“What a difference a day makes”, goes the old song, and never more so than when politics gets in the way of diplomacy. The incoming Australian foreign minister, Bob Carr, arrived in New Zealand yesterday for talks with his Kiwi counterpart evidently signalling an imminent change in Canberra’s hardline stance against Fiji. News Limited papers in Australia had reported that Carr was set to perform a dramatic about face, ending Fiji’s five years of diplomatic isolation, and also carried explicit calls for a change of policy from the Coalition’s foreign affairs spokesman, Julie Bishop. The Carr story must have come from him or those around him. And the word on the diplomatic circuit also had it that change was in the air, prompting Grubsheet to confidently predict a rollback too. Yet by the end of his meeting in Auckland last night with his NZ opposite number, Murray McCully, Carr’s position appeared to have softened like butter in the sun. It was premature, he said, to flag any change of policy and he was seeking more information about the situation in Fiji.
What prompted the about face of the about face? At face value, the evident change of heart is unlikely to have been prompted from the Kiwi side. Murray McCully had long ago quietly broken ranks with Carr’s hardline predecessor, Kevin Rudd, and begun to engage with Fiji in a personal capacity, resuming direct contact with Fiji’s foreign minister, Ratu Inoke Kubuabola. While Wellington maintained its travel sanctions on members of Frank Bainimarama’s regime, the atmospherics had been steadily improving. So much so that Bainimarama himself said in last weekend’s Grubsheet/ SkyNews interview that the “Kiwis were being more understanding than the Australians”, perhaps because of pressure from the large number of Fijians living in NZ. Australia was now alone, he said, in refusing to have anything at all to do with Fiji.
The answer lies in the furious backlash yesterday to any suggestion of a change in policy on the part of the regime’s critics. And especially the trade unions in Australia, who wield absolute power over the Labor Government and determine its policies. The Labor factions routinely make or break individual MPs, who defy the unions at their peril. That might was never more obvious than in the disposal of Carr’s predecessor, Rudd, whose defiance directly brought about his political demise. And those hands are now around Carr’s throat, as his comments in Auckland last night clearly indicate.
Carr told the ABC that before there was any fundamental change in policy towards Fiji, he’d be seeking more information from the Australian Council of Trade Unions ( the ACTU ) about the human rights position of workers there. He wants to further investigate claims that any union official who speaks out against the interim government still risks life imprisonment.”Certainly one of the tests we’d consider in the future is the right of organisation in the workplace,” The ABC reported Carr as saying. “That’s a fundamental human right. I’d expect to have more conversations with unionists, in particular the ACTU.”
Those comments effectively dash any hope for a fundamental change in Australia’s attitude to Fiji in the foreseeable future. Why? Because the ACTU’s position on Fiji is among the most militant and hardline of all. It even includes calls for a tourist boycott of Fiji, something that would destroy the local economy altogether if Australian holidaymakers were to heed it. The ACTU waded into Fiji at the request of a brace of local unionists – most notably Daniel Urai and Felix Anthony – who once supported Frank Bainmarama but turned on him when he set out to curb their power to shut down essential services like the national airline, Air Pacific. The Fijian leader has accused certain unionists of trying to sabotage the national economy, a fair point- arguably -when Air Pacific carries the bulk of Fiji’s tourism traffic. Both men have been detained for various periods and Urai now faces a charge of sedition, which carries a life sentence. Bainimarama evidently didn’t count on Australian unions seeing his decrees to curb local union power as an attack on worker’s rights generally. Nor, it seems, did he count on them doing much more than creating a bit of noise.
It’s now clear that the ACTU has both the will and the power to maintain Australia’s hardline stance on Fiji. Never mind the decision by the United States to re-engage with Fiji because of concerns about the growing Chinese presence in the region or the calls by Australian think tanks such as the Lowy Institute for Canberra to follow Washington’s lead. Fiji policy in the Australian government looks set to be driven by the “bruvvers”, the unelected union bosses who determine every aspect of Australian policy while ever the Labor minority government clings to power. Bainimarama may not have helped his cause by telling Grubsheet in the Sky interview that Fiji looked forward to a better hearing from opposition leader Tony Abbott. Australian union leaders equate Abbott to the Antichrist and dread his almost certain victory at the polls next year.
Lest anyone doubt the resolve of these people who bring Fiji to its knees, it’s worth reading this article in News Limited papers in December – the eve of the holiday season – by Paul Howes, the Labor king maker and ultra powerful National Secretary of the Australian Workers Union, the biggest Labor faction. It was Howes – who also happens to be Vice President of the ACTU – who ended Kevin Rudd’s tenure as Australian prime minister 21 months ago, famously appearing on television immediately afterwards to gloat about the elected leader’s demise.
In the article, he calls on Australians to think twice about holidaying in Fiji because of what he calls “the threats to freedom” there. So you can bet your bottom dollar that he will have told Bob Carr to think twice about re-engaging with Fiji. When Carr peers over the horizon at his new responsibilities as foreign minister, he’s also peering over the carcass of his predecessor, who didn’t have the wit to realise who really calls the shots in Australian Labor. Having won three elections as Labor premier in New South Wales to become the state’s longest continuous serving leader, Carr isn’t likely to make the same mistake.
All this as the Fiji Government rides a wave of positive publicity over its constitutional blueprint, announced yesterday, leading to the elections it’s promised before September 2014. Frank Bainimarama announced the formation of a Constitutional Commission headed by a Kenyan-born constitutional expert, Professor Yash Ghai, that also includes a high level of public consultation before it reports in 12 months time. Ghai’s appointment was universally welcomed, with the Lowy’s Institute’s Jenny Hayward-Jones, describing him as the foremost global authority in his field. She described yesterday’s developments as “very positive”, as did Murray McCully, the New Zealand Foreign Minister. Bob Carr merely described them as “interesting” – a clear sign that those hoping for a change in Australian policy needn’t hold their breaths.
This article has subsequently appeared on Pacific Scoop New Zealand.
To understand the potency of the union campaign against Bainimarama’s government, one need go no further than Phillipa McDonald’s recent report for the ABC’s Lateline program. Daniel Urai is portrayed as a blameless hero, with no acknowledgement that Urai specially urged Australian unions to punish Fiji for its alleged anti-union activities by specifically targeting the fragile economy. There was the barest acknowledgement – in the interview with the Attorney-General, Aiyaz Sayed Khaiyum -of the need for the regime to protect essential services to save the economy from serious damage or collapse. Similarly, the former SDL MP, Mere Samisoni, is portrayed as a harmless elderly lady being pursued by a heartless regime when she has been one of the most strident advocates for indigenous supremacy – a racist position that would never be tolerated in Australia
Further reading: The NZ blogger and former Fiji academic, Crosbie Walsh, says that by not responding more positively to Fiji’s concrete steps towards restoring democracy, New Zealand has again missed an opportunity to be part of the process, choosing irrelevance instead.
Jenny Hayward-Jones – writing in the Lowy Interpreter – predicts that the stars are aligning for a change of policy after what she describes as the most positive development from Fiji in years – Frank Bainimarama’s announcement of the constitutional blueprint.
Graham,
I have a question for you. Why are you risking your reputation for a tin-pot dictator? As far as I can see you a good if not great reputation as a journalist in Australia, but you are putting is at risk with your sycophantic support of the worst dictator the South Pacific has ever seen.
You claim here on Grubsheet, that in the past two weeks the Australian policy in Fiji has gone from hardline to soft to hardline again. The reality is the policy has not changed once, all that happened is that Qorvis saw an opportunity to change Australian policy and you either wittingly or unwittingly followed along.
I know you say you have never met anyone from Qorvis, but you have many dealings with Sharon Smith Johns who is their primary contact in Fiji.
Let me explain how I believe this squalid episode of government relations came about.
Someone in Qorvis realised that there was going to be a power vacuum in DFAT. They decided that in the interests of their client, the dictator Bainimarama, they should put pressure on the Australian government to change its policy towards Fiji. There is no better time to do this than when there is no one in charge and all the ministers are busy infighting and politicking among themselves.
The strategy went something like this: we will do an interview with Bainimarama and make sure it is broadcast in Australia; then we will plant stories in the media saying that the Australian policy will change under the new Minister. The good news for Qorvis was that you were already preparing to interview Baininarama so Qorvis with the help Sharon hijacked the interview for their own purposes. It is still not clear whether you, Graham, were party to this plan always orn just the unsuspecting journalist they needed to make their plan work.
The main feature of the interview was to concentrate on the relationship between Australia and Fiji. However, they needed to ensure that Bainimarama would answer the question correctly, but that was no problem because you led Bainimarama throughout the interview. Below I have quoted examples of you leading a unsure dictator to the expected answer.
.
Q Are the Kiwis being more understanding, do you think?
B I think the Kiwis are more understanding than the Australians.
Q And why do you think that is?
B The only, the only reason I can think of is they’ve been pressured by the Kiwis to talk to us.
Q People within New Zealand?
B People within New Zealand.
Q And there’s quite a significant Fijian community there?
B Yes, there’s a large number of Fijians in New Zealand
Q Would he (Abbott) be more understanding?
B I understand Abbott is is more understanding of the situation than Kevin Rudd and his team. And yes, I would think there may be a change in policy.
Q Yeah? Would you hope for a better relationship if he, if he gets in?
B Yes, there’s no doubt about that. We hope for a better relationship with every country in the region, especially Australia and New Zealand. But that can’t be helped and we understand that.
What’s the current state of your relationship with the US?
B Good.
Q Good?
Q Because her predecessor, Steve McGann, was much more combative, wasn’t he? Has there been a change in American policy?
B There’s been a change. I know from speaking to a lot of people, government and the private sector, there’s been a lot of change between McGann and Frankie Reed.
Q For the better for you.
B For the better.
Q But this indicates, doesn’t it, the about face of American policy?
B Exactly.
At this point I would like to add a posting that has appeared on another blog site from someone who would really know about the American policy towards Fiji.
Richard Pruett
Retired U.S. Foreign Service officer
Former U.S. Deputy Chief of Mission in Suva
Richard Pruett said…
Journalists, politicians and bloggers occasionally misrepresent U.S. policy toward Fiji, often without challenge. For example, the Graham Davis interview with Commodore Bainimarama presented as a truism the supposition that U.S. policy toward Fiji has changed. It has not.
I explained this in a signed comment to Crosbie Walsh’s blog several days ago, anent the similar assertion Graham Davis earlier made in his article titled “Kevin Rudd’s Pacific Neglect.” If Mr. Walsh published my comment, I missed it. It might have helped to clear up some of the confusion.
For example, Mr. Davis claims that the United States severed official contacts with Fiji after the 2006 coup. That is incorrect. The 2006 coup strained, but never severed, Washington’s engagement with Suva, which all along has included direct contact with the highest officials in Bainimarama’s government.
In early 2007, the locus of U.S. engagement with Suva passed to the U.S. deputy assistant secretary of state. In 2008, that responsibility shifted back to Embassy Suva. The United States’ underlying policy of engagement, however, never changed. The Three Pillars of U.S. Policy Toward Fiji have been clearly laid out on the Embassy’s website for several years.
Anyone who thinks that the United States hasn’t been engaging with Fiji simply hasn’t been paying attention. And if the U.S. Government is sometimes slow to correct a Graham Davis article or a blog comment, it may just be that, unlike me, the U.S. Government has more pressing business.
The United States and its regional partners all seek to engage with Fiji’s regime for the purpose of helping Fiji develop and to get back on the path to democracy. Sometimes the regime has been willing to engage, and sometimes it has not. But that misses the real point. The central issue remains that for Fiji to make real progress, the regime needs to engage… with its own citizens.
This clearly shows there has been no change in US policy, there has been no fundamental change in the New Zealand Policy and as we learnt yesterday there has been no change in the Australian policy. The only place where the change in policy occurred was within the dreams of Frank, Sharon, Graham and those lovely people at Qorvis.
Unfortunately for Graham, instead of being the journalist who changed Australian foreign policy, you are now just the journalist who is the dictator’s loyal sycophant. The News International journalists who also wrote stories in support of this Qorvis plan have egg on their faces but in the current climate that is nothing new.
Graham before you go wobbly on me I know this is not exactly as it happened, but there is some truth in what I say. Again I ask the real question here why is Graham Davis risking all to support a dictator?|
Ah, “Guy”, always ready with your own gratuitous brand of spin from the comfort of your anonymous perch. We’d all be a lot more impressed if you had a real name but as someone else has observed, you’re the classic Fiji lamusona ( coward ).
For the record: I made the first call to the Fiji Government asking for an interview with the Prime Minister in the third week of January after I’d read reports that Sergey Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, was coming to Fiji. After several days, I received word that he was willing to do it and it was scheduled for Nadi on the morning of Thursday, February 3rd, the day after the PM met Lavrov. The week before this, Fiji was hit by appalling weather, Nadi was flooded and all the indications were that even if Lavrov’s visit went ahead, it would be a desolate affair indoors with little chance of being able to film anything else.
In addition, the PM rightly became preoccupied with the flood and had already begun to tour the affected areas. It was me who suggested to Sharon Smith Johns that we put off our visit and she concurred because of the bleeding obvious – the cost of me bringing a cameraman to Fiji only to be caught in driving rain. When the flood crisis had passed a couple of weeks later, I rang and rescheduled the trip. And that is the God honest truth.
So, dear chap, the notion that I was part of some huge Qorvis PR exercise is a laughable fabrication on your part, a fantasy in the great tradition of many anti-regime activists like yourself, who always see a conspiracy at every turn. I repeat: I have not had anything to do with Qorvis and did not set eyes on an American the whole time I was in Fiji. I dealt with Sharon Smith Johns in the same way as any visiting journalist.
For the record too, I was given no riding instructions by her and while I submitted an email with a few suggested lines of questioning, had total control over the interview with the PM. Sharon wasn’t even present in the room when it was conducted. Doesn’t sound like much of a conspiracy does it?
“Guy”, I have made my own inquiries about Richard Pruett, who was deputy chief of mission at the US embassy in Suva during the tenure of the former ambassador Steve McGann, whose tough line against the Bainimarama regime is well known.
I’m reliably informed that he is giving voice to a US policy that has now been superseded by a new policy of engagement being conducted by the new ambassador to Fiji, Frankie Reed. In other words, Pruett is part of the old order and old policy. As he acknowledges himself, he’s now retired.
The reports of a change in US policy are widespread, not only conveyed to me by several sources who can’t be identified but also widely written about in recent times, most notably by Richard Herr and Anthony Bergin of the Australian Strategic Policy Institute.
A week after my interview -and their latest article to the same effect in the Australian Financial Review -there has been no official denial from the State Department, nor from Frankie Reed either from her office in Suva or from her directly on her current visit to the US.
All we have is a posting on the comments page of a notoriously unreliable ( and frequently racist ) anti regime blog by someone purporting to be Pruett. Now, if I quoted that as an impeccable source to you with a straight face, peals of laughter and derision would fill the blogosphere. I’m much too polite to do the same to you but there you go.
When the Americans issue an unequivocal official statement saying that they have NOT altered their policy on Fiji since the McGann era, I am prepared to recant. But it will also be huge news to the Fiji Government, a brace of commentators intimately involved in Pacific affairs and, incidentally, US service chiefs, who are evidently telling anyone who’ll listen that Australia is failing to appreciate how badly the interests of the ANZUS Alliance are being served by Canberra’s current policy. But, of course, you know better.
Graham,
I think you have it the wrong way round. You say
“When the Americans issue an unequivocal official statement saying that they have NOT altered their policy on Fiji since the McGann era,”
I was no aware at any time they had announced a change in their policy.
I will agree with you when
“When the Americans issue an unequivocal official statement saying that they have altered their policy on Fiji since the McGann era,”
Graham.
Good news! There is something we agree on. I think the BBC version of Tinker, tailor, soldier, spy is much better than the new film.
I am pleased you have this vision of me as a doddery old man sitting alone at home with nothing better to do than concoct conspiracy theories. How grand you make it sound. “CONSPIRACY THEORY”. But it’s not , it’s just the assumption the PR firm employed by the dictator for $1m per annum is going its job.
Government relations is a core skill of Qorvis communications. So you can confidently say one of their top priorities for the Fijian Junta is to persuade Australia and New Zealand to change their hard-line policies towards Fiji. Assuming they know their job, they would understand that one of the best times to influence policy is when there is a power vacuum at the top. As we all know Australia has been without a Foreign Minister the past two to three weeks, creating that vacuum.
In my original comment, I acknowledged that you had already planned this interview. How perfect was that, from their point of view, you were a safe pair of hands to be the point man in their strategy.
1- Many times on this blog site you have argued for a change in Australian policy towards Fiji
2- previously you have given tame interviews to the dictator
3- You have a close relationship with Sharon Smith Johns, their primary contact in Fiji, and you each do favors for each other.
If you look at the interview itself, the way it was conducted and the way it was edited, it was designed to do nothing more or less than put pressure on the Australian government to change its policy towards Fiji.
1- You obviously shot more than 30 minutes of film and yet, over half of the broadcast version was spent focusing on Fiji’s foreign relations with special reference highlighting Australia’s supposed isolation
2- there were no questions about Bainimarama’s achievements as Prime Minister
3- there were no questions about Bainimarama’s achievements as Minister of finance
4- there were no questions about Bainimarama’s achievements as Minister of sugar
5- there were no questions about the forthcoming Constitution consultations
6- there were no questions about the economy
7- there were no questions about the aftermath of the flooding
8- the interview was more about your own opinions rather than Bainimarama’s. You asked a total of about 130 questions, 60 of those questions were answered with BAINIMARAMA turning your question into a statement. For example
Q Which you’ve said all along.
B Which I’ve said all along.
Or
Q People within New Zealand?
B People within New Zealand.
9- Or a simple yes or no to your leading question. As I have said previously you were leading Bainimarama to such an extent that in nearly half the questions he was answered them in your words and not his own.
If Qorvis could have scripted the interview themselves they could not have done it better.
Then we have the near identical stories that appeared on this blogsite and in some of the News International papers. The story saying that Australia was going to change its policy on Fiji and go soft. This story obviously never came from the Government of Australia as they never had any intention of changing their policy. So where did it come from? I say Qorvis and you say Conspiracy theory. But give me a more plausible explanation. (I know you can come up with plausible explanations, the key word here is more)
Actually Graham you can answer that question accurately, where did you get the inside information that Australia was going to change its policy?
This leads us to the final question and this is separate to the Qorvis theory. Why are you so enthrall to a dictator?
Dear “Guy” such a fertile imagination. I love the notion of me as a Qorvis puppet, religiously learning my lines and pulling off a performance with the PM as supporting act. I’m supposedly a journalist, not an actor, but now wonder whether I’ve missed my calling. Do you really think I was that good?
I’m so sorry to disappoint you but, no, the line of questioning was all mine. I happen to think it’s pretty amazing that most of the world’s democracies have no problem with associating with a government trying to restore a form democracy that’s more truly democratic than the one it removed but Australia doesn’t. Silly me.
Why didn’t I ask about the others things you list? I guess it’s because I was asking the questions, not you. Sorry about that. But there’s only so much you can cram into a half hour. Why don’t you do your own audition for Qorvis? Then maybe you’ll get to ask the questions next time.
No Guy – Graham is telling us how it really is – not what mainstream media want us to believe.
Unfortunately Graham, one of the greatest weakness in Fijian society is the vulnerability and gullible character of Fijians (that being everyone). Your friend Guy is the weakest link in this case. He joins the thousands of Fijians who pretend to know something, if at all, anything and then uses his imagination mixed with some history, some diplomatic story and at most times, 90% of spy films!
I personally thought that his comment regarding Qorvis’ would indicate a sad old man sitting in front of a telly with a box full of spy films in VHS format and no friends to tell stories to. Pity though, the arguments are all hearsay from him and nothing really substantial so once again, the only face that the egg has landed on seems to be his own!
Carry on Graham!
Mikey, thanks for the vote of confidence. In “Guys” defence. I’ve just spent the afternoon as a sad old man sitting in front of the telly with a box full of spy films – the original “Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy” series from 1978 starring the stellar Alec Guinness.
At the time, I was a lowly sub-editor in the BBC World Service and Georgi Markov – one of the Bulgarian Service broadcasters who I used to deal with – had just been murdered on Waterloo Bridge by a Bulgarian agent using a poisoned bullet fired from an umbrella. True story.
The point is that nothing nowadays tends to faze me too much, let alone another old man in Suva trawling through his own collection of VHS tapes. As a matter of fact, I’ve grown rather fond of “Guy’, given the relatively paltry number of readers of our modest blog. I suspect that if he didn’t exist, I’d probably have to invent him. So let’s not be too hard on the old bean.
Graham
Carry on the good work and dont be sidetracked by comments from cowards like Guy who thinks that the gestapo will come and get him if his identity is known.As Mikey has said too many spy novels.
Jone,
Do you want me to list all the people who have been abused by this military dictatorship?
You probably are one of those people who believe the holocaust never happened.
Get a grip on reality
Yes please, “Guy”, that would be helpful.
I think it is funny that the News Limited papers, traditionally supporters of Liberal party policies and leaning to the right, are on the same side as the ACTU rather than the Liberal party on the Fiji issue.
“Guy” despite your attempts at anonymity, I now know your true identity. You are an academic, undoubtably part of that cabal at the USP who see nothing good in the regime.
How do I know this? Because only someone with the tortuously anal thought processes of an academic could have possibly split hairs to the extent that you have here.
I also know that you’re in your mid fifties or older because you prefer Alec Guinness to Gary Oldman as George Smiley. But I think Mickey Tropp is wrong about the VHS. I’d imagine you’ve progressed to a DVD, like most elderly people I know.
As a slave of the regime and the nice people at Qorvis, I couldn’t help telling them what I know but have since had second thoughts because of your faithful engagement with Grubsheet and good taste in TV programs. So I suggest that you hide your discs of Tinker, Tailor well in advance of the impending search of the USP compound.
Whatever you do, don’t string the discs up in the garden pretending to scare off the mynahs. I told the Goons that this is what a lot of elderly Kai Valagi in Fiji seem to do and they’re bound to go straight to the house with the little mirrors bouncing off the sunlight.
In a worse case scenario, I’ll ask my best friend Sharon as a personal favour if you can be allowed two letters a month from Naboro, so that I can continue to fill my modest columns. Just imagine, all that “inside” gossip about the nice Mr Speight, the cuddly Qaranivalu et al. Come to think it it, your immediate arrest sounds more attractive by the second. Good luck.
I am not sure whether it is a technical issue or censorship but I appear to be unable to post this comment. Let’s hope it is fourth time lucky
Graham,
I am glad you are mocking me, it shows you are unable to counter the arguments and so you try to distract. The evidence of your love in with the dictator is there for all to see. The question is why? Why are you so enamoured with a bullying dictator? Why do you give such credibility to a man who can barely string 5 words let alone sentences together. By Khaiyum’s own standards Bainimarama will not be allowed to stand in the elections.
I may or may not be a useless old academic pointing my remote control with a shaking hand. But I can still see propaganda at work.
Tell us who was your source of the change in Australian policy? It obviously did not come from the new minister’s office, I suspect as with most of your articles about Fiji your source was the ever reliable Sharon. Everything you write replicates the regime’s policy and propaganda.
Your colleagues at the BBC would be shaking their heads if they could see you now. The World Service has a long and proud tradition of delivering unbiased news to the people living under the rule of despots. But here you are forsaking that proud history just delivering a despot’s propaganda.
Shame on you!
“Guy”, rest assured that I will never censor you, so long as you adhere to two basic principles – no obscenity and no racism. I endure your otherwise tediously repetitious taunts in the interests of free speech.
Your extraordinary comment that the PM “can’t string five words together” is indicative of your gratuitous attitude. English is clearly not his first language. So what? You don’t get to where he is by being a bloody fool, in stark contrast to you and your own career path.
I am not obliged to give you any of my sources on the supposed Australian change of heart. But I can categorically say – hand on heart – that it wasn’t Sharon Smith Johns. How on earth would she know anyway? But fantasise all you like.
Shame on you, old boy, for your gratuitous comments about me failing to meet the standards of my old stomping ground, the BBC World Service. I think I’m very much in the tradition of not merely running with the pack in my reporting of events in Fiji. You call it propaganda on behalf of a despot. I call it balancing out the outrageously one sided reporting that keeps people in ignorance of many of the basic facts.
It is you, “Guy’, who is the more polished propagandist, insisting on your own version of the truth being the dominant narrative. Now, you can slag me off as much you like. But I will keep making my own observations to make sure the other side of the story cuts through. That’s what makes your hand tremble. That’s what you really can’t stand, isn’t it?
This is the 5th attempt at posting this comment.
Graham.
You say some extraordinary things in your latest comment:
I made the “gratuitous” comment about Bainimarama being unable to string five sentences together because his right hand man, Khaiyum, has made the comment that some previous politicians had been unable to do so and in the brave new world would not be allowed to be politicians. Having watched your interview we have all seen Bainimarama unable to complete a sentence without prompting from you, I felt this was very reasonable to highlight.
You have no idea of the success or otherwise of my own career. One thing is for sure. I have not needed the help of 5,000 men with guns, two coups and the blood of innocents on my hands to get where I am.
I accept for once that Sharon was not the source for this story; on the other hand, I’m sure she is the source for your views on the change of American policy. From the people I talk to in the diplomatic community in Fiji. There has been no substantive change in American policy to Fiji. That means your source must have been from within the regime.
Obviously, in the time that you have been away from the BBC you have lost your sense of balance. You attacked Phillipa McDonald’s report as being one sided, when Khaiyum was just as prominent as Urai. Your own piece allowed Bainimarama to attack both Urai and Mara without any comeback.
Graham you are about as balanced as I am, after one of my faculty’s legendary drinking sessions.
I noticed you ditched the part of the interview where Bainimarama lied to your face and said he had not planned any coups prior to 2006. As you learnt between the time of the interview and its broadcast, there was a documentary evidence proving otherwise.
That is something I don’t understand about you Graham. Bainimarama looked into your eyes and told you a lie. You know he lied and so you dropped it from the broadcast version of your interview. And yet you continue to spout his propaganda without any question.
I stand by my comments about the BBC, I have listened and watched the news on the BBC avidly, for as long as I can remember. I have never seen or heard such a toadying, sycophantic display on any of their news items. Do me a favor, before your next interview, please watch Hardtalk .
“Guy”, aha, your faculty drinks. So I was correct to identify you as an academic. And aren’t we a sensitive little soul? Hurling rocks at me from your glass-fronted ivory tower yet brimming with indignation when I sling a few pebbles back.
For the record again ( sigh ): I did NOT get my information about the change of American policy from Sharon Smith Johns. It came from several sources but, really, you don’t have to take my word on this. Some of it is even on the public record. Take a look at “Our Near Abroad”, last November’s report on Australia’s Pacific relations by the Australian Strategic Policy Institute. It specifically canvasses the issue, even suggesting that the Americans had lost confidence in Australia’s ability to manage its relationship with Fiji.
The notion that this is some kind of fabrication on my part is absurd. But, of course, your American friends in Suva are bound to know a lot more than people on the diplomatic front line. Don’t you think it’s strange that two weeks after the Bainimarama interview, no American official has said ” no that’s not true, we haven’t changed our policy, have precisely the same approach as Australia”? The best you’ve been able to do is point to a comment on an anti-regime blog purporting to be from a retired US diplomat.
Even the viewing audience got to see Frankie Reed, the US ambassador, engaged in friendly exchange in Frank Bainimarama’s office, a place no Australian diplomat has set foot in for more than five years. Kinda speaks for itself don’t it?
The personal nature of your attacks on me have the same hollow ring. I am not seeking your acclamation, nor the acclamation of my journalist colleagues. So feel free to fire away. If you have trouble posting your comments, it’s not because they’re being blocked. Perhaps that trembling hand of yours simply isn’t pressing the right key. Enjoy the next faculty drinks.
“Guy”, you would do well to read the latest piece by Julie Bishop, the Coalition’s spokesperson on foreign affairs, writing in The Australian. This is part of what she said:
“There has been no sense of purpose or outcome in the government’s stance against Fiji.
Intransigence in ignoring options other than the status quo threatens to drive a wedge between Australia and our closest allies, most of which have conceded that a new approach is needed. Only tactful diplomacy on their part has prevented them from calling on Australia to reassess its position.
The Coalition has made it clear that it will, on coming to government, engage with Fiji to seek to develop a roadmap to restore democracy and normalise relations with Australia.”
This gives the lie to your accusation that I either fabricated my own stories or joined in a conspiracy with Sharon Smith Johns to spread false reports about America’s change of position on Fiji and its concerns about Australia’s attitude.
With Australian Labor flatlining in the opinion polls at around the 30 per cent mark, Julie Bishop seems destined to be foreign minister at the next election in 18 months. So neither history – nor the facts – appear to be on your side.
Graham,
Very good you have another source into Australian Government policy other than Sharon. It is their opposition spokesman. Man you are so well connected.
Since when does the opposition spokesman speak for the Government. One would expect the opposition to have a different policy to the Government. It is their job after all. But it matters not at this moment what the opposition think. It may matter in 18 months after an election.
One of the joys of living in a small country is the endless round of cocktails one can attend. Invariably in the course of a month one chats to all the senior diplomats. I have to say I have not seen much movement in the past 4-5 years. There has not been this softening of approach you talk about. There is not this supposed wedge between Australia and her allies.
One also gets to chat to the Government ministers, your friend Sharon and lots of other regime cronies. One has a very different conversation with them. In fact very similar to Frankie Reed and Frankie B, no politics. But with the diplomats one can talk a bit of politics including Frankie Reed and Jeff Robinson and there is no big change.
It is quite hard to speak to anyone senior in the Australian or New Zealand diplomatic corps as Frankie B seems keen to keep them out of the country. That’s a thought perhaps he could invite them back as a first step to easing of relations.
By the way you might like to acknowledge you got your, and I quote “absolute facts – not conjecture” wrong about the involvement of the Australian Federal Police. Great what you pick up at a cocktail party.
If you are going to make grandiose statements “These are absolute facts – not conjecture” you need to make sure they are facts. Otherwise it is your reputation as a credible journalist that will suffer. Just a tip from an aging academic. Certainly in academia if you get your facts wrong you can get into serious trouble.
Graham,
It shows your naivety and true arrogance that you think the US would deign to make a comment after your little interview. Where is the big change?
Frankie Reed met Bainimarama in his office and did not talk politics.
Steve MeGann met Bainimarama in his office and did talk politics
You tell me is that an advance, a setback or status quo?
Bainimarama travelled to Nashville in 2011
Bainimarama travelled to California in 2007-8
You tell me is that an advance, a setback or status quo?
FBI visited Fiji in 2012
US Law enforcement visited Fiji in 2009, 2010 and 2011
You tell me is that an advance, a setback or status quo?
Graham, You have drunk the Kool-Aid. You are a true believer. Long Live Dictatorship and down with Democracy!
“Guy’, as usual you have totally missed the point. The Americans engage with Fiji, the Australians do not. The Americans allow Bainimarama to visit their country, the Australians do not. The FBI is training the Fiji Police in Suva, the Australian Federal Police is not.
These are absolute facts – not conjecture -and by any reasoned appraisal, were the main thrust of my interview with the PM. You didn’t like it? Tough.
Actually Graham I am not missing the point. The major thrust of your interview was that all the Western Democracies except for Australia were softening their stance against the Fiji. I am merely pointing out the Americans have not. There has not been any substantive change in US policy towards Fiji.
You say the difference is the US allows Bainimarama to travel to the US big deal. They have yet to let him travel to the USA except as part of a trip to the UN which they have to allow.
You are also wrong the Australian Federal Police are regular visitors to these shores and in the last 12 months have conducted training with the Fiji Police, 3 times to my knowledge. Ironically enough, when Bainimarama was locking up all of Mara’s friends and relatives trying to find out who was behind his fishing trip, the Australian Police were training the Fijian CID on advanced interrogation techniques.
The Australians have a big engagement with Fiji just not with a dictator, his army goons and those who help him. That seems like a sensible policy to me.
A word of advice, check with other sources before you print everything Sharon gives you. If you even read your comments more closely you would see 3 times I have mentioned the Australian Police coming to Fiji. You only have to look at Grubsheet properly to find the truth sometimes. Not that I recommend it as a source of truth and informed reporting, you understand.
Graham,my comments may well be out of date but I just want top make a point about Bob Carr.His comments about PNG and lately his insensitive comments regarding the young Brazilian guy recently killed in Sydney just shows he has a lot to learn about skilled diplomacy.He may have been a senior experienced state politician but his recent comments has shown that he has just entered the pubertal stage of his career as a national politician and foreign affairs minister !! By threatining PNG with sanctions if they do not hold sanctions just shows he is being naive about regional politics and quoting the case of Fiji.If he was well informed he would have noted that Australian sanctions has not worked for Fiji ( at least in the way Australia might have hoped ).Rather than overrating Bob Carr Julia Gillard might do well in giving a kick to the backside of some of Labour’s foreign affairs advisors.!!