( REVISED ON MARCH 7th WITH NEW MATERIAL)
Grubsheet’s interview with the Fijian leader, Frank Bainimarama, was shown at the weekend in Australia and New Zealand on Sky News and in Fiji in a news special on FBCTV. In it, Bainimarama says Australia is now alone among its ANZUS partners in refusing to engage with Fiji. And he reveals fresh details of his plans to return the country to democracy in 2014.
Below is a link to the full version of the interview on Youtube:
Since the interview was broadcast, Grubsheet has come under attack from regime critics for allegedly overstating the extent of American re-engagement with Fiji. They would do well to ponder this article in the Australian Financial Review by Richard Herr and Anthony Bergin of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute (ASPI), which underlines American concerns about Australia’s mishandling of the Fiji issue.
In the Grubsheet/Sky interview, Frank Bainimarama accuses Australia – under former foreign minister, Kevin Rudd – of having neglected the Pacific region. He’s far from alone, with both ASPI and the other major Australian foreign affairs think tank, the Lowy Institute, making the same claim. It’s worth taking a look at the following Australia Network interview with Lowy’s Executive Director, Michael Wesley, who explains in illuminating detail why the strategic tussle between the United States and China is so important for everyone living in the region. It’s a compelling argument for the incoming Australian Foreign Minister, Bob Carr, to re-engage with Fiji as soon as possible.
Michael Wesley of the Lowy Institute
No surprise, of course, that the regime’s opponents in Australia do everything they can to derail any renewed contact. Chief among these is Dr Jon Fraenkel of the Australian National University, who poses as an independent commentator on Fiji but is a partisan political player as co-author of a ten point plan for a return to “democracy” promoted by the renegade military officer, Ratu Tevita Mara. The inverted commas are because Fraenkel’s notion of democracy includes the restoration of the hereditary Great Council of Chiefs. He also refuses to explain the circumstances of the accompanying photograph in which he poses – alongside the historian, Bril Lal – with Simione Kaitani, one of the perpetrators of George Speight’s 2000 coup.
Here’s a link to an extraordinary interview Fraenkel has given to Radio New Zealand, claiming Frank Bainimarama’s plans for a return to democracy – outlined in the Grubsheet interview – are “vague”. He blithely ignores the fact that the PM specifically said that the 2014 election would be free and fair, be conducted on the basis of one man, one vote, be preceded by the formulation of a “credible constitution”, be open to all, that he was considering standing himself and that even the man he ousted, Laisenia Qarase, was free to put his name forward.
There was nothing vague about Bainimarama’s comments, judging from this article in Pacific Islands Report, the daily news sheet produced by the East West Centre at the University of Hawaii, that’s become a principal tool of reference for Pacific watchers throughout the world. It honed in on the substance of Bainimarama’s comments. Radio New Zealand chose to hone in on Jon Fraenkel’s lamentable spin.
To its credit, Radio NZ at least carried several stories from the Bainimarama interview, his first one-on-one for 18 months. Australia’s public broadcaster, the ABC, chose to ignore it altogether and not a word appeared on the domestic service or its two regional offshoots, Radio Australia and Australia Network. It wasn’t as if the PM’s comments weren’t newsworthy so what gives? Part of the answer came in a remarkably one-sided piece from Fiji by ABC correspondent Philippa McDonald, who had asked for an interview with Bainimarama herself and had been refused.
McDonald’s story – carried on all ABC outlets, domestic and foreign – concentrated on the regime’s supposedly harsh treatment of certain leaders of the Methodist Church, union leader Daniel Urai, and Mere Samisoni, the former SDL MP and racial supremacist who once famously declared that Fiji was for indigenous Fijians and if the other races didn’t like it they should leave. All are facing a variety of charges in the Fiji courts, Samisoni for plotting to overthrow the government.
In his Grubsheet/Sky interview, Bainimarama specifically referred to the Methodist Church -accusing some of its leaders of fueling racial division – and certain trade unionists ( including Urai), accusing them of trying to sabotage the Fiji economy by enlisting Australian trade unions to try to persuade Australians not to visit Fiji. None of this was included in McDonald’s report. The church leaders, Urai and Samisoni were all cast as innocent victims of a military dictatorship, “prominent” Fijians speaking out against the regime.
The Fiji Government, for one, is incensed, not just by McDonald’s report but the fact that the PM’s interview was “spiked” by every ABC outlet. Was it because Bainimarama was highly critical of Australian foreign policy? In the normal course of events, it shouldn’t have mattered. The ABC – by an act of the Australian Parliament – is meant to be apolitical and report without fear or favour. Yet recent events may well have compromised that independence or at the very least, given it the appearance of having been compromised.
The ABC was involved in a Herculean battle with Sky News to retain the $20-million plus contract from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade to provide the Australia Network television service – its soft diplomacy arm. That contract – to the ABC’s consternation – had been put out to public tender by the former foreign minister, Kevin Rudd, who wanted better value and wider coverage to meet his ambitious foreign policy objectives.
Two separate independent inquiries evidently recommended that the contract go to Sky. But in the event, the Prime Minister, Julia Gillard, intervened and ordered that the contract be awarded to the ABC in perpetuity. That decision – while it enraged the government’s critics and even led to accusations that the process was corrupt – is said to have been greeted with a wave of relief within the ABC, which faced staffing cuts had it lost the contract to Sky. Is this part of the payoff, that the ABC is more compliant when it comes to its coverage of Australian foreign policy? It sure looks that way when it declines to report newsworthy comments by a regional leader and current chairman of the Melanesian Spearhead Group.
Radio Australia – which regards itself as the preeminent broadcaster in the region – had only just got permission to switch its FM transmitters back on in Fiji after a government-enforced blackout. It will be interesting to see if – in his displeasure – Frank Bainimarama revisits that decision. But if the ABC chooses to ignore him when a host of other media outlets – including the NZ public broadcaster – give vent to his views, then it can hardly complain when the recent thawing of its relationship reverts to a sudden chill.
Just seen the interview on Youtube.
I am not going to pass comment on the tenor of the interview other than to say if you were a barrister in court you would have been stopped many times for leading the witness. But to test your patience i might well comment further.
I did note however, you dropped the questions about Frank and the potential coups in 2003-5. You obviously realized you were being lied to and did not want the world to witness your gullibility.
“Guy”, I am not a barrister in a court of law and, of course, I ask leading questions. They’re designed to elicit a response beyond yes or no and extend the audience’s understanding of what they’re watching.
Bainimarama’s denial of the Lal/Hunter claims had already been amply covered in print in New Zealand and Fiji, the only places where the issue got an airing. Most of Sky’s audience is in Australia. So there seemed little point in bothering them with a denial when they weren’t exposed to the original claims.
Graham
I’m puzzled by your concern over the refusal of the Australian government to engage with Fiji’s government. It doesn’t appear to bother Mr Bainimarama and his government is quite comfortable with accepting financial aid from the Chinese. It’s hardly likely that the Fijian government (this one or those that follow) will turn its back on future largesse from whatever source.
The increased involvement of China in the region notwithstanding, chequebook diplomacy will probably rule again if free and fair elections are held in 2014.
It seems that Mr Bainimarama has his timeline, just as the Australian government has so why are you interested in seeing the Australian government change its stance before then, especially as it’s already committed to assisting Fiji hold the elections?
Jon, my own opinions don’t matter in this context. In this interview, I was asking the PM to explain the extent of his engagement with Australia ( none ) and to contrast that with the Americans, the Kiwis, the Indians, the Indonesians, the Japanese, the South Koreans and the French ( among others ) who are prepared to engage with him.
But since you ask: My personal preference is for Australia to re-engage with Fiji to help it achieve a prosperous multiracial democracy and the elections that Voreqe Bainimarama has promised before September 2014. You have another view and I respect that. I just don’t agree with it.
This interview was all about your opinions. Bainimarama had no choice but to agree with you the way you asked these leading questions. The interview was more like a barrister leading a witness through his prepared statement than an interview designed to elicit the independent thoughts of the interviewed.
Graham,
Here in your words was the first interview with Bainimarama for 18 months. But the only thing that I had not read, heard or seen before was Bainimarama accusing Ratu Tevita Mara of trying to remove him. Other than that we had heard it all before. I found that very disappointing. I was expecting more.
But it was a disappointing interview on so many fronts. In your answer to my earlier post you said you had to ask leading questions to “They’re designed to elicit a response beyond yes or no…” You did not do very well as I did a quick word count on the transcript on, your fellow appeaser Crosbie Walsh’s website and you talked more than your interviewee. He said under 2,000 words and you over 2,000. That demonstrates just how hard you had lead Bainimarama into giving his answers. In a lot of cases he was just agreeing with your last point.
I loved the part where you were talking about the improved relations with the US. You seemed to say that his meeting with Frankie Reed was a new thing. And then Frank admitted he did not talk politics with the US ambassador. So their meetings consist of small talk over a cup of tea. Not really a major breakthrough in foreign relations. In the past he did meet McGann and they did talk politics, probably one of the reasons Frank did not like him.
I also thought it was pathetic the way you, the interviewer, through your questioning tried to show Australia in a bad light. Australia gives more aid to Fiji than China, Russia and all her new friends combined. Australia sends their police to train Fiji Police 3-4 times a year as opposed to the FBI once a year. In reality Australia is by far and away Fijian people’s best friend. They sensibly do not want to support a dictator.
Not once did you ask a question to put Frank on the spot. Where were questions about the Fiji economy and why it is doing so badly, with so little investment? When the coup happened Frank said no one in his government would stand in the next election, but here is hinting that he will stand but did you ask him about this contradiction. Of course not you don’t want to upset a dictator do you?
Basically you gave Bainimarama a free ride. I understand you want to let the Australians see his point of view, fair enough. But like a lot of Dictators, Bainimarama’s view is quite different to the reality on the ground. And you came up very short in highlighting that reality.
The only person of note who would applaud that interview would be Neville Chamberlain.
“Guy”, as I’ve said before, you are entitled to your opinions and unlike some of the anti-government blogs – notably Coup 4.5 – you will never be censored here, however gratuitous your observations.
I know you’ll be stunned to hear that the interview wasn’t for your benefit but an Australian and NZ audience who aren’t as aware of the local scene as you are. For them, the fact that Australia is now the only member of ANZUS refusing to have anything to do with Fiji will have come as something of a surprise. It certainly was to some of my journalistic elders and betters but they are admittedly not as clever as you are.
You, of course, are terribly well informed and had advance knowledge of everything the PM said, except – astonishingly – his claim that Roko Ului tried to mount a coup. Given your celebrated perspicacity, I’m frankly puzzled at your ignorance of this. I’d come to believe that you knew everything about Fiji. You have certainly shone a light on my own lamentable ignorance about the country over the last few months and for that I am deeply grateful.
The only thing that has given me a slight sense of unease as I bask in your brilliance is why such a great and wise man seems so anxious to hide his light under a bushel. I know that It can only be modesty that keeps you from casting aside that mask of anonymity and using your real name. In my experience, men of genuine humility often behave like this, fearful that displaying the courage of their convictions will only invite charges of hubris. What a saintly figure you are. And how lucky ordinary Fijians are to have you living in their midst.
Graham
You wrote that your opinions don’t matter, however to a certain extent they do as your opinions cause you to formulate your questions in a certain way. It’s important for the credibility of the 2014 elections that the playing field is sufficiently level for all Fijian voters, and the international community, to be able to accept the result with no more than a passing disgruntled moan from the losers.
The Prime Minister’s definitive answer that there will be no hanky panky in the 2014 elections contradicted his earlier agreement to your forthright question – ‘so this [defamation decree] is unashamedly to protect you against the forces you removed?’ ‘Yes.’
The hanky panky appears to have started already and so it’s a pity you didn’t use the opportunity to question him further on the apparent contradiction and elicited his response.
Anything less than scrupulous fairness in the voting and electioneering process will ensure the years since 2006 have been a needless waste of time. As a member of the press you, like the rest of us, have a role to play in ensuring that doesn’t happen.
Graham,
It seems as if your patience is beginning to slip.
You are very one sided in your points of view and it shows once again in your response to my comment.
Coup 4.5 in my experience does not censor comments, it even posts yours, whereas your fellow appeaser Crosby Walsh does censor comments and I have previously sent you an example to prove my point.
I take umbrage at your comment that Australia has nothing to do with Fiji. It has a lot more to do with Fiji than China, Russia or any number of countries. It gives far more aid to Fiji than any other country. It is our biggest trading partner. It is over 60% of our tourism industry. However, the government of Australia wants to have nothing to do with the dictator. That is an attitude to be applauded. History has shown us many times that appeasing a dictator is always the wrong approach.
I thank you for recognising my in-depth knowledge of the goings-on in Fiji. It is not difficult to know the contents of your interview when 90% of it has already been said by the dictator to the media. Everyone in Fiji also knows that Bainimarama intends to stay in power after the elections of 2014. The only question is will he be sitting in government house as a president with executive powers or as Prime Minister.
The reason I use a pseudonym is obvious and I will explain it to you once again. If you speak out against the dictator you are harassed by any combination of the following institutions: the Army, the police, FRCA and FICAC.
The way in which you are so glib about the threats made by the regime against their enemies shows you have very little understanding of the divide in Fiji. If you are a supporter of the dictator you can get away with a lot. On the other hand if you are known to be against the regime they will clamp down on you hard. I know people who have been forced to leave their country of birth. I know people who’ve lost their businesses. I know people who have been beaten up.
On the other hand you claim to be an expert. You visit Fiji every 18 months. You get briefed by Sharon and the dictator’s hangers on to give you one view of life in Fiji. You pontificate and then leave Fiji for another 18 months. You justify this by saying it is important that the dictator’s views are aired in Australia and New Zealand.
What about the silent majority in Fiji who are unable to speak out in their own country? Oh no they don’t matter because they are either racists, ex-politicians, greedy businessmen or journalists with an axe to grind.
Graham you are a friend to a human rights abusing tinpot dictator of a banana republic. You are a friend to a criminal who beats up women. You are a friend to thug who has overseen the murder of Fijian soldiers. You are a friend to a corrupt leader who is destroying his own country for his own personal gain. Thank God I am not your friend.
“Guy”, your comments about me are gratuitous and cowardly, made from behind a cloak of anonymity. As I’ve said repeatedly, you are entitled to your point of view. But you are not entitled to have your own highly partisan version of the Fiji saga go uncontested.
Your claim that Coup 4.5 doesn’t censor material is an outright lie. Your claim that Croz Walsh does is another outright lie. I am in constant contact with a lot of people in Fiji so can claim to have a better understanding of the country than most visiting journalists. I certainly understand the racism that’s at the root of the country’s problems and that the last government perpetuated under the banner of “democracy”.
Your attempt to portray me as totally dependent for information on Sharon Smith Johns is a blatant smear. It is you who is a propagandist, not me. And your contempt for me is based solely on the fact that I don’t adhere to your agenda and tell another story that you don’t want told.
Even the opening premise of your latest missive is wrong. I identified Australia as Fiji’s biggest trade partner and biggest aid donor in one of my opening questions. My crime – in your eyes, it seems – was to ask the most reasonable of questions. Why is Australia now the only member of ANZUS refusing to engage with Fiji? And why can the hated dictator visit a guitar factory in Nashville but not transit through Auckland or Sydney on his way to somewhere else?
It’s not just me asking these questions, old boy. Read the article opposite by Richard Herr and Anthony Bergin in the Australian Financial Review. Oh, so they are “coup apologists” and “Bainimarama puppets” too?
You call me the Neville Chamberlain of Fiji, “the great appeaser”. No, it is you who is the real Chamberlain – disingenuous, dishonest and weak. The Great Exaggerator who dares not show his face.
Graham,
As I have explained many times I need to make my comments from behind a cloak of anonymity, the reasons for doing so are obvious to anyone who is familiar with the real situation in Fiji. There are numerous examples of people speak out against the regime being taken to the Military camp and being beaten up by the soldiers under the command of the dictator Bainimarama. I need to be able to continue to work so I can look after my family. So perhaps you are right and that makes me a coward.
You made the claim two weeks ago that coup 4.5 censored your comments. In fact they published your comments which you were very slow to acknowledge. At the same time I sent you an e-mail from Crosby Walsh where he explained why he censored one of my comments. In fact about three weeks ago he wrote on his blog saying he censored comments. So I’m afraid Graham I have not lied. Perhaps you should read the comments you receive more carefully and do some research on your fellow bloggers before you make wild and inaccurate accusations.
On one thing we agree the Qarase Government was racist and did nothing to end it. Where we disagree violently is that dictatorship is the best way to correct that.
I feel justified to say that your information is totally dependent on Sharon Smith Jones, everything you write invariably shares the same sentiments expressed by her and put out by the Ministry of information. We know from an e-mail inadvertently forwarded by Bainimarama to Ratu Tevita Mara that you and Sharon enjoy a cosy relationship and regularly do favours for each other.
My contempt for you is not based on our political differences. It is based on the fact that you interviewed a man, who has beaten up women, who has overseen the murder of Fijian soldiers, who incarcerates people simply for stating an opposing view. You did not ask him about any of those things. You just gave him a free ride and have given the people of Australia that Bainimarama is a lovely man. When we all know that under that smiling veneer lies a despot. You had a chance to give people the truth but instead you wimped out and gave them the standard regime spin.
To answer your question why can the hated dictator visit a guitar factory in Nashville but not transit through Auckland or Sydney? To be honest Fiji hardly registers on the American psyche, they don’t really worry about what happens in Fiji. On the other hand Fiji is very important to both Australia and New Zealand and so they care a lot more about what happens in their backyard. I applaud them both for sticking if to their guns and not having any government relations with the dictator. I applaud them both for continuing to engage with the Fijian people.
Let me put to you a question that a great many people are asking “Why do Graham Davis and Crosbie Walsh support dictatorship in the Pacific?”
You are the great appeaser, you had a chance to ask some hard questions instead you chose to give a dictator a free pass. If that’s not appeasement, I don’t know what is.
You accuse me of being disingenuous, dishonest and weak. You also accuse me of being a great exaggerater perhaps you could show me examples where I have demonstrated these traits.
“Guy”, correspondence closed on the grounds of repetition and utter pointlessness. All the very best.
guy
TAMATA LAMULAMU
Graham,
I know you won’t reply to this but I could not let you get away this hypocrisy.
“a remarkably one-sided piece from Fiji by ABC correspondent Philippa McDonald” You wrote in your update to your now infamous Bainimarama interview posting.
1- She tried to interview Bainimarama.
2- She did get Khaiyum to provide Balance
I note you did not bother getting Ratu Tevita Mara’s version or any member of the Fiji Unions to provide balance to Bainimarama’s alarmist accusations.
You then go on in this one sided way “regime’s supposedly harsh treatment of certain leaders” Why do you doubt they were treated harshly? It has been well documented how long they were held in custody without charge or access to lawyers. But in your book of journalism the number one rule is:
If it did not come from Sharon Smith Johns then it must be suspect.
I assume too that you are going to say the recently released pictures of the dead and beaten CRW soldiers are in fact mannequins created by Hollywood style special effects.
You really are a man with a very warped sense of journalistic balance.
“Guy”, spare me the lecture about the dead CRW soldiers. They wilfully conspired in an act of premeditated mutiny against their commanding officer. In the process, they killed innocent soldiers merely doing their jobs. After a firefight in which they failed to capture Bainimarama and he escaped, they were beaten to death by loyalist troops. What on earth do you expect under the circumstances?
It’s extremely fortunate that any of them lived when in the heat of the moment, the loyalist forces had no idea of the extent of the conspiracy or who was ultimately involved. In fact, it was extremely fortunate that the 1987 coup leader, Sitiveni Rabuka, wasn’t also set upon and killed. He turned up at the Queen Elizabeth Barracks with his old uniform in his car, immediately arousing suspicions that he was part of the plot. Some of the loyalist soldiers also wanted to kill him.
I am sick to death of the double standards that apply in the reporting of this incident. None of the attention ever focusses on the wives and children of those innocent loyalist troops killed in cold blood by the CRW mutineers. Instead, we have this constant wail about hardened military rebels being subjected to summary justice. If you want to stage a mutiny in any army the world over, you’d better be damn sure that you’re going to win. Otherwise be prepared to face the consequences.
Of course, it would have been better if the mutineers had been brought before a court or military tribunal for a proper trial and sentencing. That goes without saying. But it didn’t happen and the milk is spilt. And so it inevitably becomes an argument about relative culpability.
The one real tragedy in all of this is that the man who staged the mutiny, Captain Shane Stevens, survived ( just ) but that some of the men he commanded were killed by their enraged fellow soldiers. Stevens languishes in Naboro prison with the man who evidently ordered the attack and was a central figure in the conspiracy – The Qaranivalu, the high chief of Naitasiri province.
Why isn’t all this anger directed at them? Because it doesn’t suit Frank Bainimarama’s opponents. Meanwhile the wives and children of the innocent shed their private tears and the wives and children of the guilty bathe in the spotlight of collective indignation. Where is the justice in that?
Graham
If ABC asked for, but were refused, the opportunity to interview Frank Bainimarama, then it seems reasonable that they would prefer to make use of Phillipa MacDonald’s original material, rather than use your interview for which they would have probably had to pay a substantial fee to Sky.
You might be right that the ABC now feels pressured into commenting favourably on Dfat policy as a result of being given the contract over Sky – time will tell. However I think you’re reading more into ABC’s supposed reaction (on behalf of Dfat) to the PM’s criticism of Australian foreign policy than is warranted. Your interview left me with the distinct feeling that whilst you’re highly critical of its policy, the PM was fairly dismissive of its effect.
More to the point, why on earth was ABC refused access to the PM, presumably by Fiji’s Minfo? Surely this would’ve been a golden opportunity for the PM to ensure his message reached as large an audience as possible, so to refuse Ms MacDonald the chance of an interview seems very strange.
If the Fiji government is incensed at the fact that his interview with you wasn’t broadcast by any ABC outlet, then it would seem to be a problem created by itself. Competition must be fierce between rival news broadcasters and producers, so few would willingly use other station’s coverage of such a controversial subject if they can source their own.
You finish your article by writing that if the ABC chooses to ignore him, then it can hardly complain when the recent thawing of its relationship reverts to a sudden chill. I can’t understand that, as from what you’ve written the situation appears to have been precisely the opposite – he refused (or ignored) ABC’s request to interview him.
Jon, point one: you can use anything you like of other people’s work on television in Australia “for the purposes of review” and all completely gratis. So the ABC could easily have run segments of the Sky material.
Point two: it is not my job to speculate on why Minfo didn’t grant an interview to the ABC but I understand that the decision was made by the PM himself. He’s obviously entitled to talk to whoever he wants.
Ditto point three, though rival broadcasters routinely use each other’s material under the fair use provisions outlined above. They don’t like to do so but sometimes have no choice.
Point four: a cute debating point but irrelevant. The ABC had access to material from the PM relevant to its subsequent stories but chose not to use it, even though it would have given its own material proper context.
Today, it used some of the interview – without attribution – simply to make a pedestrian point in an interview on Radio Australia with Ratu Tevita Mara. This displayed a wanton disregard for the normal conventions that apply to such matters in the media. In my view, the ABC’s behaviour on this has been shameless.
Graham
Guy tries to bring in the isssue of dead CRW soldiers which was posted on the matavuvale website. The soldiers who stormed the Camp were led by Col Baledrokadroka and any question about how the CRW deaths should be directed to him.
Graham
I hadn’t realised that review of other’s work on Australian TV was for free, nor that the decision not to speak to ABC was the PM’s, rather than his advisors, so thanks for clarifying.
My cute debating point is anything but irrelevant. It was made to draw attention to the fact that there are always reactions, usually hostile, when face to face contact is not allowed. Australia started the ball rolling years ago by cutting off diplomatic contact and the PM responded in kind. Understandable.
What’s not understandable is for this state of affairs to continue due to the PM refusing to be interviewed by ABC.
If, as you suggest, ABC is the compliant arm of Dfat then approaching the PM for an interview could be seen to be the first tentative approach by the Australian government itself. Not that great a stretch of the imagination given that Rudd was intent on stepping down as Foreign Minister at the same time. These sorts of diplomatic approaches are seldom made overtly at the start since no one wants to get egg on their face by getting rebuffed. The PM said in his interview with you that he’d welcome Australian government reps in anytime. As far as I’m concerned he’s already refused to meet with the advance party.
Even if that’s not the case, it’s unreasonable to expect a rival broadcaster to air excerpts of the same interview as its competitor when it can easily source other opinions on the same subject. You can’t have your cake and eat it. If the Sky interview was interesting enough to draw viewers from ABC, why would ABC show it again later? They’d lose the same viewers. Ratings keep people employed and if viewers complain about repeats on their own channel of choice they’re hardly likely to be interested to watch repeats from another channel.
The PM’s now learnt that deliberately ignoring certain media doesn’t get his message across to the widest possible audience. He can either respond in a tit for tat manner and keep ABC off the air, as you suggest he might, or he can learn from the mistake and accept interviews in future. His choice. This is the role he’s chosen for himself. He might understandably be apprehensive about what to expect but he’s got enough professional spin doctors at his disposal to help with preparation.
I find this interview really unethical and lopsided. For those who do not know, Frank is not well educated, so the interviewer was really leading him on or coaching him as he does not have the full mental faculty to think for himself in another language. It is a very childish piece of journalism and Graham Davis should be ashamed of himself. It actually puts more light on the lack of capacity of Bainimarama to think for himself as as most of the ideas actually have come from the interviewer who has formulated the line of questioning and tunnel visioned Bainimarama accordingly. Shameful and pathetic, even trainee journalists at Universities would have done much better!!!
Thanks, Georgina, but I think you need to appreciate the requirement for heavy intervention by an interviewer like me under the circumstances to maintain viewer interest over 25 minutes for a foreign audience. That audience may have little knowledge of Fiji at all, let alone the intricate ins and outs of Fiji politics. So it’s naturally the role of the interviewer to insert as much background information as possible into every question. The prime minister tends to answer questions like the military man he is – abruptly and to the point. Whereas I was looking for a seamless exchange that was informative and wouldn’t have Aussie and Kiwi viewers reaching for their remotes. You may not have liked the content of the discussion but that is surely beside the point. I certainly don’t put words in to the mouths of national leaders in Fiji or anywhere else.
I’m a nobody…but I’m afraid to use my own name as well! it’s only because I am for a short time in Australia and can use an Australian internet server, that I am brave enough to say something! In China, the government can trace thru the server they use, the people who write anti government blogs or respond to political forums – and in Fiji, we fear that Bainimarama is following the Chinese lead. He has effectively ‘shut up’ anyone who would say anything against he, his government and his policies. All the anti-govt blogs are written by expats or people who can safely express their opinions from another country.