(+) A Hard Question: Aust. and NZ, Friends or Bullies?

Don't walk in front of me; I may not follow. Don't walk behind me; I may not lead. Just walk beside me and be my friend. -- Albert Camus (1913-1960).

One of the great attractions of patriotism - it fulfills our worst wishes. In the person of our nation we are able, vicariously, to bully and cheat. Bully and cheat, what's more, with a feeling that we are profoundly virtuous. -- Aldous Huxley (1894-1963).

Statue: The Thinker by Auguste Rodin (1840-1917). Source: Wikipedia.

It is now two and one-half years since Australia and New Zealand started to apply pressure on Fiji to hold elections that they saw as synonymous to democracy. The pressure started with travel advisories, later relaxed but with enduring TV images, and travel bans on anyone even remotely associated with the Fiji Interim Government. This was quickly followed by severe aid cuts, even to projects not administered by the Fiji Government. Appeals to the Commonwealth and the European Union to stop economic aid to the already seriously sick sugar industry followed. The industry is Fiji's second largest money-earner and employer. Then the UN was asked to dismiss its Fiji peacekeeping soldiers, despite the repatriated income it earns for hundreds of ordinary Fijian families. And then pressure was applied to at least some Pacific Islands Forum members to vote to suspend Fiji from Forum membership.

[A cynic might add that Australia and NZ have not applied trade sanctions, despite urgings from some vocal overseas-domiciled anti-Government groups. But then trade favours NZ (and probably Australia) six to one, and sanctions could hurt our exporters, and open the door to rival exporters from other countries.]

It should be obvious to any independent, intelligent observer that these policies have not worked. Elections are no closer. Indeed, the whole situation is far worse than it was, and Australian and NZ policies could have contributed to the deterioration.

A hard look at Fiji points to several possible undesirable outcomes:

(1) The Interim Government will continue in its dictatorial path (when a more relaxed atmosphere could have produced genuine dialogue, reconciliation and a pathway to a truly more democratic Fiji) ;

(2) There could be a major confrontation between anti-government Fijian ethno-religious "forces" (spurred on by assumed Australian and NZ support) and the military;

(3) There could be a revolt within the military. This could result either:

(a) in the removal of Bainimarama and the Military Council (in which case we will have a failed coup, six torn-out pages in Fiji's history, and, in all likelihood, Fiji will return to the unresolved issues that prompted all its coups), or

(b) in the revolt being crushed, and hopes of reconciliation and dialogue being pushed even further down the road.

Fiji is in a deadlock (not yet a stalemate) that can only be broken by moderate people, most especially ethnic Fijians, who can influence the Interim Government.

The emergence and influence of such a group would be greatly helped by realistic Australian and NZ policies (or even backdoor diplomacy) that allowed the Interim Government to step away from its siege mentality.

Now Read On

Despite the obvious failure of their exclusionist policies towards Fiji -- and the growing body of informed opinion in both countries that has called for flexibility -- the Pacific giants continue to press on regardless.

• Fiji was excluded from the PACER (Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations) two-day meeting in Apia, Samoa, this week. Negotiations will begin in earnest after the next Pacific Island Forum meeting in Cairns in August. Fiji will again be excluded. Meanwhile, a new Chief Trade Advisor's office will be temporarily housed at the Forum headquarters in Suva -- until it is moved to Vanuatu. Auckland Law Professor Jane Kelsey, however, states that Pacific countries cannot legally reach agreement on trade issues without input from Fiji. “PACER," she says, "is a separate legal instrument from the Pacific Islands Forum. Suspending Fiji from the Forum does not legitimise excluding them from any discussions on PACER. Therefore any decision made by the parties to PACER, in the absence of Fiji, doesn’t have a lawful foundation.” Prof. Kelsey says Fiji had previously been one of the most rigorous island nations in demanding caution over PACER, so its absence could allow New Zealand and Australia to fast-track the deal.

• Some 32 civil society groups (including churches and trade unions) have also urged caution about PACER, but Australia and NZ seem bent on pushing forward as quickly as possible. The groups want national consultations and research before formal negotiations are even considered. Maureen Penjueli of PANG (Pacific Network on Globalisation) said Pacific governments had outlined the need for such an approach in a draft road map for negotiations, but Australia and New Zealand had rejected this approach and were instead demanding negotiations be fast-tracked.

• Australian Foreign Minister Stephen Smith, speaking after meeting with his NZ counterpart Murray McCully in Wellington yesterday, said Australia and NZ will continue to demand that the UN stop using Fijian peacemakers until Fiji holds elections. Fiji has up to 2,000 troops on peacekeeping duties with UN security forces around the world, including in Iraq, Lebanon, East Timor and Africa. The UN has agreed not to engage new recruits but McCully said NZ is not happy with the UN’s “unhelpful” reaction to the situation in Fiji.

• PM Bainimarama said he is aware of a number of approaches which Australia and New Zealand have made to “cripple Fiji’s economy", including approaches by Australia to the Chinese government to reconsider its aid and funding assistance to Fiji. It is truly ironic to ask China to support human rights in Fiji on the 20th anniversary this month of the massacre in Tainanmen Square.

For further reading on PACER click on PIF FAQ; and for a contrary view click on Jane Kelsey.