IT’S been a while since I have read a piece by a writer who understands how complex politics in Fiji, and indeed the rest of the Pacific, is.

That’s not to excuse the choice of paths some countries have taken.

But the reality is that Australia’s approach means it is rapidly losing influence in Fiji. The days when Australia could wield the threat of aid reduction like a big stick to force a recalcitrant child back in line are gone.

Fiji can just turn to China.

But here is the piece in The Canberra Times by Nicholas Stuart.

Poor links with

Fiji part of wider

Pacific problem

NICHOLAS STUART

The Pacific has always been our backyard, and a friendly place that we’ve used for restful holidays to ”get away from it all”. As a result we took the tiny island states for granted, even when they were beginning to fall apart from internal conflicts and violence. We’re still doing it; sleeping in blissful ignorance, even though the old regional dynamic is dangerously threatened and about to change forever to our immense disadvantage.

The clearest example of how these secure regional waters have suddenly changed into treacherous ones can be seen in Australia’s relationship with Fiji. A series of coups, and the current military-dominated Government (that we don’t approve of) threw up a series of diplomatic challenges. How would it be possible to criticise the army for seizing power and still maintain a close relationship with the people of all ethnic groups on the islands?

Achieving this balance has proved to be completely beyond Australia’s capacity. Instead of redoubling efforts to find a new way of engaging with different constituencies, Australia is now perceived as a wishy-washy regional power, prevaricating between action and rhetoric, completely unable to decide how it should act. By trying to walk in the centre, and sticking to a delicately neutral line, it has managed to alienate everyone.

The biggest blunder was probably the heavy-handed military exercise that took place just off the coast of Fiji in 2006. This was gunboat diplomacy of the worst sort; farce that rapidly descended into tragedy when a helicopter was lost off the deck of HMAS Kanimbla. Two men died and another eight were injured. This terrible event vividly demonstrated if there was any doubt that Australia had absolutely no capacity to take any military action against the coup leader. But when Fiji’s Prime Minister Commodore Frank Bainimarama visited China recently he didn’t just intend to spend his time watching the Olympic Games. When he left Beijing he took a sensational present with him: a multi-billion-dollar soft loan that at one stroke has completely emancipated the islands from any reliance on Australian aid. Fiji has realised as have other Pacific islands that the emerging Chinese superpower is now ready to back its desires to engage with the region with serious money.

In a matter of weeks Australia has lost its once pre-eminent status in the region. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade was unable to provide even an off-the-record briefing about either the detail of the loan to Fiji, or how it might be spent. It would be difficult to find a clearer indication of just how we were blindsided by the Chinese initiative, which has left our own efforts in the region completely outflanked.

It is neither possible nor desirable for Australia to buy influence in the region as it cannot hope to match the large amounts of money that a superpower can throw at the island states. Nevertheless, where Australia has been able to shine in the past is by demonstrable goodwill, contact and genuine assistance over a long period of time.

The flagship of our defence program has been provided by the Pacific Patrol Boat program, which was announced with much fanfare by then prime minister Bob Hawke, at a Pacific Forum meeting in 1983. Originally the program was to equip eight countries with 10 patrol boats; it was such a success that 12 countries now operate 22 of the boats.

The vessels are small (just 31.5m long and operated by a crew of 19 sailors), but they’re crucial for the islands. The boats represent the only way the forum countries can police their waters; by preventing illegal fishing and providing a presence for the fragile governments of the Pacific. The micro-states don’t have a lot of money and as a result there have been difficulties with the program.

For example, instead of being at sea for up to 50 days a year, some of the boats have averaged less than 36 days. That’s been caused by crewing difficulties and the cost of the fuel needed to operate the boats. Unsurprisingly, some of the micro-states find it difficult to obtain the hard currency required to achieve everything they’d like, but at least the program demonstrates that Australia does care for its neighbours. Instead of costing us about $12million a year, costs have blown out to nearly $50million a year.

This coupled with the fact that the program will come to its natural conclusion in less than a decade has now led to an amazing submission to a Senate inquiry. Despite the program’s success, some bureaucrat has decided our military ”does not intend to recommend a Defence-led follow-on [Pacific Patrol Boat] program in the options taken forward to Government”.

This may save a few dollars, but the idiocy of this approach should be self-evident. The program comprises influence and access beyond its financial value. If Australia doesn’t choose to maintain its links with the islands, they will quickly become the beneficiaries of Chinese aid and a crucial interaction with the region will be lost forever.

In a move that could have relevance for the way we treat the Pacific, just last week the United States military established its own new regional grouping. Africa Command will now join the three other US military headquarters that span the globe (in Europe, the Middle East and the Pacific). The US military understands that the skills necessary to guarantee victory demand an understanding of the unique geographic and cultural factors in different areas.

This is an insight that has seemingly eluded Australia’s military which concentrates on teaching officers how to fight; they are meant to pick up the other equally crucial skills along the way. This might have been acceptable in the past, when the Pacific was just a backwater, but now that it has become a significant area of conflict, Australia needs commanders who have intimate familiarity with the region and personal contacts with the islands. Assuming the region will just look after itself is no longer good enough.

Nicholas Stuart is a Canberra writer.

nicstuart@hotmail.com

I USED to work late quite regularly in a previous incarnation so it wasn’t unusual for a group of four of five of us to share a cab and then get dropped off wherever we lived.

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.

IS the frosty political climate thawing?

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.

FIJI and its Pacific Island neighbours lie in the most aid-dependent territory in the world. This reliance ranges from about 2 per cent of GDP in Fiji to 50 per cent of GDP in the Marshall Islands.

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.

WE attach ideals to almost everything in life and it influences our choices and perspective on things: The perfect partner, the perfect job, the perfect holiday, the perfect everything.

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.

NO country does favours without expecting something in return.

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.

WE delude ourselves if we think the rest of the world really cares about what happens to Fiji.

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.

TODAY’S Fiji Times contained a few eye-catching articles: The shortage of salt, rice and butter in various supermarkets and a mother who has to resort to using firewood because kerosene is now too expensive.There was another, seemingly unrelated piece about a Fiji Human Rights Commission report that Australian defence chief Angus Houston had violated international law by threatening to invade Fiji before the 2006 coup.

But the stories are connected and demonstrate just how desperate things have become in Fiji, both for the ordinary person as well as Bainimarama.

The allegation against Air Chief Marshall Houston by Commodore Bainimarama is not new. It first surfaced in September 2007 when Bainimarama told the Times: “… In November (2006) the Chief of the Australian Defence Force Angus Houston called me in Sinai. He said ‘do not do anything that would pit my soldiers against yours’.’’

This is a perfect example of the competitive spirit that drives boys to hide behind the school and decide hierarchy by making proportional comparisons – the “I-am-better-endowed-than-you” syndrome.

But the fact that much puff is being made of old pie signifies that the Interim Government is perhaps a tad anxious about how badly things are going.

Maybe this is about national sovereignty as well. It’s also a perfect opportunity to divert public attention on an issue other than the mess at home.

THE lovo crew was unusually silent on the morning of May 20, 2000.We were preparing a feast to farewell a friend who was going to England to join the British Army, but all ears were glued to the radio.

I forget which Fijian station we were listening to, Bula FM or Viti FM, but Simione Kaitani and Iliesa Duvuloco were saying: “Keimami sa tu vakarau na luve iViti me keimami colata na itavi ni vanua.”

Because I followed Fiji’s current affairs closely and knew of Duvuloco’s murky history as a businessman, I was sceptical.

Kaitani was just another politician who had lost the previous election, and George Speight, well, the waft of his unflattering reputation could be traced all the way to Australia.

The expressions on the faces around me said that the lovo crew was completely engaged by the sacrifice these loyal sons of Fiji were willing to undertake.

It was a feeling duplicated throughout the country.

Personally, I was flabbergasted that Fiji was going to entrust the future of the country to a cluster of bankrupts and con men.

Which brings me to my point. Fijians are by nature quite, humble and unpretentious. They are the most generous people you will ever meet.

They willingly give you the best of what they own, even when what they have is, by Western standards, modest.

They are unquestioningly loyal to all that they hold dear: God, family, their chiefs and to that intricate notion of vanua.

Invoke the vanua to justify your actions and you win their unfathomable support.

Fijians also dislike standing out from the crowd and hold in high regard anyone they perceive to be in a position of authority.

But the very qualities that make them so endearing, also make Fijians vulnerable to their more Machiavellian compatriots.

These were the noteworthy traits so skillfully manipulated for a cause that did not really exist.