should have been taken to the Suva Central police station, not the barracks. He should have been formally charged, and granted access to a lawyer. I suspect his treatment at the barracks was worse than verbal abuse, even though he denies this. Fiji’s police and military have a long and unfortunate record of sometimes roughly treating those they detain for questioning. I doubt the government ordered his poor treatment. The telephone call during the interrogation, and the better treatment when the interrogating officer returned, suggests the interrogators were told to stop.

Thirdly, the deportation. Had Lal retained his Fiji citizenship (or successfully applied for dual citizenship) this would not have occurred.

Conclusion? The de facto Fiji government was within its rights in detaining, interrogating and deporting Lal. But not in how the military exercised these rights. This is where those criticising these consequences should direct their attention.

Of the Australian consequences, the incident has enhanced Brij’s academic and political standing.

Briefly, in many people’s eyes, he is a hero and even something of a martyr.

But the incident has done nothing to take Fiji forward, and it has further distanced Brij from any chance of future involvement in Fiji’s political process. Had he been more circumspect (and earlier shown some willingness to detach himself from his partisan past), he could have played an important role in the dialogue and reconciliation that must come in Fiji someway further down the road.

From Australia, Brij Lal sent this message to friends in Fiji: “I am touched by the messages of support. Please extend to everyone my sincere thanks. Silence in the face of oppression is not an option, and speaking up for the values of a humane society is not a crime.”

Thus, for the time being, Lal has the final word. And the military, in its clumsiness, has made another hero, and lost the Bainimarama government some support. If both really want to find a peaceful solution to Fiji’s imbroglio,  this is not the way to go about it.

Dr Crosbie Walsh is a retired professor and director of development studies at the University of the South Pacific. Other articles and links are on his Fiji blog.

‘I have no reason to lie on this,’ says Brij Lal – Pacific Beat
Row with Fiji a test for diplomacy