The recent incident at Taiwan’s national day celebration in Suva at which uninvited Chinese diplomats assaulted a Taiwanese official made headlines around the world. Yet even as the incident faded from the news cycle, the strategists whose business it is to keep an eye on China’s ambitions in the region have been digesting its importance. Here’s an article on what it all means written for the Australian Strategic Policy Institute – an Australian government-founded think-tank – by Professor Richard Herr, someone with considerable knowledge of Fiji and the Pacific. As he points out, the Suva incident was no isolated incident but part of an increasingly belligerent posture by China in the region generally.
By Richard Herr for ASPI:
The 10th of October is a national day for both Fiji and Taiwan. For decades, Taipei’s trade office in Fiji has celebrated its event peacefully and respectfully with support from the host community in Suva. But not this year.
The Chinese embassy’s annoyance with the event became so personal and so physical that one Taiwanese diplomat ended the night in hospital with concussion. The Taiwanese office lodged a diplomatic protest with the Fijian foreign affairs ministry, which was met by a counter-complaint from the Chinese embassy to the Fijian police claiming violence to its staff.
There are many aspects to this story that deserve unpicking, but the two that attracted my attention were the time that elapsed before the incident became publicly known and the claims that it provides further evidence of China’s ‘wolf warrior’ diplomacy.
In prudent deference to its host, Taiwan typically celebrates its national day some days before the 10th in Fiji. This year’s Fiji Day was especially important because it marked the 50th anniversary of Fijian independence, so Taiwan National Day was held on the 8th at the luxurious Grand Pacific Hotel. Two Chinese officials reportedly attended the event and took photographs of Taiwanese delegates. They were apparently asked to leave by a Taiwanese official and allegedly later assaulted and seriously injured him.
Strangely, the fracas took some 10 days to be reported in the media—any media. The path to becoming something of a global media sensation began with an 18 October post by Graham Davis on his Grubsheet Feejee blogsite. It seems the mainstream media picked it up through David Robie’s ‘Asia Pacific Report’ and it then went across the Pacific and around the world.
Why this incident took so long to find its legs is a mystery. It was ignored by both of Fiji’s main newspapers until the story acquired world notoriety, and even then it was treated very gingerly. Clearly, there was little appetite for covering an occurrence that seemed too hot to handle.
It’s not clear that Taiwan’s Suva office wanted to court media attention, but that may have been due to a desire to give Fiji’s diplomatic channel the opportunity to protect its interest and provide appropriate redress. For its part, the Chinese embassy attempted to deny the affair’s diplomatic status by referring its side of the event to the police as a criminal matter.
Significantly, the counter-complaint did not become public until after the incident had achieved international notoriety. Police confirmed to Fiji Village reporter Vijay Narayan when he followed up the international story that they had opened an investigation into the Chinese embassy’s complaint. The next day it was reported that the Fiji Police Force had handballed the matter to the foreign affairs ministry, where it was reportedly resolved ‘amicably’ between the two parties.
So why did the matter come to light at all? Davis himself notes that the story was authenticated to him by ‘multiple diplomatic sources in Suva’ who were disturbed by the incident and the attempts to hush it up. There was concern that throwing a cloak of invisibility over such behaviour only emboldened Beijing’s increasingly aggressive approach to diplomacy and disrespect for host nation norms and laws.
My article on ‘kowtow diplomacy’ after the 2018 APEC in Port Moresby looked at the apparent cultural insensitivity of China’s diplomacy in the Pacific Islands region. My argument was that Chinese diplomats were less concerned with regional sensitivities than with the style and objectives of diplomacy that would win them favour in Beijing.
The Suva assault only reinforces my view. Despite conflicting details of how the affray unfolded, there was clearly a breakdown in the cautious professionalism of Chinese diplomats typical of earlier times.
Other recent assessments attribute this more aggressive diplomatic posture to a new culture within the ministry promoted by the Chinese Communist Party under direction from President Xi Jinping.
There was some social media commentary that sought to dismiss the incident at the Grand Pacific as an ‘insignificant’ (even before the amicable resolution). Such apologies fly in the face of the diplomatic sentiment in Suva that the incident deserved public ventilation.
The intimidatory actions that the Taiwanese officials found objectionable—photographing guests and seeking to record the presence of local notables—were not novel or unfamiliar. We have seen these tactics in Australia.
By filming Chinese students exercising their rights under Australian law to assemble and protest, among other surveillance activities, the representatives of the People’s Republic of China convey the clear message that people’s actions could be used against them here in Australia or against their families in China.
Even Australians of Chinese ancestry are loath to be seen near demonstrations protesting PRC actions or policies because of an expectation that such events will be recorded for possible retribution.
This provocative behaviour is unacceptable here and it’s clear to see why the Taiwanese trade office, after decades of peaceful national day celebrations, found PRC intimidation unacceptable in Fiji.
And embroiling Fiji in its dispute with Taiwan is scarcely improving China’s relations with the first country in the Pacific to host a Chinese embassy or easing tensions with the Chinese community in Fiji.
We have seen how the perception that the PRC and its agents are actively undermining national interests in Australia has cast unfounded slurs on the Australian Chinese community.
China has an important role to play in dealing with transnational crime and economic vandalism in the Pacific islands region. However, this requires trust that the PRC is an honest player that is respectful of the laws and norms of its hosts in the region.
Richard Herr is the academic director of the parliamentary law, practice and procedure course in the Faculty of Law at the University of Tasmania. He has served as a consultant on regional architecture to the governments of the Pacific islands on various occasions since 1975.
Basically blackmail and further intimidation under a neocolonial agenda by the communists trying to become like the USSR.
Talk about complete disregard for Fiji’s sovereignty just to shut down anything to do with Taiwan’s recognition and autonomy like Indonesia on West Papua. Unsurprising that they’re doing the same thing with Hong Kong like the commies really despise democratic ideologies.
Doesn’t take that long for such stories to be leaked out in other avenues despite the draconian muzzled media.
China has been secretly exploiting the country ever since FFP sold out to them due to lack of foresight into what Beijing is really up to. But what else can one expect from a man-child AG having to constantly babysit a PM who dropped out of high school.
Broofstoyefski, I have had to remove the last sentence of your comment for legal reasons on the grounds that it is clearly defamatory. My regrets.
Fair enough, although they might call it “sedition” anyways since there’s no separate laws on defamation and hate speech if I remember correctly.
No, Broofstoyefski, defamation is definitely separate. You are confusing the fact that hate speech is covered by the laws on sedition.
Guess I need to read up more and get my facts right.
Touche.
Graham,
It has become fashionable for Australian media and think tanks like ASPI (which is sponsored by defense industry) to pile on on China. I do believe you have demonstrated a similar inclination to over emphasize China’s sins and ignore those of Australia.
Let’s compare and contrast the Suva diplomatic incident and the track record of neo-colonial intimidation from Australia in Fiji.
One can point out a continuous unbroken pattern of imperialism by the Deputy sheriff.
From Australian SAS invasion of Fiji, pre 2006 coup [https://www.abc.net.au/news/2008-04-02/australia-accused-of-helping-spark-fiji-coup/2391086] , the 5 eyes electronic eavesdropping revealed by Edward Snowden [https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/mar/05/new-zealand-spying-on-pacific-allies-for-five-eyes-and-nsa-snowden-files-show]
to the latest debacle is the torture and blood lust murder by Australian SAS troopers in Afghanistan
[https://www.rt.com/op-ed/504939-australia-sas-afghanistan-war-crimes/] only underscores the culture of Western nations double speak, which is fundamentally more despicable to anything China has done to Fiji or to the Pacific island nations.
China has never directly threatened Fiji with invasion like what Australias Defence Force chief AVM Angus Houston did in a phone call to Frank in 2006
A) That was not even the threat Frank alleged was made but Frank’s supposition what Houston meant, see the SMH of Sept 12 2007, B) Frank waited almost an entire year to make this claim which the ADF and the Australian govt flatly denied, C) PM Howard rejected Qarase’s request for the ADF to deploy to Fiji before the December 2006 coup.
This is Frank we’re talking about here. The guy who was so muddle-headed he fell for the whole Instacharge scam and, as Graham has said so persuasively, is so completely incurious and unthinking about what is happening in his own Govt that ASK’s administrative terror still reigns.
Then what were Australian warships and SAS troopers doing in Fiji waters?
Apart from conducting military exercises injustice outside Fijian waters (which suddenly had become very urgent for Australia, presumably), nothing other than bullheaded Australian traipsing into the Pacific.
It’s just a pity that lives were lost in this misguided attempt to flex Australian muscle, (which we all know amounts to little more than American kowtowing on most days).
(https://www.smh.com.au/national/pilot-error-to-blame-for-fiji-blackhawk-crash-20080715-3f9q.html)
Last time I checked, the government of the day gets to set government policy not the military commander, who serves the government and has a sworn oath of loyalty. That certainly is how Bainimarama runs his ship nowadays.
Bainimarama may have been a fabulously thin-skinned military commander, willing to take offence even at the comments of a well-meaning Roman Catholic priest, but in 2006 he was still a servant to the govt of the day.
In the specific instance you are referring to it is a matter of record that Qarase requested ADF forces. I am not saying that was the right or wrong call. But it was Qarase’s prerogative to make that call [just as it was Bainimarama’s to bring in the laughably inept Indonesian military to rebuild QVS.]
As it turned out Howard, presumably on advice of his military, declined to give Qarase the extent of the front-foot ADF support requested.
But for 45 days a deployment occurred, outside Fiji’s territorial waters according to testimony to the Australian senate, under the banner Operation Quickstep. This started in October 2006. Part of this, included peeling away forces to help the Tongan government quell rioters in their capital in Nov 2006.
Unlike what passes for democracy in Fiji these days, Quickstep was subject to parliamentary scrutiny [see the Senate Foreign Affairs, Defence and Trade Committee in Feb 2007, and the multiple reports on the BlackHawk crash].
In Fiji’s case, in anticipation of a messy coup and weeks of widespread civil disorder along the lines of the 2000 coup, the Australian govt took what seemed to most the reasonable precaution of having forces on standby to assist their citizens. Excluding tourists, around 3000 Australians are resident in Fiji.
[As a small example, police commissioner Hughes had multiple credible threats from Bainimarama’s thug military and supporters, against his life and safety of his family, as he detailed in his personal papers. He understood his family were to be kidnapped and ransomed to ensure Bainimarama, amongst other things, did not have to answer questions on his role in 2000.]
And anyway, the bigger point I would make here is that you are drawing a false equivalence between the actions of Australia and China, saying one is justified because of the actions of the other [which you then mischaracterise].
One was protecting her citizens against the actions of a malicious, freewheeling and cretinous military, as evidenced by the naval commander being charged with murder after kicking someone to death less than a month after the coup, while the other … well Graham’s article attempts to explain what the motives might be for that.
There is also the issue that the very same type of behaviour goes on in Fiji these days.
Intimidation of Opposition members, endless FICAC cases which go nowhere, ignoring legitimate issues of law and governance when the Opposition point it out.
Never mind the fear that ordinary citizens feel.
I’ve dealt with the PM’s client services division and watched people recoil in fear at mention of taking their issue to the AG office.
These poor people are terrified of the AG and his “law”.
To the extent that they start whispering at mention of him.
Like he’s the bogeyman and mention of his name will make him appear.
The use of intimidation and fear are the hallmarks of authorirarian regimes everywhere.
Frank and the Fiji First machine use these tools to stifle dissent. He therefore has no moral authority to lead.
Charlie Charters, November 3, 2020, replying to my comment,
Where in my comment did I draw “a false equivalence between the actions of Australia and China”? I had only referenced the actions of Australia. China wasn’t (and isn’t) the subject. And, no, that doesn’t mean I’m ignoring China. It’s just not my focus at this point.
Perhaps for the future, try reading more carefully?
Thanks for your concerns about my reading skills. My comment appeared after yours but I wasn’t replying to you but the earlier comment: ‘China has never directly threatened Fiji with invasion like what Australias Defence Force chief AVM Angus Houston did in a phone call to Frank in 2006’