By J Thompson
(http://www.coupfourandahalf.com/ 2011)Coaffee and van Ham’s 2008 article ‘Security Branding’: The role of security in marketing the city, region or state regarding security branding outlines how externally perceived ‘insecurity’ causes significant risk to the status of a country which can take a considerable amount of time and effort to rectify. The opposing view to this is the perception of a country as being ‘secure’ in terms of political and economic stability, in addition to domestic support for the governmental structure, with the impact of such as representing a positive and secure global image (Coaffee and van Ham 2008). The article goes on to outline that a ‘corporate and political’ agenda is, or should be, a priority within the policy framework of a state and again links the political and economic strength and stability as portraying an image of state security. Coaffee and van Ham do, however, outline that security in the contemporary context can be seen in include a variety of health concerns/pandemics and natural disasters and that careful handling of such issues, as well as military strategies, is seen as vital to the success of a nation’s ‘branding’.
Since the post-colonial era Fiji can be seen to have adopted an image that highlighted its strong and dependable military force, one that was utilised by the British during the colonial period in global settings and promoted, somewhat inadvertently, as a ‘rent-a-soldier’ following this time. Fiji was quick to align itself with peacekeeping missions carried out by the UN and, as such, successfully branded itself as a ‘peace-keeping’ security force and gained global recognition for such efforts. The Fijian Embassy in Washington DC held a Pacific cultural event held with over 800 public and private sector guests present whereby traditional food, dance and singing were shared as an example of public and cultural diplomacy to improve relations. The event was also host to marketing campaigns and nation branding exercises that saw business discussions taking place whereby Fiji promoted the services of security personnel.
“With the existential Soviet threat now long gone, security has turned from ultimate survival tools to a luxury item, which is branded at a high premium. For example, like other elite brands, the EU and NATO wear their logos like Armani and Chanel labels, telling their clientele that buying their ‘product’ (i.e. security) implies that they are sophisticated and safe.” (Coaffee and van Ham 2008)
Directors from RONCO Consulting Corporation outlined that while there were no contracts at present they would be keen to include Fijian security personnel on their data base for future ‘global deployment’, illustrating the positive image promoted by previous personnel in Iraq (http://www.fijiembassydc.com/). RONCO have a wide range of clients including the US (private and public sector groups) the World Bank, several Western European governments, NATO and various other commercial firms (ibid). The Fijian Embassy event, when placed in the context of Coaffee and van Ham’s article, highlights the relevance of domestic and international acceptance of nation branding based upon a wider image of security as set by globally legitimate ‘peacekeeping’ forces or institutional bodies as demonstrated by NATO or the EU. However, it should be noted that the Fijian Embassy website did not supply any dates regarding the Pacific cultural event but it seems likely that this took place several years before the military coup in 2006.
The 2009 article Exporting Fijian Forces (http://www.isn.ethz.ch/) outlines that the Fijian security services have been utilised for many years to serve as a ‘discount’ military force and that the local economy is dependent upon such income. The military coup in 2006 is said to suppress democracy and the freedom of Fijians, as well as revenue obtained from the use of its military force given as ‘propping-up’ the regime (ibid). Since the coup, Australia and New Zealand have increasingly called for the UN to ban the use of Fijian soldiers and military personnel from peacekeeping missions, as undertaken in Iraq for example. Such a ban was implemented in 2009, although it is noted that existing Fijian military personnel will continue their UN positions but that no further procurement will take place (ibid). The Fijian economy has traditionally relied upon sugar and textile production but has, in recent years, become increasingly drawn toward the use of its citizens as global military or security personnel. As a result of the 2009 ban of Fijian military personnel in UN peacekeeping missions, such personnel are increasingly seeking employment within private security firms so as to continue to utilise the skills which the nation has historically branded itself with and, until recently, were globally recognised and deemed legitimate.
Amnesty International has sought to raise awareness of existing and continual human rights violations from the military regime, reporting the suppression of democratic freedoms and the arbitrary arrest of any citizens seen to oppose the regime (http://www.amnesty.org.nz/ 2011). The recent popular uprisings in the Middle East saw Fijian people organising a peaceful protest against the regime on 4th March 2011 and while local media is given as widely suppressed the Australian media have made efforts to keep the world informed. Radio Australia (http://www.radioaustralia.au.net/) reported that the 4th March 2011 demonstration were subsequently cancelled due to a heavy military presence in the designated protest area, as well as the detention of activists and political opposition leaders. In this manner, the nation branding efforts of Fiji have been diminished by the current regime and a sense of domestic insecurity now dominates the global perception of Fiji.
Hence, using the ideas noted within Coaffee and van Ham’s ‘Security Branding’ article, it can be argued that while Fiji were seen as domestically secure, they were able to offer the governments and private security contractors a valuable service which allowed Fijian military personnel positions within the UN peacekeeping missions in locations such as Sudan, Liberia, Darfur and Iraq (http://www.isn.ethz.ch/ 2009). However, since the military coup in 2006 which saw a dramatic reduction in the democratic freedom of the Fijian citizens and the implementation of a Public Emergency Regulation which further restricts ‘freedom of expression and peaceful assembly’ (http://www.amnesty.org.nz/ 2011), there has been an international outcry for the prevention of Fijian military personnel for UN peacekeeping operations. Due to Australian and New Zealand groups lobbying, the UN have since banned the use of Fijian military personnel in such missions. The impact of this has led to a transition of such personnel from the public to private sector security. In this manner it can be argued that while the legitimate utilisation of Fijians as peacekeeping personnel has declined following the regime change in 2006, the success of its ‘rent-a-soldier’ branding can be seen as unwavering, with the ultimate price being that of the decline of the democratic process and human rights of its citizens.
Sources:
·Amnesty International (March 2011), Fiji: Fears for activists as military clamps down on peaceful protest plans, http://www.amnesty.org.nz/news/fiji-fears-activists-military-clamps-down-peaceful-protest-plans
·Coaffee, J. and van Ham. P., ‘‘Security Branding’: The role of security in marketing the city, region or state’, Place branding and public diplomacy (2008) Vol. 4:3
·Coup Four and a Half Blog (2011), http://www.coupfourandahalf.com/
·Fiji Embassy Washington DC, http://www.fijiembassydc.com/default.asp?contentID=810
·International Relations and Security Network (ISN), Bennett, J., R., (2009), Exporting Fijian Forces, http://www.isn.ethz.ch/isn/Current-Affairs/Security-Watch/Detail/?lng=en&id=101406
·Radio Australia (4 March 2011), Anti-government march in Fiji is called off, http://www.radioaustralia.net.au/pacbeat/stories/201103/s3155654.htm
No comments:
Post a Comment