See the Comments on this post. Click 'comments' below.
Dear Croz,
Having lived in Fiji for three years from 1990, with visits since, I have a certain understanding of the country and its unusual politics. Like you I believe our government and Australia's are strangely shortsighted. In fact I am at a loss to discover any good reason for the continuing hard nosed stance. I cannot believe it is so petty as to punish them for disobeying the rules, or pique for reneging on a promise made in Wellington in November 2006 and expelling diplomats since. And we certainly don't worry about dictatorial governments when it comes to trade relations. I can only feel there is an underlying power play we know nothing of.
At the same time, it seems that ordinary Kiwis who know a little about Fiji are also puzzled at the apparent unfairness of the situation. Is there something in the Kiwi 'Fair go' philosophy which could draw together the sort of support which would encourage the government to reconsider?
Best wishes,
P
6 comments:
As a New Zealander, I am very puzzled at this one piece of New Zealand misconduct. Travel bans on Boy Scouts, imposing punitive personal sanctions without giving people an opportunity to be heard, and pushing to exclude Fijian troops when the Fijian soldiers have done a lot for international peace? I feel very embarrased at this and can only see it as bully boy behaviour.
I agree. As an NZer I don't understand the govt's stance and I find this unreasonable behaviour embarrassing. P is clever to point to the "Fair Go" mentality that NZ prides itself on. Where is this now?
P has a very valid point.
Not sure how New Zealanders can tolerate this conduct without protesting. Even if the Commodore is the devil incarnate, the policy is ill-managed with no thought for future relationships with Fiji. The policy will leave lasting wounds. Pity. Kiwi policy has otherwise been wise and principled. Nuclear-free, non-invasive, and respectful of its international obligations.
i don't think the 'fair go' imagery will get kiwis very far with fiji.
no kiwi government that relies on the appearance of free and fair
elections for its legitimacy is going to be easily convinced that
it should publicly give a 'fair go' to another government that is making a
mockery of its principles--unless the said undemocratic government
happens to be enabling the lucrative plundering of its own resources
by kiwis corporations. governments are happy to swallow their principles
if it makes them rich.
i believe the only way for nz to get traction in fiji is covertly. the nz government
is unlikely to backdown from its moral high ground. but a lesson may be learned
from history: during the anzus crisis, nz was maintaining a visibly high profile
anti-nuclear stance, while all the while (and unbeknownst even to the political
parties in power) nz military and intelligence agencies were deeper than ever
in the back pockets of a u.s.-led spy network. this allowed nz to appear
sanctimonious at one level, while betraying its own foreign policy independence
at another level.
i reckon that in the case of fiji, ngos and media aren't going to make the nz govt
publicly change its mind. the maori party is trying to leverage itself into a position
of influence--to assert the "value added" they bring to the coalition. but i have little
faith that they will make a difference--they are too narrowly informed, their approach too
intuitive and too constrained by their own cultural conventions and lenses. the maori party,
invested as it is in pro-indigenous affirmative action and electoral politics, don't know how
to speak bainimarama's language, anyway! (julian wilcox's failed attempt at getting
bainimarama to do a mihi or pepeha at the beginning of their interview--gives us a glimpse
of the potential linguistic and cultural cross-purposes that could arise between a maori
delegation and bainimarama.)
to be honest, i don't see what motivation bainimarama might have _to give nz_ a
'fair go' anymore. i think if nz were genuinely interested in brokering an outcome
that would benefit all people of fiji, it would be strategically deploying its intellectual
and diplomatic resources with china and malaysia, for example, to encourage them
to set more conditions on the assistance they give to bainimarama. but even this
might be too sophisticated for nz to manage.
the only other way, as i suggested with the anzus example, is for someone, somewhere in
the bowels of nz foreign affairs/intelligence to engineer covert diplomatic efforts that allow
nz to keep saying one thing while doing another. but bainimarama is not uncle sam...so i
don't fancy our chances of that happening.
Tee
This is a difficult one - I suppose it is a cumulation of things -the failure
of the Wellington meeting, expelling of NZ HC's etc..
I think that because of the unreliable intelligence NZ has been getting from its sources in Fiji, it really believed that the Bainimarama government would collapse because of a mutiny or civil insurrection. Diplomats from NZ still talk wildly about "Frank going to jail" and predicted in 2006 that it would all be over in a week. One diplomat told me this himself. Now expelled-what a surprise!. Surely by now these diplomats should begin to question the wisdom of relying so heavily on the sources, most of them lawyers and personal friends of the High Commissioners and senior diplomats. There is a greater need for objectivity and balance in the dispatches from Fiji. Failing that, a complete turnover of staff in the Embassies and High Commissions here. There is a huge loss of face for these diplomats as they are invariably wrong in their predictions, and therefore on the resulting foreign policies.
Post a Comment