Speaking to FBC News this afternoon, Sitiveni Rabuka says there’s not been any direct talks between him and Tabuya but nothing is being ruled out.

The former SODELPA Leader who was seen to be grooming Tabuya for more power and control of his old party, says he does not want to jeopardise her position as a senior member of the SODELPA caucus.

“For her, the easiest person to work without of Parliament or in another party would be me. And that’s my view, not hers, Let me make that very clear.”

Tabuya had earlier said that she is fielding offers from other parties to join their ranks and she is keeping her options open if things don’t work out with SODELPA.

Rabuka meanwhile, is also throwing around some big names and potential supporters of his political ambitions, saying he has never kept it a secret.

“I am talking about Charan Jeath Singh, then we have Biman Prasad who is an old friend anyway, Save Narube was in the talks before 2018, We have not been able to attract Mr Chaudry from the Fiji Labor Party nor Ro Tupou Draunidalo from the HOPE Party.”

Rabuka claims to have exceeded the 5,000 signatures needed to register a political party and plans to make his application by the end of this month.

The great Indian poet and Nobel laureate Rabindranath Tagore once wrote that, ‘The bond of kingship that prevails within the community not only protects it from wanton cruelty and injustice from inside but is the natural nerve channel through which we directly feel our own race in its entirety. But the stranger from outside can easily be unjust, owing to the fact that he has not to pay for his conduct in his own feeling and be checked by that deeper sensibility which goes directly beyond the miscellany of facts into the heart of living unity. And for the sake of his own benefit and other’s safety he must bring with him his inner light of imagination, so that he may feel truth and not merely know facts’.

In many respects, the National Federation Party (NFP) was founded in the 1960s to protect Indian interests in Fiji. Some would even argue that it was founded to protect the bourgeoisie and big Indo-Fijian mahajans (businessmen) in the country. Whatever the aims and objectives of the original founding fathers of the NFP, the Indo-Fijian community, like its Fijian counterpart, is heavily fragmented. The lines of cleavage are many. There are divisions into formal political parties; there are ethnic divisions between the descendants of ‘girmitwala’ and khula (free) ‘bombaywallah’. Indo-Fijian politics is further fragmented by immunerable clashes of personality between leading political figures. Inevitably, on each major issue facing the Indo-Fijians a united response is difficult to achieve, even in times of grave Fijian provocation, violence, and political vandalism.

Moreover, in the current political climate, there is a deep division between Indo-Fijian leaders who comfortably set in front of their TVs eating their favourite chicken curry and roti, and between their rival Indo-Fijian political counterparts who suffered for 56 days at the hands of the pseudo-Fijian nationalist George Speight and his Nazi-like storm troopers, including the mysterious ten Indo-Fijian businessmen and countless others who backed the overthrow of the Peoples Coalition Government of Mahendra Pal Chaudhry.

In view of this, the NFP’s crude attempt recently to lay the blame on Fiji’s racial, economic and political problems on the shoulders of deposed Prime Minister Chaudhry smacks of cheap, crude, mischievous, and gutter politics.

The disguised attack, tantamount to calling for the political and even personal ‘assassination’ of Chaudhry at the recent annual NFP convention, is a case in point. The former NFP leader Harish Sharma told the political gathering that the Fiji Labour Party (FLP) was a sinking boat and it would do everything possible to stay afloat. He said the FLP was telling voters that the NFP was behind Speight’s civilian coup. Sharma called on voters to think wisely about whom they wanted as their leaders after the August elections. According to the Fiji Times, Sharma called on sufferers of the political crisis to get rid of such leaders. ‘One man above can destroy a nation. If there’s a man amongst us, we should get rid of him. I won’t name him but I guess all of you know who I am referring to,’ Sharma told supporters at the party’s annual convention in Suva.

He also said the biggest problem faced by the Indo-Fijian community was the expiry of land leases and that the only way to resolve the issue was through dialogue. ‘If you are going to annoy the landowners, then what hope will leaders have to solve the problems? In their 12 months of leadership, they (FLP) were not able to give any tenant even five days lease.’ Sharma also claimed that after 30 years of independence, the country was still divided into racial compartments and the progress of the nation had been disregarded. The NFP president Joginder Singh spoke on the 1997 Constitution, saying the party was instrumental in providing leadership for the negotiations. ‘We delivered the Constitution and I believe we would have delivered a solution to the land problems to resolve the land problems,’ he said. ‘We will work with Fijian leaders to resolve the land problems after the elections’. He warned politicians to do away with racial politics, saying Fiji was home to all people, regardless of race and religion. Bauan chief and former High Court judge Ratu Joni Madraiwiwi, who also spoke at the convention, supported him. Ratu Joni, however, failed to berate his hosts, the NFP leaders, for the state of racial affairs in Fiji. It is they, and their party, of all the Indo-Fijian leaders, who kept the two major races - Fijians and Indo-Fijians-apart since the 1920s.

The Wolves Among the Hawks

It is surprising that some of the cheerleaders at the NFP convention included Adi Kuin Speed of the FAP, Filipe Bole of the SVT, Tupeni Baba of the New Labour Party, former Cabinet ministers David Pickering and Meli Bogileka, former parliamentarian Ofa Duncan and former senator Dalpat Rathod.

What a motley gathering to endorse the NFP sermon on multi-racialism at a pre-dominantly Indo-Fijian political party. It was not long ago, in 1999, when Adi Kuini tried to lay claim to the Prime Ministership of Fiji over the head of Chaudhry on the grounds that the FAP was the largest Fijian political party in Parliament. Baba, on the other hand, as he made a failed bid to oust Chaudhry from the FLP leadership, told the world that Fiji was not ready for an Indo-Fijian Prime Minister and that he should lead the nation as an ethnic Taukei to reassure the rent-a-mob Fijians who had helped depose his own Peoples Coalition Government of Fiji. And still going further into the dark and violent recesses of history-1987- Bole played a leading role as a Taukei to help the Father of the Two Coups in Fiji, Sitiveni Rabuka, to overthrow the Timoci Bavadra-Harish Sharma’s FLP-NFP Coalition Government of Fiji. Rabuka was aided and assisted by the leader of the New Labour Party, Ratu Meli Vesikula, the most ruthless fanatic and fearsome leader of the Taukei Movement, and now a born-again multi-racialist.

The truth of the matter is the 1997 Constitution, which Chaudhry and others, including the international community, forced Rabuka to promulgate, was designed in such a way to ensure that the SVT-NFP Coalition was returned to power in the 1999 general elections. Rabuka was to continue as Prime Minister and the former NFP leader Jai Ram Reddy, was designated as his Deputy PM. The election result, as we all are aware of and which does not need repeating here, went the other way: to the FLP and its Coalition partners. Now, the NFP leaders who failed to win a single seat in the last Parliament are blaming Chaudhry for all the ills afflicting the nation.  

Sharma toppled as Deputy PM in 1987

Can the former NFP leader Harish Sharma explain to the nation why he was overthrown by the racist pseudo Fijian supremacist Sitiveni Rabuka in 1987 as Deputy Prime Minister of Fiji? Was it because he was the ‘one man who alone was hell-bent on destroying the nation’ in 1987? Is Sharma saying that George Speight and his thugs were absolutely right to overthrow Chaudhry as PM? Why was it that the 1999 Peoples Coalition Government of Chaudhry was overthrown in 365 days, and the 1987 FLP-NFP Government of Sharma was overthrown in only 33 days? Was it because of the presence of Chaudhry as Sharma’s Minister of Finance in 1987? Or was it because Sharma was ‘a danger to Fijian culture, chiefs, land and language’ in Fiji?

It is time the likes of Sharma and the NFP parliamentarians stopped playing cheap politics with the lives of Indo-Fijians in Fiji? It is time the NFP answered some long-hard questions. It is time for the NFP to explain why after 30 years of independence Fiji is still a divided nation.

We will try and answer some of the questions. One is the opportunistic politicians in the NFP and the Fijian politicians in other parties. Another reason is that the NFP and the Alliance Party, and later the NFP’s newfound bride Sitiveni Rabuka and the SVT, manipulated race and ethnicity to perpetuate the politics or race and hate in Fiji. The NFP is, broadly speaking a racist Indo-Fijian ethno-centric party, which manipulated Indo-Fijian fears and helplessness to remain on the political scene for over 30 years until the Indo-Fijians woke up from their ‘coolie mentality’ in 1999, and drowned them in the political bathwater. Now, the NFP leaders are once again using religious forum, temples, and holy occasions in the name of multi-racialism to manipulate ethnicity and whip up the politics of fear in the Indo-Fijian community. It is time, therefore, to stop blaming Chaudhry. Its time for the NFP leaders to look into the skeletons in their own political cupboards. It is time the NFP came out of the bridal underpants of the so-called moderate Fijians, some of whom have blood on their hands and racial exclusivity feelings in their hearts.

NFP and Land Problems   

It is absolutely appalling and mischievous to blame Chaudhry and the Peoples Coalition Government for the land problems. The land problem facing the Indo-Fijian community is the result of the politics of the Alliance Party and the NFP ‘ALTA Gangs’ makings. During one the parliamentary sessions in the late 1970s Ratu Mara, then Prime Minister of Fiji made a curt and pertinent remark on the behaviour of the Indo-Fijian leaders. He reminded the House that on the Opposition benches were some of the best legal brains in the country, and if they really wanted to, they could solve the land problem amicably. Instead, what we witnessed was the pathetic infighting among the NFP politicians on the land issue.    
 
ALTO breaks NFP

In 1976, to allay Indo-Fijian fears, the Alliance government passed the Agricultural Landlords and Tenants Act (ALTA), which guaranteed Indo-Fijians 30-year leases, but, unlike the specification of the 1967 ALTO’s three 10-year periods, the 1976 Act specified an uninterrupted 20-year lease, plus 10 years. This Act split the National Federation Party (NFP): a group of NFP parliamentarians including Harish Sharma, defying their colleagues’ demands for 99-year leases, supported the Alliance which, constitutionally, needed 39 votes, including that of the Speaker, to push the Act through Parliament. Mrs Irene Jai Narayan and Karam Ramrakha, along with Messrs Hargovind Lodhia, Isikeli Nadalo, Anirudh Kuver, Sarwan Singh and Captain Atunaisa Maitoga, favoured the Bill. Siddiq Koya and his trusted lieutenants, Messrs Chirag Ali Shah, Apisai Tora, Ujagar Singh, Chandra Pillay, Ram Jati Singh and Edmund March, led the anti-ALTO movement. Koya’s main objection to the Bill was what he sincerely believed to be a dangerous rent-fixing mechanism in it.

Many Indo-Fijians rightly concluded that the passage of the Bill spelt the end of their fight for long-term security. The opposing faction charged the NFP ‘ALTO Gang’ with selling out the community while the Alliance faced similar charges from the Fijian Nationalist Party (FNP), which claimed that the extension of the leases robbed the Fijians of their land rights. And once again the land issue emerged as a source of conflict. As K.C. Ramrakha put it: ‘No matter what Mrs Jai Narayan would have said on the ALTO, Koya was determined to oppose her and the party broke into two pieces over this Bill. Please do not forget, it was not Karam Ramrakha who broke the party, it was an issue, the ALTO bill.’

‘Blood will Flow’ - Ratu Mara

Similarly, an attack by Ramrakha on the NLTB provoked the then Minister of Fijian Affairs, Ratu William Toganivalu, into stating that the Board would lease no more land to the Indo-Fijians. But it was the then Prime Minister and now President Ratu Mara’s statement on land matters that took the Indo-Fijian community by storm.  On 1 March 1978, while the House of Representatives was debating a government sponsored motion to grant $1,27000 to the NLTB, Ratu Mara warned the country of the Fijians’ response if their land rights were trampled upon. In his statement to the House, claiming that he had been provoked by an Indian MP’s ‘malicious, insulting and provocative statement on the NLTB’, Ratu Mara said: ‘Why do the Fijians feel so emotional when questions of their land is discussed in this House? If people, the citizens of this nation, do not understand the deep emotional feeling of the Fijians, they should know now because if they tread on it and hurt it, blood will flow in this country’.

Others, notably Sakeasi Butadroka, saw a peaceful and bloodless solution to the land issue: the mass deportation of the people of Indian origin at the expense of the British government. The Indo-Fijians worst enemy was the NFP itself: it had divided the Hindus and Muslims into Dove and Flower Factions in 1977 as the opposing leaders fought for the control of the NFP leadership and its mango tree symbol.

Reddy’s Toilet Remark

In the 1982 general elections, the then leader of the NFP, Jai Ram Reddy, had successfully negotiated with the Western United Front (WUF), led by two western chiefs, Ratu Osea Gavidi and Ratu Napolioni Dawai, to fight the election as NFP-WUF Coalition. Reddy presented the Coalition as Fiji’s ‘first truly multi-racial coalition capable of responding to the wishes of all communities’.

But the election followed what London’s influential The Financial Times described as ‘a bitter campaign dominated by racial issues and marred by smear tactics’, and a major official inquiry opened in March 1983 into the conduct of the campaign. What was supposed to be a clean 1982 campaign characterized by promises of providing one kind of amenity or another broke all rules of the political game. The personalization and vituperation disrupted the clam of a ‘budding democracy’ and revealed all the political depravity and often-ugly competitiveness characteristic of a plural society in which restraint imposed by traditional values was ignored. 
   
The pettiness and character assassination took an ugly turn when Reddy, with uncharacteristic rashness, told a political meeting in Labasa that Ratu Mara would even open a toilet to shake a few more Indian hands to get their votes. The Alliance Party branded Reddy ‘racist’ and claimed that this remark had insulted the Fijian people and the chiefs.

As a result, a group of villagers, led by a ‘touchy’ chief, demolished a temporary building where Reddy was holding a political meeting. In another incident, a chief banned Coalition candidate’s holding meetings in the Yasawa Islands. He later claimed that all political parties opposing the Alliance Party had been similarly banned.

NFP and Fijian cannibalism

Not to mention the introduction by the NFP-WUF into Fiji the Australian Four Corners Programme which pointed out that the Fijian leaders were descendants of cannibals ‘who ate and clubbed their way to power in these islands centuries ago’, and that ‘the democratic chief of Fiji for the past 12 years is such a descendant: a Ratu, a Chief, and a Knight too, Sir Kamisese Mara’.

The end result was the hardening of the position of the Great Council of Chiefs attitude towards the Indo-Fijian leaders, and indirectly, towards the Indo-Fijian community. Shortly after the 1982 election results, the GCC began calling for the change to the 1970 Constitution and that Fiji should be led by a Fijian Prime Minister in Fiji. Some Fijian politicians, who set the stage for Rabuka to overthrow the Bavadra-Sharma Coalition Government in 1987, thus manipulated the lingering fear and loathing of the Indo-Fijian leaders to the extreme. Captain Savenaca Draunidalo, Adi Kuni Bavadra Speed’s ex-husband who was recently dismissed for allegedly improper sexual activities in a public place, assisted Rabuka in his illegal act. Ironically, the NFP had alleged in the 1982 elections that Clive Speed (now the husband of Adi Kuini), the former Australian journalist, was ‘churning out election propaganda for the Alliance Party’.

In the 1987 elections, the Fijian nationalists, in a similar language that they deployed against Chaudhry last year, had claimed that Jai Ram Reddy was the ‘bullet’ and Bavadra, the late husband of Adi Kuini, was a ‘gun’. In other words, and despite the fact that the vast majority of important and sensitive portfolios in the Bavadra-Sharma government was held by ethnic Fijians, the Indo-Fijian leaders were secretly planning to takeover Fiji.
 So, it is time the NFP stopped playing the ‘Speight Card’ in reverse to blame non-NFP leaders for the tragic and sad state of others in Fiji, notably the plight of Indo-Fijian farmers.

The Tale of Two Chiefs and Land Problem

 The district of Ba has an historical anomaly. It has two tui or kings and both are called Tui Ba. One lives in the village of Nailaga and the other in Sorokoba. Rival claimants to the Tui Ba title could not claim outright victory and thus resulted the anomalous co-existence of two tui. The senior line lives in Nailaga and the new line lives in Sorokoba. The historical rivalry between the two lines persists in contemporary power struggles. The Ba district formed a political party, the Party of National Unity (PANU), and became a minor but important partner of the 1999 governing coalition.

The Tui Ba in Sorokoba (also known as Tui Ba 1 Bulu) was the current patron of PANU and an influential member of the Fiji Labour Party/Fijian Association Party/Party of National Unity (FLP/FAP/PANU) government coalition ousted by rebels in May 2000. He is also a personal friend and supporter of the deposed Prime Minister Chaudhry. The other Tui Ba titleholder in Nailaga is a staunch member of the Soqosoqo Vakavulewa Ni Taukei (SVT), which lost power. The political significance of Ba lies in economics. The district lays in a province, which is the location of some of the largest tracts of agricultural land under sugar, Fiji’s largest export earner. It is also home to a large number of mostly Fiji-Indian (Indo-Fijian) cane farmers. The formation of PANU has had its fair share of internal dissension the cause of which can be explained in terms of the power struggle between the two chiefly lines.

A major issue fuelling this tension was the loss by political maverick Apisai Tora (PANU’s former General Secretary) at the May elections to a Labour candidate and coalition partner. Tora claimed Chaudhry had reneged on a deal which saw the two coalition partners fielding parallel candidates for the same constituency. Tora’s loss was also related to the different political affiliation of the two leading tui of Ba.

A major casualty was the Agricultural Landlord and Tenants Agreement (ALTA). From June to September this issue sparked bitter debates in the nation’s boardrooms, Parliament and media. Eventually, at PANU’s annual general meeting, Apisai Tora was removed, a move that was endorsed by the two tui, and replaced by cabinet minister Ponipate Lesaivua as party leader. Without their joint agreement, Tora’s removal would have been a slow and costly affair.

This perceptive analysis of Morgan Tuimaleali’ifano in the recent issue of the Journal of Pacific History, we think, neatly captures the recent and perennial infighting inside the Fijian leadership, and also starkly demonstrates why the Chaudhry government could not solve the issue of leased land to the Indo-Fijians. Most recently, the FLP again alleged that Tora was threatening the Indo-Fijian cane farmers over the expiry of land leases.

Fiji’s racial and political problems are complex and intricate, and the blame for the racial gulf that divides the nation lies at the doorsteps of the NFP and the Alliance Party, who had for many years been able to attract big Indo-Fijian businessmen and Gujarati merchant votes in successive general elections. The Gujaratis, particularly the big businessmen, flocked to the Alliance in order to protect their financial interests in the country. We must not forget to remind ourselves of the contribution of the Indo-Fijians in the Indian Alliance, including my late father who was for several years the President of the Tailevu North Alliance District Council.   
   
The Indo-Fijian mahajans, money, and ‘Mother India’

Sadly, some Gujarati businessmen still behave as if they are still living in the Fiji of the 1920s, when they first arrived here, rather than living in the country in the 21st century. Even some of their own kith and kin have called for the public flogging of some who allegedly funded the overthrow of the Chaudhry government. In the eyes of the descendants of Indo-Fijian coolies, the behaviour of some of the Gujarati’s can be characterised as a tale of divided loyalties and shame as our own refugee children had been going hungry in the camps in Girmit Centre in Lautoka.

When the devastating earthquake struck the Indian city of Gujarat on 26 January of this year, it’s after shocks were felt millions of miles away in the remote islands of Fiji. The Gujarati community of Fiji suddenly woke up to share the pain and suffering of their countrymen in ‘Mother India’. It was time for communal solidarity with their kinsmen, both in prayers and monetary contributions. We are not privy to any statistics about how much money was funnelled through the Bank of Baroda, if any, to assist the earthquake victims.

But what we do know from press reports is that the Interim Government contributed $20,000 towards the rehabilitation and assistance of the victims. The question one needs to ask is whether the money reached its intended beneficiaries. Or was is swallowed by the upper caste Gujaratis and Jains who refused to move in and share even sleeping tents with the Dalits (the so-called Untouchables) in the village of Adhoi.

Our Gujarati friends, the ‘Gujis’ or Bambaiyas, have every right to be irritated with us, for after all; death and disaster is no respecter of race, class, creed, religion or caste. God’s adversity is man’s opportunity to come together in one grand wheel of humanity. Why are we even bothered to raise the issue in our column?

The answer is three fold: first, there is an old worn-out saying that ‘charity begins at home’; secondly, the Interim Government sent the money that was our taxpayers money, and thirdly, we are raising the issue because of a small but significant story that appeared in the respectable British newspaper, The Guardian, and which might have escaped the notice of our readers and the authorities, not to mention the bambaiyas of Fiji.

On Saturday 17 February 2001, the Guardian’s India correspondent, Luke Harding, filed the following story from the town of Adhoi: ‘In a dusty field in the village of Adhoi, white tents flap emptily in the wind. Near by, young boys fly kites, cows graze in the dirt and the sun beats down. In the days after the devastating earthquake that wrecked this part of western India, soldiers arrived and erected the tents as emergency shelter. But the village’s influential upper caste Patel community refused to move in. There was nothing wrong with the tents. The problem was the new neighbours 15 metres away: Adhoi’s Dalits (Untouchables) who had already set up a makeshift camp using old bed sheets and bamboo poles. As the days went by the tents the army had set up remained eerily vacant? Eventually the soldiers took most of them away. Three weeks after the quake ripped across the state of Gujarat, killing at least 30,000, it is clear that in the village at least, shared adversity has done little to break down old prejudices. From lower caste Hindus and poor Muslim families there are mounting accusations that much of the aid that has cascaded into Kutch, the worst affected district, has been withheld from them. In the hours after the tremors reduced Adhoi’s main street to rubble, burying a parade of small girls, villagers worked to retrieve more than 400 dead. But, the poor and their leaders, allege, when the first aid trucks appeared the next day members of the dominant Jain and Patel communities diverted them towards their own people.’

‘For the first three days we had nothing to eat,’ a Dalit villager, Pravin Bharward, complained to the Guardian: ‘They told the trucks to avoid us and said we were disease-ridden.’ The Jains started a relief kitchen, but only the upper castes were encouraged to eat, he said. Two days later, a swami (holy man) arrived at Adhoi with three trucks and began a separate camp for the ‘backward’ castes. ‘If it wasn’t for the swami we would have died of hunger,’ Bharward said. Though Adhoi is completely destroyed, the Guardian found that the Gujaratis refuse to live next to the Dalits. The Dalits camp is to the north. Next door are the Kolis, another ‘backward’ caste.

The Patels and the Jains have set up camp down the road, close to the village’s shattered and pigeon-infested temple. The shepherd caste is somewhere else. Gujarat was the birthplace of Mahatma Gandhi, who fought against the evils of caste. He gave the Dalits, the name Harijans- The Children of God.’ Gandhi also played an influential role in the ending of the Indian indentured labour system throughout the British Empire. In fact, the last Indian coolie was technically freed on 1 February 1920 in Fiji.

But three-quarters of a century later his or her descendants are still ‘coolies’ in 21st century Fiji Islands, in part because of the behaviour of the Indo-Fijian businessmen, and the NFP politicians who preached and practised the politics of ‘us’ and ‘them’ since the 1960s.

It is not surprising, therefore, that ordinary Fijians have been brainwashed into believing that Indo-Fijians commercially own Fiji, and politically have no desire to integrate and make Fiji their home. The vast majority of Indo-Fijians tried to break free from the stereotype by voting for the FLP in the 1999 elections, and what one of the most high-profile Indo-Fijians in the Alliance Party, Dr Ahmed Ali, pointed out in 1973 still holds true in 2001: ‘The prosperity among the Indians is largely in the hands of ‘free’ migrants: the Gujarati merchants who dominate commerce. Among the non-Gujarati Indians, wealth lies in the hands of the few who own large construction firms, monopolize the transport industry or have other large business interests.’

The Royal Commission on Voting made a similar observation in 1975: ‘The ordinary men, seeing the extent to which shops and other commercial activities are in Indian hands, believe that the economic power of the Indian population as a whole is very great. In fact, it is not so significant when compared with the international companies in Fiji.’

It is time, therefore, that the NFP woke up to the truth. As we have mentioned on numerous occasions, the seeds of Indo-Fijian misery, which now also is affecting the Fijians and other minority groups, is the handiwork of one, and only one man- Sitiveni Rabuka. Instead of bringing him to legal books, the NFP had been strangely, shamelessly, and soundly politically sleeping with the destroyer of the country’s chequered history in multi-racialism, and was willing to be a junior partner if the 1999 elections had been won by the SVT-NFP Coalition.

As the veteran politician and columnist Sir Vijay Singh once remarked that Sitiveni Rabuka did no favour to the Indo-Fijian community by promulgating the 1997 Constitution of Fiji. He gave back to them what he had stolen in 1987 under the pretext of indigenous rights, and that the likes of Harish Sharma, a devout Hindu of public standing, was a pagan who should be converted to Christianity.

The Ghost of Koya for Sharma

It is worth reminding Harish Sharma of the events of 1986, when he as NFP secretary, along with Shardha Nand, and Navin Patel prepared the ‘Appraisal Report’ on revitalising the NFP. The Report argued that unless the NFP took drastic action the Alliance Party would win the next (1987) general election by a large party. It noted that the needs and demands of voters had changed considerably since independence and questioned whether the NFP had adapted to those changes. Among the recommendations was the change in leadership. Siddiq Koya led the NFP.

Koya, however, addressed a public meeting in Nasinu. He warned that the NFP would be crushed in the upcoming (1987) election and that the ‘Indian people’ would be ‘finished’ if they failed to unite behind the NFP. Referring to the prospect of the Alliance Party winning enough seats to change the 1970 Constitution, Koya stated that the ‘Alliance people will do legally what Mr Butadroka is trying to do now’ and referred to racist statements made in Parliament by NFP defector to the Alliance- Apisai Tora.

Koya, as the historian Michael Howard, formerly of USP points out, then launched into a series of personal attacks in which he accused members of the Fiji press and supporters of the newly formed Fiji Labour Party of diving the Indo-Fijian community (‘you are responsible for destroying’) and stated, ‘I am after your blood and I will fight you. You will be without jobs soon’. Some NFP members had to apologise to the reporters for Koya’s outbursts: ‘We did not know what he was going to talk about. If we had known we would have stopped him before he began. But we could not stop him once he had started making a public speech, as it would have led to open conflict between us. But the rest of the new NFP does not feel the same way and do not have the false fears he carries’.

The following day, the previous Fiji Sun editorial commented: ‘The drumbeat of racial politics is on the march again as Siddiq Koya tries to rally the fragmented National Federation Party. Mr Koya’s reversion to the politics of race is a sign of just how desperate he has become.’ The Sun asked whether the NFP continued to function as a viable opposition party. Harish Sharma as the new NFP leader replaced Siddiq Koya.

In a telling reminder to the NFP leaders, as Michael Howard (Race, Class and Politics in Fiji) points out, the secretary of the Navua branch of the NFP, Vijay Kumar, reminded: ‘We do not regard Labour as our opponents but as a brother party.’ According to Howard, it was sentiment that was shared by many rank-and-file members of the NFP, but not by party leaders who continued to see Fiji Labour Party as a threat. If anything, Sharma’s recent outbursts at the NFP Convention reveal that after 15 years following Koya’s Nasinu speech, the FLP and Mahendra Chaudhry still remain a threat to the NFP.

The NFP jumped into the political bed with the FLP as a junior partner in the 1987 elections, and surprisingly, Harish Sharma was appointed Dr Bavadra’s Deputy Prime Minister, the first Indo-Fijian to ever do so in independent Fiji.

But after 33 days in political office, the Bible-bashing lay preacher, obscure colonel and Fijian saviour-Sitiveni Rabuka-and his bogus, violent, and fanatical defenders of Taukeism overthrew Sharma and his government in the name of indigenous rights.

For the next twelve years the NFP shamelessly consorted with the political rapist and would have continued to do so if the voters in the 1999 elections by the FLP and Mahendra Chaudhry had not decisively rejected the SVT-NFP Coalition.

NFP and Rebuff to President

The NFP, as we have already shown, is the principal manufacturer of the plight of the Indo-Fijian community in Fiji.

It is time it owned up to its past sins.

Its most recent contribution to bad race relations was its rejection of the President Ratu Josefa Iloilo’s apology on behalf of the Fijian community for the pain and suffering that the Indo-Fijians suffered at the hands of George Speight and his thugs.

Even Chaudhry, the principal victim of Speight’s brutality, had told the nation to move on, for he held no grudge against George Speight. He left the law to take care of the hostage-taker and destroyer of Fiji.

The NFP leaders should stop trying to hold the Indo-Fijians and non-Fijians in the bottomless trapdoor in which they have been past masters before and after Fiji’s independence in 1970.
 We live in the 21st century. 
 
People's Coalition Government - Fiji Islands
Disclaimer
Webmaster
Last update: August 27, 2001

Levuka Town Council Chief Executive, Josese Rakuita says the visible scars at the site are a testament that climate change and rising waters are surely impacting small nations like Fiji.

“We really depend on Government and other NGO’s for that matter in terms of looking after this infrastructure and upgrading as well as the maintenance of the town.”

In a bid to generate sufficient funding, the Council is collaborating with relevant authorities to protect various sites such as the 199 steps for tourist attraction when borders are open

Fijilive: Malani files review on alleged AG bombing case:
April 10, 2021

The woman who accused Attorney General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum of being involved in two bombings in 1987 has filed an application with High Court for a judicial review. Veronica Malani had lodged the application of judicial review on Wednesday in Suva against the Director of Public Prosecutions.

She said she was now waiting for confirmation on a court date next week. In January, the public prosecutor dismissed the case after a six-month police investigation couldn’t find ‘credible evidence’ to press charges. Director of Public Prosecution Christopher Pryde had said there was insufficient evidence to support any criminal charges laid against the Attorney General.

“Following a review of the police docket, it is our opinion that there is insufficient credible or reliable evidence to support any criminal charges being laid against the Attorney General.

“Therefore, the docket has been returned to police with the instruction not to charge and no further action is required,” Pryde had said.

Malani said she was disappointed by Pryde’s decision not to lay charges.

“The scales of justice have now been tipped and ordinary citizens like me are severely suffering from access to justice and basic human rights,” she said.

She, her father, and brother alleged that their family was a direct target of two politically motivated bombing attacks involving Sayed-Khaiyum, during the height of the 1987 coups.

It is alleged that as a result, Malani’s mother suffered serious injuries, and a bystander died during one of the attacks.

In their police statements, Malani and Ratu Benedito, who were 14 and 13 years old at the time respectively, claimed that they had identified Sayed-Khaiyum as the attacker.

Police had completed their initial investigations and sent the evidence to the DPP’s office on 13 November last year.

The 2020 report on human rights in Fiji issued by the US Department of State is perfunctory, scant in its interpretation and deconstruction of the law, saturated with generalisations and selective in its treatment of facts.

While the report impugns independent institutions like the judiciary and those responsible for the protection, promotion and preservation of human rights, there was neither any consultations with the state and independent institutions including the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission in the formulation of this report nor any ethic of constructive engagement over the years, as far as the HRADC is concerned, in relation to human rights in Fiji.

This does not mean that Fiji does not have any human rights challenges. We certainly do.

They include but by no means limited to sexual and gender based violence , torture and brutality at the hands of law enforcement agencies, rights of arrested and detained persons, racial and religious intolerance and hate speech, the need for constructive discussions on the right to peaceful assembly and the imperatives of public order and national security, the existential threat of climate change and the advent of COVID-19 and its attendant human rights challenges, and the need to ensure that the national human rights institution is compliant with the Paris Principles but Fiji continues to subject itself to scrutiny both domestically and at the highest human rights forums internationally, the most recent being the third cycle of its Universal Periodic Review at the Human Rights Council in Geneva.

Curiously the US State Department Report does not even make a cursory reference to Fiji’s UPR almost giving an impression that there is no accountability for human rights violations in Fiji, nor does it document our human rights achievements.

The US human rights record is hardly worthy of emulation but Fiji does not occupy an indomitable moral plateau with the compulsion to ritualistically produce a report on them every year. Given that the US jealously guards the right to free expression, or so it putatively claims, I will exercise mine and point out some of their human rights failings and the reason I raise these are because ironically some of these human rights failings form the basis of the report on Fiji.

This is a country that until recently had turned its back on the Paris Climate Agreement, had withdrawn from the UN Human Rights Council, placed sanctions against the International Criminal Court and has yet to ratify all core international human rights instruments.

These are Conventions on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women, International Convention on the Protection, Convention on the Rights of the Child, International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights, Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, International Convention on the Protection of the Rights of All Migrant Workers, and Members of Their Families, International Convention for the Protection of All Persons from Enforced Disappearance, Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court.

It has yet to establish an independent national human rights institution.

At the third cycle of its UPR, member states called on the USA to establish a moratorium on the death penalty, to put an end to life without parole sentence for juveniles, an end to arbitrary and indefinite detention, illegal and secret detention facilities, overcrowding in prisons, Police violence, use of excessive force and torture, racial profiling by law enforcement agencies, killing of civilians in military operations, gun violence, racism, extremism, xenophobia and hate speech directed at immigrants and asylum seekers, the adoption of punitive measures such as the incarceration of migrants and separation of migrant children from their parents to deter irregular entry and retrogressive policies that inhibit comprehensive and universal access to voluntary sexual and reproductive health services.

Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman, or Degrading Treatment or Punishment and immunity provisions in the Fijian Constitution

Just like the United States, Fiji is equally concerned with torture and other cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment or punishment and we have acknowledged this at home and internationally and the need for accountability without impunity for acts of egregious violations of human rights.

The claims about carte blanche immunity extended to security forces, however, is a distortion of the law and a complete misrepresentation of section 157 of the Fijian Constitution giving an impression that this provision is still being invoked in present day cases of torture and brutality to exonerate security forces.

While granting immunity to the President, the Prime Minister and Cabinet Ministers, Republic of Fiji Military Forces, Fiji Police Force, Fiji Corrections Service, Judiciary, public service and any public office from any criminal prosecution and from any civil or other liability in any court, tribunal or commission, in any proceeding including any legal, military, disciplinary or professional proceedings and from any order or judgement of any court, tribunal or commission, as a result of any direct or indirect participation, appointment or involvement in the Government from 5 December 2006 to the date of the first sitting of first Parliament elected after the commencement of this Constitution, section 157 of the Fijian Constitution expressly states “provided however any such immunity shall not apply to any act or omission that constitutes an offence under sections 133 to 146, 148 to 236, 288 to 351, 356 to 361, 364 to 374, and 377 to 386 of the Crimes Decree 2009”.

Absence of an independent oversight mechanism for the security forces
Quoting approvingly from a 2016 Amnesty International report, the State Department claims that “there is no independent oversight mechanism for the security forces”, “the legal framework means that no investigation can be initiated or disciplinary action taken against a Police officer without the consent or approval of the Police commissioner”, “authorized investigations were usually conducted by the Internal Affairs Unit, which reports to the Police commissioner, who decides the outcome of the complaint” and “information about the number of complaints, investigatory findings, and disciplinary action taken is not publicly available”.

This claim is misleading about the work of independent institutions such as the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission that independently investigates such matters and the Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions which sanctions charges.

Here are some examples of cases of torture and brutality investigated by the HRADC independently against the Fiji Police Force and Fiji Corrections Service (refer to table on page 5)

It is also imperative to note that information about the number of complaints, investigatory findings, and disciplinary action taken is available to the public.

The Office of the Director of Public Prosecutions routinely releases statistics on serious crimes (sexual as well as non-sexual offences) on a monthly basis with cases and the outcome of the investigation resulting in charges.

This is available on their website and is also widely publicized by the mainstream media. Between 1 January to 31 December 2020, statistics from the ODPP show that a total of 20 Police officers were charged with assault causing actual bodily harm in the course of arrest or in custody while 4 officers from the Fiji Corrections Services were charged with murder and assault.
The ODPP also in their release make available the nature of these offences.

Some of the examples include: 
3 Police officers were charged with assault causing actual bodily harm, acts intended to cause grievous harm to a 27-year-old man. Also charged with conspiracy to defeat justice and aiding and abetting. They allegedly assaulted a suspect with a concrete block and threw boiling water at him in the Police station.
2 Police officers were charged with assault causing actual bodily harm to a 41-year-old man
5 Police officers were charged with acts intended to cause grievous harm, assault causing actual bodily harm, common assault, conspiracy to defeat justice and interference with witnesses. These officers were charged in relation to the Naqia Bridge case for assaulting and throwing a man off the bridge.
8 Police officers were charged with assault causing actual bodily harm, acts intended to cause grievous harm, aiding and abetting assault causing actual bodily harm, aiding and abetting acts intended to cause grievous harm, common assault, giving false statements on oath, conspiracy to defeat justice and interference with witnesses. These officers were charged in relation to an assault case of suspects at Tavua Police station.
4 corrections officers were charged with the murder and assault causing actual bodily harm and common assault of a prisoner at Natabua Corrections Centre.
2 Police officers were charged with assault causing actual bodily harm to two suspects in a drug case

The HRADC ‘s annual reports are also available on the Fiji Parliament website and specific cases investigated by the Commission are also widely publicised by the mainstream media. There is no secrecy about the manner in which allegations of torture and inhumane and degrading treatment are investigated and the outcomes of these investigations are made public.

While the report mentions NGOs and Red Cross, the State Department conveniently glosses over the fact that Visiting Justices and the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission have the powers and do visit places of detention.

Public Order Act and the power to detain suspected persons for up to 16 days

It is imperative to note that the amendments to the Public Order Act in 2017 was in response to the UN Security Council resolution which called on member states to strengthen their judicial, law enforcement and border control capacities and develop their capabilities to investigate the offence of terrorism and is in consonance with section 6(5) of the Fijian Constitution on the grounds of necessity.
The power to detain suspected persons for more than 48 hours and for a further 14 days is based on necessity. Section 17A (2), expressly provides that
“No person shall be detained under powers conferred by subsection (1) for a period exceeding 48 hours except with the authority of the Minister on whose directions such a person may be detained for a further period of 14 days if the Minister is satisfied that the necessary enquiries cannot be completed within 48 hours”.

Criticism of government as a crime of sedition and press freedom 
The assertion that “the law includes criticism of government in its definition of the crime of sedition” is again incorrect.
Section 66 (a) (b) (c) and (d) of the Crimes Act very clearly stipulates that an act, speech or publication is not seditious when it is done with the intention of showing that Government has erred in any of its measures; pointing out errors or defects in the Government or the Constitution, or to persuade Fijians to change the law by lawful means.

It precludes criticism of Government and legitimate acts of dissent from the offence. These provisions are integral in preserving citizens ability to exercise democratic dissent. Nor does the assertion that “the media law authorizes the government to censor all news stories before broadcast or publication” hold any credence.
If this was the case then media organisations that are openly critical of government would have all shut down by now. In the face of claims of “self-censorship”, the mainstream media continues to publish robust criticism of authorities and giving platform to dissenting and divergent views.

The justifiable limitations placed on freedom of speech, expression and publication under section 17 of the Fijian Constitution are consistent with international human rights law in particular Article 19 and 20 (2) of the ICCPR.

While expressing alarm at the Media Industry Development Act, the report fails to show how many media organisations were prosecuted under the Act, for which transgressions and whether the Media Tribunal which is independent of the Authority and presided by a high court judge has convened at all.

Judiciary subjected to intimidation
The unsubstantiated claim that “the constitution provides for an independent judiciary, but the judiciary was subject to intimidation”  is alarming and highly irresponsible and so is the claim that the “constitution and the law provide for a variety of restrictions on the jurisdictions of the courts” and warrants a prominent retraction if the State Department is unable to substantiate its use of the word “intimidation”.
Such generalisations, in my view, are an assault on judicial independence and impartiality. I draw the State Department’s attention to section 97 (1) (2) (3) (4) (5) (6) of the Fijian Constitution that guarantees judicial independence.
Furthermore, in relation to its observations on the jurisdictions of the court, I suggest the State Department also reads sections 98 (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) in relation to the Supreme Court, section 99 (3) in relation to the Court of Appeal and section 100 (3) (4) (5) (6) (7) with regard to the jurisdiction of the High Court and section 101 (2) with regard to the Magistrates Court of the Fijian Constitution.
The report fails to deconstruct the law to show how the purported restrictions on jurisdictions of the courts has effectively derailed the access and administration of justice. I find it equally curious that the State Department keeps making reference to “decrees” when “decrees” no longer exist.

Government human rights body, its independence and silence on politically sensitive human rights matters
The State Department erroneously refers to the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission as a “Government Human Rights Body”.
If the authors of the report could laboriously sift through the Fijian Constitution and adduce that the Constitution prohibits the Commission from investigating matters in relation to the 2006 coup and the abrogation of the 1997 Constitution, I fail to understand how they glossed over the fact that section 45 (7) of the Fijian constitution guarantees the independence of the institution from the state.
Nor did they make any effort to look at the powers of the Commission under section 12 of the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission Act. As documented in its Annual Reports and publicised by mainstream media, the Commission is able to independently dispense with its mandate including conducting investigations against the State.

This is evident in the various proceedings the Commission has instituted against the State. Alternative reports prepared by the Commission as well as submissions to parliamentary standing committees on existing and proposed laws attest to the Commission’s independence.

The Commission has expressed its views on a range of human rights issues that include: rights of arrested and detained persons, torture and brutality, use of force, on balancing the right to peaceful assembly against the imperatives of public order, on balancing rights and restrictions in the context of COVID-19 including curfews and lockdowns, discrimination on prohibited grounds, advocacy of hatred and the right to free speech, same sex marriage, sexual and gender based violence, human trafficking, business and human rights, rights of refugees and asylum seekers, rights of children and persons with disabilities, freedom of religion and the right to education, and most recently the deportation of the USP Vice-Chancellor.

There is no clarity as to what amounts to “politically sensitive’ human rights matters and what is deemed as typically taking government’s stance in public statements given that the Commission’s statements are premised on our domestic procedures and international human rights law.

How is speaking out against racism and communalism a pro-government agenda since it should be everyone’s concern? Why is the Commission’s call to strike a right balance between rights and restrictions whether it be about freedom of speech, expression and publication or freedom of assembly deliberately misconstrued as taking the side of government?

Contrary to the claims in the report, the Commission has been vociferous. Surely, if this report is premised on the observations of select media rather than a wide cross section of the mainstream media in Fiji, one would get an impression that the Commission is not independent.

Of course, the State Department does not acknowledge that it is not censorship but political bias that has plagued the possibility of accurate, balanced and fair reporting and this report is no exception.

Some examples of cases of torture and brutality investigated by the Human Rights and Anti-Discrimination Commission independently against the Fiji Police Force and Fiji Corrections Service

Fiji 2020 Human Rights Report: Freedoms of Peaceful Assembly and Association

The constitution provides for the freedoms of peaceful assembly and association; however, the government restricted these freedoms in some cases.

Freedom of Peaceful AssemblyThe constitution provides for freedom of peaceful assembly but allows the government to limit this right in the interests of national security, public safety, public order, public morality, public health, and the orderly conduct of elections. The constitution also allows the government to limit freedom of assembly to protect the rights of others and imposes restrictions on public officials’ rights to freedom of assembly.

The POA allows authorities to use whatever force necessary to prohibit or disperse public and private meetings after “due warning,” in order to preserve public order.

Although event organizers said authorities were sometimes very slow to issue permits, they granted permits for public rallies in support of the lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, and intersex (LGBTI) community and the 16 Days of Activism against Domestic Violence Campaign. Authorities, however, denied permits for public-service unions and the political opposition to protest.

Executive members of the Fijian Teachers Association (FTA), an affiliate member of FTUC, claimed police harassed and threatened them with “further action” over plans to hold a march during an Asian Development Bank (ADB) summit to be hosted by Fiji from May 1-5, and also if they failed to turn up for meetings at the police office. The Ministry of Education also threatened teachers with further reprisals, including legal action, if they participated in a planned May 3 nationwide strike (see section 7, below).

On June 17, police detained the president of the Fiji National Farmers Union (NFU), Surendra Lal, for questioning regarding alleged incitement and threatening to disrupt the harvesting of sugar cane. After two days Lal was released without being charged. According to an NFU statement, the detention came when growers were protesting low cane payments, a low forecast price for sugar, and the imposition of cane-cartage weight restrictions for trucks, which the union claimed would significantly add to transport costs.

On October 8, police rejected a request from the opposition National Federation Party (NFP) for a permit to march in Suva on October 10, Fiji’s national day. The police claimed the party failed to fulfill filing requirements. The proposed march was to protest the delayed police investigation into an alleged assault on NFP President Pio Tikoduadua by Prime Minister Bainimarama on August 9 (see section 3, below).

Freedom of Association

The constitution provides for freedom of association but limits this right in the interests of national security, public order, and morality and also for the orderly conduct of elections. The government generally did not restrict membership in NGOs, professional associations, and other private organizations.

On May 2, police raided the FTUC’s headquarters without a warrant and confiscated documents, laptops, and other equipment belonging to the union.

Fijileaks: The 2021 Report next March will highlight the following - denial of march permit application to the FTUC

PREFACE:

I am honored to release the 45th annual Country Reports on Human Rights Practices and to reaffirm the United States’ commitment to placing human rights at the center of our foreign policy.  The cause of human rights, freedom, and dignity is close to the American heart. As President Biden emphasized, “We must start with diplomacy rooted in America’s most cherished democratic values: defending freedom, championing opportunity, upholding universal rights, respecting the rule of law, and treating every person with dignity.”  Transparency and accountability are integral to this process.  By documenting the status of human rights around the world each year, the U.S. Department of State provides objective and comprehensive information to Congress, civil society, academics, activists, and people everywhere – all of whom have roles to play in promoting human rights and accountability for rights abuses and violations.

The 2020 report reflects the unique challenges that nations had to confront as the COVID-19 virus spread throughout the world.  The pandemic impacted not only individuals’ health, but their abilities to safely enjoy their human rights and fundamental freedoms.  Some governments used the crisis as a pretext to restrict rights and consolidate authoritarian rule.  Other governments relied on democratic values and processes, including a free press, transparency, and accountability, to inform and protect their citizens.  Women and children faced heightened risk as the prevalence of gender-based and domestic violence increased due to lockdowns and the loss of traditional social protections. Other marginalized populations, including older persons, persons with disabilities, and LGBTQI+ persons, experienced particular vulnerability.

Human rights are interdependent, and the deprivation of one right can cause the broader fabric of a society to fray.  Despite potential risks to their health or threats of arrest or other repercussions, people around the world demanded that governments respect their human rights and inherent dignity.  From Hong Kong to Belarus, from Nigeria to Venezuela, people assembled in the streets. (Fijileaks: Except in Fiji where application to march peacefully have been consistently refused). They called for governmental protection of their human rights and fundamental freedoms, safeguards for free and fair elections, and an end to discrimination.

Too many people continued to suffer under brutal conditions in 2020.  In China, government authorities committed genocide against Uyghurs, who are predominantly Muslim, and crimes against humanity including imprisonment, torture, enforced sterilization, and persecution against Uyghurs and members of other religious and ethnic minority groups.  Assad’s atrocities against the people of Syria continued unabated, and this year marks ten years of their struggles to live in dignity and freedom. The war in Yemen has driven millions to extreme humanitarian need, preventing them from exercising many of their basic rights. The Russian government has targeted political dissidents and peaceful protestors, while official corruption remained rampant. The corruption of Nicolas Maduro increased the dire humanitarian crisis of the Venezuelan people.
In Nicaragua, the corrupt Ortega regime passed increasingly repressive laws that limit severely the ability of opposition political groups, civil society, and independent media to operate.  Meanwhile in Cuba, government restrictions continued to suppress the freedoms of expression, association, religion or belief, and movement.  State-sanctioned violence in Zimbabwe against civil society activists, labor leaders, and opposition members continued a culture of impunity, and LGBTQI+ persons continued to be vulnerable to violence, discrimination, and harassment due to criminalization and stigma associated with same-sex sexual conduct.  In Turkmenistan, citizens criticizing the government faced possible arrest for treason, and the whereabouts of more than 100 political prisoners remain unknown.

These and other ongoing rights abuses cause untold damage well beyond the borders of any single country; unchecked human rights abuses anywhere can contribute to a sense of impunity everywhere. That is precisely why this Administration has placed human rights front and center in its foreign policy. Recognizing that there is work to be done at home, we are also striving to live up to our highest ideals and principles and are committed to working toward a fairer and more just society in the United States.  We all have work to do, and we must use every tool available to foster a more peaceful and just world.

Antony J. Blinken
Secretary of State

Country Report Preparation

This report is submitted to the Congress by the Department of State pursuant to Sections 116(d) and 502B(b) of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961.  19 U.S.C. § 2464, 2467 also require that U.S. foreign and trade policy take into account countries’ human rights and worker rights performance and that country reports be submitted to the Congress on an annual basis.

This report includes documents on several countries that do not fall into the categories established by these statutes and thus are not covered by the congressional requirement.

The report addresses situations and events in calendar year 2020 only.

The Department of State prepared this report using information from U.S. embassies and consulates abroad, foreign government officials, nongovernmental and international organizations, jurists and legal experts, journalists, academics, labor activists, and published reports. U.S. diplomatic missions abroad prepared the initial drafts of the individual country reports.

Once the initial drafts of the individual country reports were completed by U.S. missions abroad, the Bureau of Democracy, Human Rights, and Labor (DRL), in cooperation with other Department of State offices with the relevant country and regional expertise, reviewed and edited the reports, drawing on its own sources of information as well as of the Department of Labor.  Bureau officers also consulted experts in the Department of State and elsewhere on worker rights, refugee issues, police and security issues, women’s issues, and legal matters, among many others. The guiding principles were that all information be reported objectively, thoroughly, and fairly.  DRL, working with other Department offices as necessary, also ensured that all reports followed the same methodology and conformed to standard format and structure.