The cab we caught on this particular night in late 2003 had Taliban written on the back.

Inside, the driver was resplendent in his white kufi, dishdasha and sirwal.

There was a Taliban sticker on the hub of the steering wheel and another on the dashboard. They perfectly complemented the ornate Arabic script that decorated other parts of the taxi.

There was also a picture of Osama bin Laden hanging from the centre rear-view mirror.

Naturally, the first thing we asked about was the Taliban stickers and photo of one of the world’s most recognisable figures.

“I just come back from Pakistan,” said the driver.

It had transpired that he, along with several others, had gone to Pakistan, crossed the border into Afghanistan and enjoyed receiving instructions on how to use AK-47s, RPGs and plastic explosives.

“Air,” said the driver, “the Fiji Muslim League took us there.”

I doubt that the modern application of Soviet-era weaponry is a subject that occupies the minds of many taxi drivers in late-night Suva, and the detail in his explanation left me in no doubt that he was telling the truth.

Like our driver, September 11 had transformed the way I saw the world.

I watched as clean-shaven male Muslim friends sprouted beards overnight and took to wearing religious attire.

A few female Muslim friends also donned veils and refused to look me in the eye.

I too began to view anyone in Muslim clothing with suspicion, especially when a pharmacist friend we used to play touch rugby with, went through this transformation and started speaking against democracy, Christianity and Israel.

He was equally vocal in his praise of al Qaeda.

He has since migrated to New Zealand.

First Fiji’s Interim Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama announces that his government wants to resume diplomatic relations with Australia and then Fiji appoints a New Zealander as Supervisor of Elections.

Bainimarama’s speech to an Australia Fiji Business Council meeting last week also included an appeal to the Australian government to restart its development assistance program which was suspended after the 2006 coup.

The statement is effectively a Fijian welcome mat strategically placed before an open door.

The appointment of an outsider, who has no connection to the Interim Government and no experience organising ballots, to oversee Fiji’s election process is also designed to soothe doubts about Fiji’s dedication to democracy.

Maurice Coughlan, an Auckland lawyer, takes up a three-year appointment in early May.

In a region with little to offer as export, the extra $US1 billion per annum is a welcome boost to the national treasuries.

These aren’t imaginary figures that have come out of my back pocket. They are from the Pacific Economic Survey 08 report, which in turn used data from organisations like the Asian Development Bank, International Monetary Fund and even the Uganda Communications Commission.

But Pacific nations have learned to rely on this aid to provide and maintain, among other things, costly public infrastructure and utility services.

Which makes Pacific Islands easy pawns for countries seeking to further their national interest on the international stage.

Two of the most vigorous players in this arena are China and Taiwan. For years, these two adaptations of Sino nationhood, the People’s Republic of China and the Republic of China, have battled for diplomatic recognition in the Pacific.

At the moment Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu recognise PRC, Taiwan. Cook Islands, Fiji, Papua New Guinea, Samoa, Tonga, Tuvalu and Vanuatu acknowledge ROC, China.

In some of these islands, competition between China and Taiwan permeates so deeply that one of the two Chinas will support the party in government and the other will support the opposition.

The end result of course is when there is a change in government, there is a corresponding shift in loyalty to the other China.

Japan is a controversial operator in the region. Whenever international pressure builds against its whaling program, its behind-the-scenes manoeuvring for support intensifies.

Six out of 14 Pacific Island countries are currently members of the International Whaling Commission. They are Kiribati, Marshall Islands, Nauru, Palau, Solomon Islands and Tuvalu.

At various times in the past, Japan has been able to extract a sympathetic vote from these six in exchange for aid.

The latest to reposition itself as a friend of the Pacific, or rather to recognise that the region can be exploited, is Turkey.

This is a country with no tangible links whatsoever with the Pacific. Yet here it is and for what purpose this diplomatic foray?

I’ll give you a hint: Turkey is a candidate for one of the non-permanent seats allocated to the Western European and Others Group (WEOG) at the United Nations Security Council for 2009-2010.

This is a seat it last held in 1961 and it is vigorously lobbying for support from other UN member states.

The Pacific’s addiction to international aid also makes the region easier to control. This is a fact not lost on the region’s traditional aid partners Australia, New Zealand, the United Kingdom and the United States.

It’s been used often enough against Fiji. Whenever the country takes a detour from democracy, down go its foreign aid allocations. Roads and public services fall into disrepair, discontent rises, political leaders realise that the democratic highway really is paved with gold and so begin the trek back.

But this is what globalisation has wrought and the Pacific needs to realise that it will always be at the mercy of the rest of the world.

I do the same with my country of birth, and I loath what I see.

I threw my hands up in despair upon reading about the arrest of 17 people for protesting against China’s human rights abuses in Tibet (adieu free speech!), and the public disclosure of a sex tape of Ballu Khan and his partner Agnes Tikoisuva (long reign oppression!).

Khan is the Fiji-born New Zealand businessman accused of plotting to kill Bainimarama, and the movies were taken from a computer hard drive and off a DVD seized during police raids.

If ever there was an instant when the 2006 coup was carried out with honourable intentions, that moment is long lost, smothered in the mire that blemishes this once paradise.

For example, if the Islamic Republic of Iran provides aid to build and staff a hospital in Nauru, the state public relations apparatus will give you a noble reason for doing so.

“To help raise the standard of healthcare for our friends in the Republic of Kiribati,” it’ll say.

 “Off course,” the Republic of Nauru will say. “Take another look at your map.”

“Yes,” the Republic of Kiribati will says

“Sorry,” the Iranians respond, “we actually meant Nauru.”

This scenario would probably delight and concern the United States and its allies in equal measure.

Delight, because it would show just how poor Iran’s grasp of geography is and “God knows where that Shahab-5 long range missile will end up. Certainly not in Washington”.

Concern, because who wants Iranian influence in the Pacific, apart from Abu Sayaff, Jemaah Islamiyah and the odd despot or two.

But I stray, much like that rocket with its corrupted guidance system.

In this make-believe situation, there would be an ulterior motive for Iran’s sudden discovery of this fount of goodwill.

There always is, no matter which government you are talking about.

Which leads us to this question: What does Turkey stand to gain from courting the Pacific Islands?

I have never heard of Turkey taking an interest in the Pacific before until I spotted an article in the Turkish English language daily, The New Anatolian.

The story talks about a three-day meeting in Istanbul between Turkish Foreign Minister Ali Babacan and representatives of the Pacific Islands Forum to “develop Turkey’s relations with countries in the South Pacific region and to strengthen co-operation at both the bilateral and multilateral levels.

“The Cook Islands, the Marshall Islands, Tuvalu, Samoa, Fiji, Palau in Micronesia, Kiribati, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and Vanuatu will be represented at the ministerial level and the others at the level of high representative.”

Surely Turkey isn’t seeking support from the Pacific for entry into the European Union. And it can’t have anything to do with issues in Cyprus.

That leaves us with one final possibility: That Turkey’s unexpected concern for the region is genuine and has nothing to do with its campaign for a non-permanent seat in the UN Security Council in 2009-2010.

The only time the country warrants any attention is if the strategic interests of the Western world are at risk.

This is the thought that went through my mind as I watched televised news of an array of current and former global leaders as they hemmed and hummed in response to a journalist’s question about boycotting the Olympics over China’s human rights violations in Tibet.

It wasn’t even a question about imposing economic sanctions.

But here was the centre left in glorious display at the Progressive Governance Summit in London – Bill Clinton, Gordon Brown, Kevin Rudd, Helen Clark (normally a good bloke, as the Australians gleefully attest), Thabo Mbeki, as well as the presidents of Liberia and Chile.

And not one of them could string together a coherent reply.

In the end, the sum of their responses was this: Boycotting the Olympics would be counterproductive because it would affect ordinary Chinese and not the ruling Communist Party.

What does this tell the ordinary person in Fiji? “Sorry sonny, but in the eyes of the international community, your life has less value than an ordinary person in China.’’

This kind of hypocrisy is galling, particularly when you have lived through successive periods of economic sanctions and witnessed the effect it has on everyday people.

The absence of an effective stance against China’s actions to preserve economic arrangements, weakens the argument that harsh action is needed against Fiji to maintain democracy.

But why should we be surprised?

This is just the type of pretence that we have come to expect from our developed neighbours, so often have they displayed their duplicity.

In recent years, New Zealand’s profile in the region has been completely eclipsed by Australia’s.

There are valid reasons for this. New Zealand has a smaller economy and therefore less money for chequebook diplomacy, and its neutered military lacks the influence for any type of gunboat diplomacy.

Perhaps there is a third reason: Ineffective foreign policy, at least with relation to Fiji.

New Zealand and Australia have a reputation for arrogance in the Pacific. These bulwarks of Western liberal democratic ideals show little tolerance for their laid-back and sometimes troublesome neighbours.

During early PICTA and PACER negotiations for example, representatives of the two countries would breeze in to Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat meetings with their teams of advisors and completely overwhelm everyone else.

They would dominate proceedings and dress down anyone whose countries were too relaxed in making the necessary economic adjustments.

They called this “pushing the agenda”. Pacific Islanders called it bullying but it created much resentment.

New Zealand’s attitude has not changed. The political leadership still peddles the same response to crises in the Pacific.

“Another coup in Fiji? Let’s introduce so-called smart sanctions that aren’t really that smart because they punish ordinary Fijians for something they didn’t do.”

Yes, I get that New Zealand can’t be too friendly with an illegal regime, but two years of sanctions have not achieved anything, except poverty for ordinary people.

A change in approach is needed.

Compared to Australia, New Zealand is in a better-position to embrace this change and influence Fiji’s affairs.

It shares an almost-religious infatuation for rugby and it has a large Islander community which knows a thing or two about dialogue, consensus and mutual understanding.

You begin with what connects you. Once you establish that, you can work your way through any differences you have, no matter the width of the gulf between you.

It’s an idea that can test your patience.

But it’s a concept with a proven record in a region as diverse as ours, and one at the heart of the Pacific Way.

Publicly express an opinion about a contentious issue and it is likely that you will have unannounced visitors at your door.

This is why bloggers with strong views, and even those with mild ones, cloak themselves in anonymity for fear of reprisals.

Of course, this is no defence for those who deliberately defame others in the relatively sheltered world of the world wide web.

But we live in such a small country where everyone knows everyone else. Those of us who don’t have relatives and friends who do, and it is their welfare we must also think about.