Stung by successive Grubsheet articles revealing how the military wants changes to the Fiji government and also revealing the name of his designated successor, Prime Minister Voreqe Bainimarama has made an astonishing personal attack on me on the front page of the government-controlled Fiji Sun newspaper today and in the government-controlled Fiji Broadcasting Corporation news.

While conspicuously failing to deny the substance of anything I have reported, the PM accuses me of “trading in gossip” and makes a number of snide personal references that are gratuitous and totally beside the point.

Once again, the PM has evidently been used by his Attorney-General, Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, to engage in an ill-considered public relations blunder that elevates me personally and the substance of what I have written and drives even more Fijian readers to my website.

• READ MORE: The Fiji military’s blueprint for change

Whether it was on the advice of my former colleagues at Qorvis Communications is an open question.

One of them has already commented that: ”Someone should tell him [the PM] to keep a cool head. He’s doing his own negative PR by being so aggressively defensive”.

If Fiji is going to pay Qorvis $800,000 this year in highly straightened circumstances on top of the many millions it has expended over the years, the Prime Minister and his de facto number two could at least heed their advice.

Bainimarama’s statement
Here’s the text of what the Prime Minister said to the Fiji Sun:

“It’s funny, people outside of Fiji often have the most to say and the least to offer the country. Graham is no different. I know him, and he did some work with Qorvis, but that ended sometime back.

“I think I remember the stress was sometimes too much for him. I don’t know why he’s dealing in gossip these days, but I also remember even in the best of times he always seemed to find drama. And if he couldn’t find it, he’d make it up.

“I have no idea what he wants now. Maybe attention, maybe a job. I really don’t know. I don’t care and we don’t want to give him either. But he needs to understand that an attack on Fijian democracy, our Constitution, any of our independent institutions, or any of my ministers is an attack on me.

“If you’ve read our Constitution, you know Fiji is a democracy. We are not a dynasty and I do not handpick my successor. The only ones who choose the Prime Minister of Fiji are Fijian voters.

“I know, because they have picked my government twice. As the leader of FijiFirst, I am appointed under our party’s constitution, like all our office bearers. And I will once again work hard to earn the votes of the Fijian people when I lead FijiFirst into the next election.

“Until then, we have to recover our economy and get industries running again, get jobs back and get help to those who need it most. I am working on these issues every day. We don’t have time to waste on gossip blogs. But for old time’s sake, I wish Graham all the best in his retirement in Australia.”

The Davis response
And here is the text of the statement that I have released to the Fiji media in response and that it is obliged to publish under Fiji’s media laws guaranteeing the right of reply to criticism of this nature.

“I thank the Prime Minister for drawing public attention to my blogsite – grubsheet.com.au – in that many more Fijians will know that far from me criticising him or eroding his position, I am in fact trying to strengthen it by calling for the government to re-invent itself so that it can win the next election.

“I take it as confirmation that what I have said is fact that in his statement, the Prime Minister does not deny anything at all that I have reported over the past month or for that matter, dispute any opinion that I have expressed.

“In relation to his comments about the Constitution, the Prime Minister knows that a political party such as FijiFirst decides its candidate as leader before the people get to vote on that selection. So his preference as party leader is critical and as I reported, he has told the Military Council that his designated successor is Inia Seruiratu.

“While I thank him for his best wishes, I am far from being retired – being of the same age as the Prime Minister – and am working for his re-election to prevent him from going into enforced retirement himself. He remains a person for whom I have a great deal of respect and affection.”

The Davis column drew some lively online debate today, including from Rajend Naidu who writes:

“People from outside Fiji comment on Fiji’s situation on behalf of people inside Fiji who have been silenced by a repressive state and are fearful of reprisal should they have the audacity to speak out against the corruption, nepotism, favouritism, debasement of institutions of state through politisation and patronage, and a sword of Damocles hanging over the free press in the country.”

• Grubsheet Feejee is the blogsite of Graham Davis, an award-winning journalist turned communications consultant who was the Fiji government’s principal communications adviser for six years from 2012 to 2018 and continued to work on Fiji’s global climate and oceans campaign up until the end of the decade.

Military forces on peacekeeping duties often face dilemmas that are difficult to resolve, says a retired colonel who is now an education consultant.

Colonel Richard Hall, who retired from the British Army after 25 years’ service, peacekeeping roles in several countries, and led a New Zealand mission to Afghanistan in 2008/9, told an audience at Auckland University of Technology he had faced a challenge when a local tribal chief asked for security for young schoolchildren.

The chief was running a small school where he was teaching young children, but he was getting death threats from the Taliban who wanted him to stop teaching.

READ MORE: 10 years, eight lives, and $300 in Bamiyan – was New Zealand’s time in Afghanistan worth it?

Colonel Hall had to decline the request.

“Sadly, I couldn’t,” he said.

This kind of dilemma was rather common for military officers, especially when they were engaged in an operation with limited military resources or mandate that did not allow such activity, said Hall.

He was speaking at a public event organised by the Auckland branch of the United Nations Association of New Zealand on the theme “peacekeeping and the use of force”.

‘Victors’ peace’
Hall said World War 2 was a “victors’ peace” and the United Nations Charter was heavily influenced by the Allies who had won the war – China, France, United Kingdom, United States and the Soviet Union.

They “preserved” their power through enabling a veto in the Security Council. That gave them the ability to influence their “common interest”.

“It wasn’t long before the political divide between the East and West came out,” he said.

This was when the permanent members were often in complete disagreement with each other.

The common interest became difficult, and often it led to the creation of “mandates” by the UN.

“Those [mandates] were a compromise, they were weakly worded to avoid a veto,” Hall said.

This was a major concern as it caused lots of difficulties for the people on the ground, including confusion over the role of UN peacekeeping force.

The public generally confused the UN’s role with providing security to the host country, but that was incorrect.

Impartial role
The key aspect of peacekeeping operation was the UN being totally impartial.

It was not about taking sides – except for two exceptions; the Korean War in 1950 and the invasion of Iraq in 1990. However, these were examples of peace enforcement operations (under chapter 7 of the Charter) as distinct from peacekeeping operations.

The UN tried to bring various sides of a conflict together through a political process to reach a peace agreement – while the military worked in the background facilitating the process.

UN Charter’s chapter six is devoted to the peaceful settlements of disputes.

“Political negotiation between warring parties were the preeminent way of resolving conflicts”, Hall said.

Some roles for the military in peacekeeping tended to be completely unarmed or lightly armed troops doing a “couple of things”.

Hall said the UN military might be observers ensuring there was going to be a ceasefire agreement, or they might be creating a buffer zone between warring factions to prevent the conflict reigniting due to breach of a ceasefire.

Health impact
UN peacekeeping soldiers also suffered seriously from post-traumatic stress disorder as they were not allowed to intervene.

According to the United Nations (UN) Principles of Peacekeeping, there are three basic principles that set UN peacekeeping operations apart as a tool for maintaining international peace and security – consent of the parties, impartiality and non-use of force except in self-defence, and defence of the mandate.

UN peacekeeping forces were not allowed to engage in any kind of offensive, unless it is for self-defence which created a huge problem for their mental well-being, Hall said.

Soldiers witness “killing and raping” and they could not do anything about it and that caused more psychological distress.

Hall said that if the public did not support the mission, that was demoralising for soldiers.

“They feel they have been committed to an operation and there is no political, moral support from the government of the day and also the general population,” he said.

Responding to a question from the audience, Hall said: “Although not a peacekeeping operation, an example of a lack of support was the Vietnam War: the New Zealand soldiers experienced the trauma of war and on their return were badly let down by the government and public.

“It wasn’t their fault that they were there, they were fulfilling a commitment made the New Zealand government of the day.”

Hall has been decorated with the New Zealand Order of Merit and has had a distinguished military career with service in Bosnia, Cyprus, Kosovo, Middle East and Northern Ireland as well as Afghanistan.

He was seconded to the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office to establish regional peacekeeping centres in Africa, working extensively with local military, politicians and NGOs.

Hall’s book A Long Road to Progress: Dispatches from a Kiwi Commander in Afghanistan is an autobiographical account.

Currently he is a senior educational consultant in the deputy vice-chancellor’s office at Auckland University of Technology.

• United Nations Association of New Zealand

Following the awkward debacle of suspended military cooperation with Australia, in another maverick moment, General Gatot Nurmantyo told the press he might soon be replaced as chief of the Indonesian Military (TNI), hinting that he had somehow fallen out of favour — but later explaining that at any rate, he was nearing retirement.

He then made an “exposé” about how little power the TNI chief had in the procurement of military hardware under a 2015 law that grants the Ministry of Defence sole responsibility for such acquisitions.

Ruing his loss of control over procurement, he said: “If this [erosion of the TNI chief’s prerogatives] continues, then the commander will have no authority whatsoever.”

The new law must have come as a great disappointment to the armed forces, just when they were expecting significant rises in defence spending.

In the 2017 state budget, defence is one of the 10 biggest spenders at Rp 104.4 trillion (US$7.85 billion), compared to the Rp 72.4 trillion allocated to the National Police. The figures are expected to increase as the president has made a promise to jack up defence spending to around Rp 250 trillion a year.

The figures must have been music to the generals’ ears, since defence procurement in the past was an area in which the top brass of the military could make significant economic gains through “commission fees” from defence contractors as well as other “markups”.

By relocating the procurement responsibility to the Ministry of Defence, the government effectively closed off another significant “economic access” previously enjoyed by military grandees.

Brash indiscretions
In airing his disappointment, Gatot was perhaps being true to his brash indiscreet self, a side Jokowi had evidently missed, or underestimated when considering him for the top job. However, the general’s penchant for talking to the press and delivering incendiary lectures – in one of which he described feeding hypothetical Chinese refugees to the sharks – may also suggest that he is trying to craft a careful image of himself as an all-action patriot ready to embark on great things.

Judging by former President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s political success story, former army generals with popular appeal can still do well electorally.

It is also noteworthy that Gatot’s unbosoming to the press came after the police scored an important political triumph in shoring up the president’s authority during the populist Islamist rallies in November and December last year.

The rallies, purportedly against Jakarta Governor Basuki “Ahok” Tjahjaja Purnama – a Christian of Chinese descent who is accused of blaspheming against Islam – were on the verge of turning into protests against the government and ultimately, the president.

With a turnout of hundreds of thousands, the Islamist protests represented the first real challenge to Jokowi’s presidency. To blunt the blow, the police duly arrested several “agitators” on treason charges on the morning of last year’s December 2 rally.

National Police chief General Tito Karnavian, handpicked by Jokowi in July last year, threw his weight behind the president and proved to be in his element by being seen to contain the possible excesses of the rallies through a combination of negotiations and strong-arm tactics.

In contrast, the armed forces did not seem overly eager to come to the president’s aid during the turbulent months. Instead, Gatot expounded his pet theory to the press, arguing that radicalism and “pitting Indonesians against one another” as evident in the gubernatorial election campaign, was another proxy war designed by foreign powers.

Hardline Muslim links
More seriously, Gatot is said to have strong links to hardline Muslim groups such as the Islamic Defenders Front (FPI), which served as the field operators for the recent Islamist rallies against the government.

Seasoned Indonesia correspondent John McBeth considers the allegation to have some merit. He quoted a retired general in an article, writing: “Playing games with Muslim groups is a result of a rotting situation … They want to show that the Army is still needed and they have no concerns about the problems it creates.”

If true, then Tito, with the president’s blessing, deftly turned the tables on the cabal Army group wishing to create an untenable situation, which would have necessitated military intervention. Far from humiliating the police for their inability to control the masses, it allowed them to swoop in and save the day for the president.

The triumph of the police in securing the president’s gratitude took place at the expense of the military. Yet, this temporary political setback for the military does not mean the end of rivalry between the forces.

The police, being the most involved with civilians, inevitably has the advantage over the TNI in post-Reformasi Indonesia.

However, in its interaction with the people also lies the police’s weakness. A 2015 survey by Transparency International, for instance, placed the police as one of the most corrupt government agencies as perceived by the public. Apart from taking and demanding bribes, police officers are also known for operating strictly illegal “businesses” on the sidelines, such as “security money” demanded from businesses and individual officers commandeering lucrative urban “parking spaces” in conjunction with gangsters, or preman.

Now that the president is indebted to the police, it remains to be seen if Jokowi can push through further reform within the force to combat rampant corruption. Failure to do so might just provide the military with another avenue to power. The president certainly has his work cut out for him in balancing between the forces.

The spectre of the armed forces’ tentacles in Indonesian politics is real enough to warrant vigilance, although the country’s democracy has fared better than its Thai counterpart in this respect.

The dwifungsi may have been formally abolished, but its roots are buried deep. Corny as it may sound, a military uniform tends to inspire confidence in the country, so much so that President Sukarno, who never had military training, spent the last years of his life wearing his military honors in the most conspicuous manner.

If Gatot truly has political aspirations after he retires, and provided he can secure enough political backing, we may see him compete in the 2019 presidential election, alongside Prabowo Subianto and perhaps Yudhoyono’s son Agus Harimurti.

Indonesia’s days of pseudo-military leaders are apparently not over yet. Not by far.

Johannes Nugroho is a Jakarta writer, political analyst and history aficionado and a columnist at the Jakarta Globe. This article was first published in the Globe. Part 1 in this series was published yesterday.