The Australian Prime Minister John Howard and his sidekick the Foreign Minister Alexander Downer both claim that the deposed Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase called them three times for Australian military intervention in order to save his tottering political empire from being dismantled by Commodore Frank Bainimarama and his military men shortly before he was effectively removed from power on 5 December. Mr Howard said he refused the request for ‘military intervention’ to end a coup. He claims that Mr Qarase asked for help early Tuesday morning as the troops surrounded his house on Richards Road in Suva. “The Prime Minister of Fiji rang me and asked for Australian military intervention in response to the coup,” Mr Howard said. He claims that he indicated to Mr Qarase that ‘that would be impossible’. Mr Howard explained why: “I do not think it was in Australia’s national interest to become involved. The possibility of Australian and Fijian troops firing on each other in the streets of Suva was not a prospect that I for a moment thought desirable.”

Responding, Mr Qarase claimed on 6 December that he made no request to Australia to intervene with a military force to prevent a coup in his country. He told ABC Radio he did not formally ask Mr Howard to send troops to assist the Fijian Government. “I did not request Australian military intervention. I was making an inquiry because I wanted to know the options available to me under the circumstances,” he said. “I can only ask for intervention with the backing of my Cabinet and the National Security Council. I did make the inquiry with your Prime Minister on my own initiative as Prime Minister, but there has been some misunderstanding there,” Mr Qarase said.

Who is lying here: Mr Qarase or Mr Howard? Now, Mr Downer has come forward to corroborate Mr Howard's statement by stating that Mr Qarase had, in fact, made two previous requests, the last going back to November. Is Mr Downer also lying? If we are to believe Mr Howard and Mr Downer, the question that needs to be asked is whether Mr Qarase committed a crime against the state? Was he conspiring to commit treason and violating state security when he allegedly called for direct Australian military intervention to resolve Fiji’s crisis? If that is the case, was the Commodore forced to commit treason to prevent a treasonous act on the part of the deposed Government? In law, treason is a crime of disloyalty to one’s nation or state.

Even the Australian Criminal Code defines treason as follows:

A person, among other things, commits an offence, called treason, if the person engages in conduct that assists by any means whatever, an enemy or instigates a person who is not an Australian citizen to make an armed invasion of the Commonwealth or a Territory of the Commonwealth of Australia; or forms an intention to do any act referred to in a preceding paragraph and manifests that intention by an overt act.

The penalty for treason is life imprisonment in Australia without being granted a parole, i.e. the condemned must remain in prison until death. A person is not guilty of treason if the assistance or intended assistance is purely humanitarian in nature.

On 5 December there was no humanitarian crisis in the country. There was only a political crisis in the form of a standoff between the military and the government. However, the Fiji military was locked in a vicious and dangerous verbal war of words with the Australian Government, and had carried out night exercises to test its preparedness to repel any Australian intervention, which it believed was being contemplated. In other words, from a purely military standpoint, Australia was identified as a potential enemy, and was told in no uncertain terms that the Fijian soldiers would put up fierce resistance. Hence, any citizen, whether an ordinary person, or a Cabinet minister or a prime minister who was allegedly consorting with the Australian government for invasion could be deemed to have been committing treason, especially against the military which is charged with the safety and security of the Fiji state.

In fact, the Commodore had publicly warned that he would hold the Prime Minister, Minister of Home Affairs, and Attorney General directly responsible for the death of any of his soldiers if Australia intervened. If we are to believe Mr Howard and Mr Downer, than the deposed Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase could be investigated for treason and violating state security. To paraphrase Australian treason law, did Mr Qarase commit treason when he allegedly called upon non-Fijian citizens to make an armed invasion of the country?

Mr Qarase had asked for military help from the Australian Government not once but three times, says Mr Downer. In an interview with Sydney station, Radio 2GB, he disclosed that Mr Qarase asked Australia’s High Commissioner to Fiji Ms Jennifer Rawson for foreign intervention about a week before the military takeover. “We instructed the High Commissioner, Jennifer Rawson, to go back to him and say that it was not going to be a possibility,” he said. What was Mr Qarase’s response? Did Ms Rawson speak directly to Mr Qarase or was the message passed through other lines of communcation? Did she convey the same message to the President? Or was he and his deputy kept in the dark? Did Mr Qarase discuss the so-called ‘options’ of his with Government House? Did he relay Mr Howard’ response to his Cabinet colleagues in the SDL or the FLP? If not, why not?

If we are to believe the two Australian leaders, who have been fervent supporters of Mr Qarase, was the deposed Prime Minister wittingly or unwittingly prepared to spill the blood of the innocent citizens and, most importantly, that of the President’ men – the soldiers of the Royal Fiji Military Forces of Fiji? After all, the President Ratu Josefa Illoilo was the Commander-in-Chief of the RFMF when Mr Qarase allegedly called for foreign intervention. What is equally important to establish is whether the President, the Vice-President, or even the Great Council of Chiefs, was aware of Mr Qarase’s discussions with Mr Howard shortly before he was deposed? Or did he conduct the discussions of possible alleged military intervention in utter secrecy?

Why did Mr Qarase not turn up to the scheduled meeting between the President and himself on the morning of 5 December at Government House? Did Ms Rawson inform the President or the Vice-President of Mr Qarase’s official request for intervention a week before the takeover? If so, what action did the Government House take to encourage or forestall such a plan? If not, why did not Ms Rawson inform those besides Mr Qarase? Did her bosses in Canberra inform the President or the Vice-President of Mr Qarase’s request?

Besides Mr Qarase, who else in his Cabinet and those around him were involved in the alleged blood-chilling plan? Was the deposed Minister for Home Affairs, Josefa Vosanibola, who was charged with the safety and security of the nation, involved in the alleged conspiracy? When did Mr Qarase make the first request for intervention in late November? Mr Downer said on 4 December, Mr Qarase made his second request to Mr Downer who told him again that Australia could not do it. He said a third request was made on 5 December to Mr Howard who refused. Likewise, New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clarke defended her decision not to send military forces to Fiji to prevent a coup. Did Mr Qarase also request New Zealand to intervene?

Was the military intelligence aware of Mr Qarase’s alleged requests for intervention, not once but thrice? Is that why the Commodore hastily invoked the Doctrine of Necessity to take control of the country, to save the lives of his soldiers and that of the citizens from a potential bloodbath? The revelations also throw into doubt the former Opposition leader Mick Beddoes plans to return the country to constitutional government. How many of these deposed Ministers and MPs were willing to expose the soldiers and the citizens to the guns of Australian, New Zealand and even United States forces if the original alleged request in November for armed invasion had been officially sanctioned by Canberra?

Two other points can be made about the invocation of the Doctrine of Necessity. The Commodore could argue that Mr Qarase by sacking him as commander while he was out of the country, and replacing him with another who was not acceptable to his senior members, had created a necessity for him to step in before the military as an institution imploded from within, endangering the security of the State.

Secondly, the increasingly belligerent threats from the deposed Police Commissioner Andrew Hughes from Australia (and its Foreign Minister Alexander Downer), and the failure of neither the deposed Government nor any other body responsible for the Commissioner to stop him, had created a dangerous situation, which could have resulted in the two forces fighting each other. Since we are not privy to what was discussed between Mr Qarase and Mr Andrew Hughes aboard the New Zealand air force jet and the Commissioner’s subsequent disappearance to Brisbane, nothing could have been left to chance. Necessity, therefore, dictated that the Commodore had to act on his threats of the ‘clean up’ campaign.

History will judge which of the two men (Commodore Frank Bainimarama or Mr Laisenia Qarase) is a patriot and which is a traitor to the country?

Comments (4)

Show/Hide comments

Show/Hide comment form