The mainstream Australian media has been woefully blind to the real situation in Fiji, dazzled, as it is, by the constant bleat of the Bainimarama Government’s opponents. Pitifully few Australian journalists ever visit Fiji, even from media organisations such as the ABC which broadcasts its message of doom into Fijian homes on a 24/7 basis. All of which makes it a delight to read something pragmatic and sensible rather than the dirge inspired by the Aussie media’s close links with a handful of NGO, “human rights” and media types in Suva and the diaspora.
To follow is a thoughtful piece by the Foreign Editor of The Australian, Greg Sheridan, that flies in the face of a recent call by the paper’s Asia Pacific Editor, Rowan Callick, for a tougher response towards Fiji by Australia’s Foreign Minister, Bob Carr. Clearly, there’s a battle of ideas going on at the top echelons of Australia’s only national newspaper and the journal of record of the country’s decision makers. Let’s hope Sheridan wins.
Isolating Fiji, Sri Lanka or Myanmar would serve no useful purpose
BY:GREG SHERIDAN, FOREIGN EDITOR From: The Australian February 07, 2013 12:00AM
FEW subjects are more difficult for a democratic politician, especially a foreign minister, than how to deal with an authoritarian regime that violates norms of democracy and human rights.
There is the ultra-idealist response: denounce every transgression and have nothing to do with the transgressors. Then there is the ultra-realist response: conduct the business that is in your national interest regardless of the internal actions of the regime.
No democratic nation really adopts either extreme. There is always a balance. Nor can we really ask for consistency from a government. Each case has to be decided, in the round, on its merits. There are some consistent questions, however, that can be asked of any situation: How severe are the abuses? Is the regime moving away from abusive practice or intensifying it? What effect will our actions have? How severe should our response be? What response is likely to be effective? There is one other question that it is entirely legitimate to ask: What national interests of ours are involved in dealing with the regime?
Foreign Minister Bob Carr recently told an audience of his diplomats: “We are running a foreign policy for a nation-state, not for a non-governmental organisation.”
Carr is an interesting mixture of idealist and realist. I don’t agree with every one of his foreign policy calls, but in this area I think he has got the balance, which involves weighing up complex and contradictory factors, pretty well right.
I think this is the case specifically with three nations that are important to Australia: Fiji, Sri Lanka and Myanmar.
Take Fiji. Recently Fiji’s strongman, Frank Bainimarama, appointed a constitutional commission under the leadership of the distinguished Yash Ghai to write a new constitution. When Bainimarama saw what it had produced, he tore it up. The international community (I know the word’s an oxymoron, but let it pass) generally condemned Bainimarama without qualification. The most common criticism was that the Fijian leader could not tolerate the constitution’s proposed separation of the military from politics.
Carr’s response was more modulated, more nuanced. He noted, rightly in my view, that the commission had proposed numerous undemocratic elements for a new constitution. One was the revival of the Great Council of Chiefs, which has been the source of so much destructive Fiji nativism, directed primarily at Fiji’s Indian minority. Another was the commission’s proposal for an undemocratic body to sit alongside parliament as a kind of advisory group, also charged with the task of appointing the president.
Carr was then criticised by commentators, many perfectly sensible people, on the basis that he was being too soft on Bainimarama. I think it was more a case of what Amanda Vanstone sagely identified on ABC’s Q&A on Monday as a politician injecting unwelcome complexity into a complex question where many NGOs, activists and some in the commentariat want simple responses.
New Zealand’s Foreign Minister Murray McCully was far more robust in his criticisms, so there was some difference between Canberra and Wellington.
But Carr was right on the substance and in the larger strategic picture. It would do the Fijian people no good at all to isolate Fiji, to send it into the arms of China, to destroy its economy, to further polarise and radicalise its society. The government there has done a lot of undemocratic things and these deserve to be criticised, but on the international scale of human rights abuses it is at the absolute gentlest end of the spectrum. Things could be much, much worse.
The Australian government’s policy on Fiji has evolved. A few years ago Canberra was pursuing a more confrontational approach to Suva. One senior American official commented to me at the time: “I can go to meetings in Pyongyang but I can’t visit Fiji because of Australia’s opposition.”
That situation, frankly, was nuts. Carr tries hard to encourage the Fijians to fulfil their pledge of an honest election next year. It may be a flawed election. Fiji may become a flawed democracy. But that may be the best outcome available in the real world.
If we wrecked the Fijian economy with sanctions and produced another failed state, that would be disastrous for the Fijians and pretty bad for us. Carr has also eased up on the travel bans on non-military members of the Fijian government. This is absolutely right. He stresses to the Fijians all the time that Australia’s priority is a clean election in Fiji. Even if this is not altogether satisfied, I would still strongly favour a policy of continued engagement.
A different set of arguments applies to Sri Lanka. Here we are somewhat at odds with the Canadian government of Stephen Harper, which is threatening to boycott the next Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting in Sri Lanka unless there is full accountability for crimes at the end of the civil war there. Australia makes no such boycott threat. Quite the reverse. Carr has offered to send some of the people who organised the Perth CHOGM to Colombo to help with logistics.
On this, the Australian government is right and the Canadian government is wrong. In conversation with the Sri Lankans, Carr raises accountability for the events at the end of the civil war, but it is not the only issue he pursues.
Sri Lanka is far too big and important to be isolated, but if Western governments boycott CHOGM and do build some isolation around Colombo, they will only drive it deeper into China’s arms and offer it no incentive to keep improving its human rights situation.
Moreover it is unequivocally a good thing that the Sri Lankan government defeated the Tamil Tigers, one of the most murderous and vicious of all terrorist groups, which enslaved children, murdered civilians and pioneered the suicide bomb. What will help Sri Lankans now is engagement and assistance from outside friends.
And apart from all the usual interests Australia has in South Asia, there is the question of unauthorised boat arrivals emanating from Sri Lanka. We clearly need Sri Lankan co-operation on this. Some NGOs may not like Carr’s approach on Sri Lanka, but it is right, morally and in terms of Australia’s national interests.
On Myanmar, Australia has been ahead of the US and Europe for years and much closer to the Association of Southeast Asian Nations. Now Carr is making a big effort lobbying the EU to abolish, rather than suspend, all its Myanmar sanctions.
Isolation as a policy was a disaster when applied to Myanmar, and in its milder form wholly counterproductive with Fiji. It would be equally ill advised if applied to Sri Lanka.
Australian government policy, shaped in this case by Carr, is morally conscious but pragmatic, realistic and right.
OK, first of all The Australian is not the “paper of record” for Australia’s political decision makers, it’s a Murdoch owned media outlet with a very specific editorial viewpoint. Having said that Sheridan’s piece is a good analysis of the situation and makes a lot of sense. But that doesn’t mean that every other viewpoint is somehow rooted in an anti-Fiji agenda or “woefully blind”.
I would put it to you this way: is it really possible that every pro-government opinion is absolutely and unequivocally correct and even handed and well researched, while every opposing voice is blind, ignorant, pitiful and a constant bleat? Politics takes place at the extreme ends of a spectrum and good government operates in the middle. This middle ground is staked out through the free and frank exchange of ideas, arguments and counter-arguments. No side is ever all right all of the time, it’s simply never happened in the history of politics and government. Personally I’m fine with you taking an editorial stance, that’s a legitimate form of journalism, but in my view your ideas and opinions hold less weight as they only give credence to one side of the discussion, and that looks like power politics, rather than a desire for strong government. And the whole anti-Australia polemic is tiresome and suggests a lack of understanding of global politics which given your experience, and citizenship, seems somwehat disingenuous.
You can do better than this, you have a voice and a forum for expressing it, and an influential network of contacts and confidants. You can do better for Fiji.
Loose Cannon, The Australian is the only national newspaper in Australia and influences the political agenda in Canberra and all the states and territories. That is an established fact. Which other newspaper does that?
I’m not in the business of spruiking the “on the one hand, on the other hand” brand of opinion. There are plenty of other people to do that. I am one of the few people to give voice to those who are fed up with the tsunami of bias from the rest of the commentariat on Fiji.
By all means, crash tackle me about facts. But I am not going to concede an inch on my opinions, which are honestly and firmly held and based on first hand experience in Fiji, not the offshore, armchair variety peddled by my detractors.
If you want a fuzzy academic approach – “all things considered and taking into account the overall position in the fullness of time” – you’ve come to the wrong place. Call me arrogant but no one is ever left in any doubt what I believe at any given time. And that will continue. Take it or leave it.
OK, we’ll continue to believe you’re a paid government employee.
I was going to say you missed my point but in fact you illustrate it – kind of a bully who thinks it’s as much about him as the issue at hand.
Merely being a national publication doesn’t make something the journal of record, on that basis the ABC could be considered in the same light. The Australian could be considered the go-to publication for right leaning views in Australia. That’s an established fact. Bam! Crash tackle!
Sorry we couldn’t have a grown up discussion, tough guy, and good luck being on the side that’s never wrong.
Loose Cannon, you believe whatever you want but my views predate my association with Qorvis Communications and their Fiji account by at least six years on the question of Bainimarama’s takeover and two decades more on the travesty of indigenous supremacist rule.
It is not about me, as you so ungraciously put it. It is about trying to get a wider audience to appreciate that the deluge of negative information about Fiji isn’t the full story and often not the real story either.
Having expressed the same disdain for The Australian as you have for me, I can only conclude that you prefer the blindly one-sided version of the Fiji saga peddled by the ABC. At least The Australian has offered a contrary opinion on Bob Carr’s attitude in the space of a couple of weeks.The ABC sticks doggedly to its narrative without offering any diversity of opinion. So much for public service from the public broadcaster.
You see Graham Davis, this is why your style is problematic. You say: “Having expressed the same disdain for The Australian as you have for me …” I didn’t express disdain, in fact I said: “… The Australian is not the “paper of record” for Australia’s political decision makers, it’s a Murdoch owned media outlet with a very specific editorial viewpoint. Having said that Sheridan’s piece is a good analysis of the situation and makes a lot of sense.” That is not disdain.
You have very clearly misrepresented my words and jumped to the conclusion that my slight disagreement with you over the status of The Australian should be met with a response that I am blindly one sided (a position that is apparently entirely noble coming from your keyboard) and that I’m part of the negative, left wing “conspiracy” against Fiji. I repeat, I said, “… Sheridan’s piece is a good analysis of the situation and makes a lot of sense.”
The fact remains that you can throw all the heat you want at the Australian government and the Australian media without any fear of retribution, and it’s a right you exercise with some regularity. I for one absolutely support that right. Unfortunately the residents of Fiji don’t feel the same freedom to express similar views about their own government. That’s the situation you support and the contradiction you exemplify.
Loose Canon incase you may have not noticed -Bainimarama couldn’t a give shit what Canberra or Wellington thinks or does-as for China the next move is to have a base in Fiji! Just simple Arithmatic! As for Graham he writes from his heart may seem that he is biased towards Fiji well he was born and bred there what else do you expect!
Folks,
Haven’t we heard of these arguments before…..every time a new post comes up some frigging recycled cin cin bystanding loose cannon side walking monitoring truncated lounge warming Samoan begging bowl holding invictus whores of the edge edgee appears on this site with the ever ever know it all attitude about democracy, free media and honest journalism.
Haven’t we heard of these guys before???
Ok Loose Cannon…suppose…. “The Australian is not the “paper of record” for Australia’s political decision makers”…but can we at least agree that c4.5 and the think tank tickers Brij/Wadan/Friggin Freinkel/Mark “wart in the dog’s arse” Manning/Australian Broadcasting Commission/the former CRW thugs and rapists are the “paper of record and collective thought” for Australia’s foreign (Fiji) policy decision makers.
Oh boy….they just don’t get it…..doh.
You’re being a bit sensitive Chand………on the happy pills again?
Here’s what once Gandhi said:
“First they ignore you. Then they laugh at you. Then they fight you. And then they lose.”
From Chand: always happy and lives on the bright side…..oh and sometimes known as Demons Dream Wrecker.
Nah….can’t follow a thing you’ve written. You lost me after…’can we at least agree’….the rest doesn’t make any sense at all.
As for your Gandhi quote, yeah whatever.
I don’t expect you to understand anything written in your own language…no never.
But here’s the irony…you want to tell the Fijian administration how to conduct its business….really from someone who dosen’t understand basic English.
No wonder people like you hide behind annonymity..
….oh Gandhi….why do you annoy loosers…
‘….oh Gandhi….why do you annoy loosers…’
I think you will find the correct spelling should be ‘losers’……..
It took youz 41 mins to figure dat out……maan wazzup with yous peoplz
…doh
You spelled my name wrong. Otherwise a well thought out and articulated argument.
Hmm. But if we in Fiji express anti Australian views we get placed on a travel ban right? Interesting way to celebrate freedom of speech.There are greater incentives at a global level to be anti Fiji government.
Actually, that’s not true. Travel bans are the result of being part of a government arising from a military coup, not anything anyone said. If that were the case Mr Davis might have some problems.
Loose Cannon, again, you don’t know what you’re talking about. Under the relevant Australian legislation, someone from Fiji can be subjected to a travel ban if even a family member expresses support for the Bainimarama takeover. So you don’t have to be culpable yourself, just related to someone who “offended”. There’s the good old Aussie sense of fair play for you. You can see the precise wording of that legislation in one of my recent postings,”Back into the Deep Freeze”.
As for me, I can’t be banned from Australia under any circumstances because I’m an Australian citizen – as well as being Fijian – so you’re wrong on that too.
Actually the opposition to Fiji’s reforms is very right wing, masquerading as some sort of liberal lefty born again wing. Scratch deeply, and you will find good old fashioned corporate greed, heart broken at the loss of influence over the corrupt and broken winged bird that was Fiji. Neo colonialism?
The elites can squeal all they like because change is being done on the ground! The wise chiefs and politicians had their chance to make things happen but they missed the chances accorded to them. Now see how things are meant to be done on the ground. For a PM to visit a poor school in rural Nausori yesterday with many poor indo-fijians is impressive. He commented that ” his government delivers”. Hats off to this government. The previous so called democratic regimes did nothing except talk and fill their pockets. In a very difficult environment with all sorts of obstacles ( smart sanctions, high unemployment, etc), the government is doing its best to deliver. There are many flaws in the current system but at least the service delivery has improved massively. Any future government has a large benchmark to match, I think they will be forced to work together because the benefits are already visible. As for the sanctions, thank you OZ and NZ but I think Fiji must learn to stand on its own foot and continue to build on whatever capabilities we have. Thanks very much for being part of the Pacific family..NOT!!
Let me get this straight. If a Fijian expresses support for Bainmarama, he gets banned to travel to Australia. So do his family members? And this is an Australian law? Was it passed by Australian Parliament? If that is so, how can they preach to us about human rights and juntas?
How can they preach to us about freedom of speech or of opinion?
It was not passed by Parliament. It was a Regulation, which means the Minister for Foreign Affairs passed it unilaterally. It can also be withdrawn by him unilaterally.
Graham Davis your reply to Loose Cannon says it all – you are roaming around like some Lord of Fiji supporting oppression and illegality because you know you can run back to Australia as Aussie citizen. If you are so proud of your recent new Fijian passport why you never became one for donkey years. On what grounds were you given access to the visit and opening – because you are licking up to the regime?
Not you again, beating the same old drum. I’m Fijian and I’m Australian and so are thousands of Fijians. Get over it.
Hahahaha…………. Agree Graham.
some people I just don’t know ………………..
Anyway, Graham – please keep on writing…………… Fiji is grateful to you for being here and being a beacon of light on such a time as this.
God bless you and Fiji.
Australian Passport Officer-in-case you missed what was happening before its only now that we given the choice of dual citizenship!