The failure of Australia and New Zealand’s hard-line attitude towards Fiji is the centerpiece of an article by one of the world’s most influential think tanks – the Centre for Strategic and International Studies in Washington. It confirms the official American view that isolating Fiji has been counterproductive and that the regional reputations of Australia and NZ have been damaged as a result.
It urges both countries to fully re-engage with Fiji, including at a military level by re-instituting contacts with senior RFMF personnel. This goes way beyond the present plans by Canberra and Wellington for a gradual thawing of relations beginning with the restoration of full diplomatic ties. The article certainly gives the lie to the notion – peddled by Fiji’s critics – that the United States hasn’t parted company with its ANZUS allies over Fiji.
When Grubsheet signaled this change of direction several months ago – based on information from US sources – we were ridiculed by the anti-regime lobby and a former US embassy staffer in Suva. While the following article is labelled a private view, it reflects the general American position and ought to put the issue beyond doubt.
Bringing Fiji Back into the Fold: A U.S. Perspective
By Elke Larsen
AUG 9, 2012
Australia and New Zealand normalized relations with Fiji July 30 by agreeing to exchange high commissioners. Yet, despite the Australian and New Zealand governments’ claims in the press that the normalization is the result of successful steps toward democracy, in reality it is more an admission of the failure of their previous hard-line policies. Isolation had long proved ineffective in securing their goal of pressing Fiji’s military regime to reinstate democracy, and a softer approach to Fiji has become the best route available to influence change.
On December 5, 2006, a coup lead by Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama toppled Fiji’s democratically elected government only to receive resounding condemnation from the international community. Fiji’s bilateral relations with Australia and New Zealand soured rapidly with the implementation of targeted sanctions against the military regime, including a travel ban against the regime’s officials, suspension of seasonal worker schemes, a ban on munitions trade, and the cessation of military–to-military interaction. Regional isolation intensified in 2009 after Bainimarama failed to hold the elections he had promised or, indeed, to open any discussion about the return to democracy. In response, the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) and the Commonwealth suspended Fiji. Fiji expelled Australia’s high commissioner in November 2009 and New Zealand’s high commissioner in 2010, cutting diplomatic communications to the bare minimum.
The regional credibility and reputation of Australia and New Zealand have been damaged by the fact that Fiji’s military rulers did not give in to their pressure but, rather, successfully pushed back. Three aspects of this push back are noteworthy. First, the key reason for the regime’s survival has been internal stability. Despite the isolation tactics of Fiji’s neighbors and the bleak economic situation caused by the global financial crisis, the Bainimarama regime has a high approval rating of 66 percent among Fijians, who believe that he has done either a good or a very good job in running the country. Some reasons for this include Bainimarama’s policies to help the poor, a reduction in the ethnic conflict that was prevalent under Fiji’s democracy, and the fact that the military is a respected institution that looms large in Fiji and touches the lives of most Fijian families.
Second, Fiji was able to break its isolation by seeking new powerful friends to help replace the loss of traditional support. Fiji undertook a ”look north” policy with China becoming an important aid donor, Russia strengthening its ties through visiting officials, and, most recently, the opening of Fiji’s new embassy in South Korea in July 2012. The strengthening of these relationships, particularly with China, has undeniably been hastened by Fiji having nowhere else to turn.
Finally, Fiji broke its regional isolation from the PIF by strengthening the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG), whose exclusive membership is made up of the most populous and resource-rich islands in Oceania. Since Fiji’s suspension by the PIF, the MSG has taken the PIF’s place in facilitating trade between Fiji and other Pacific Islands, firmly establishing itself as a competing intergovernmental organization. This development has damaged the prestige and effectiveness of the PIF. Fiji has always acted as an economic and logistical hub for the PIF countries, and therefore negotiating trade agreements—such as PACER Plus, an Australian-led push for regional economic integration—without Fiji will be ineffective. Given that Australia and New Zealand are not welcome as members of the MSG, not only has Fiji broken its isolation, but it has also turned the tables on its two largest neighbors.
Still, despite Fiji’s military regime not budging under Australian and New Zealand pressure, there are some hopeful internal signs that democracy could reemerge close to the 2014 deadline for Fijian elections. As was highlighted in a 2011 Lowy Institute poll, the Fijian belief in the importance of fundamental human rights is particularly strong and should contribute to internal concern about the success of the constitutional consultation, ending racial inequality in politics, and the coup culture.
With the normalization of diplomatic relations, Australia and New Zealand will likely be able to once again add their voices during Fiji’s democratic transition. This is important because, for the Fijian population, Australia and New Zealand still hold considerable sway. Fijian public perceptions of Australia and New Zealand remain good despite the political differences over the past few years. According to the Lowy poll, Australia is viewed warmly by the people of Fiji, receiving an average of 74 out of 100 on a 100-point scale, the highest rating of any foreign country with which Fiji has ties. New Zealand is perceived almost as warmly, receiving 72 out of 100. It is also probable that Australia and New Zealand will ease their sanctions against Fiji. In particular, reinstituting military–to-military contact would expose a new generation of Fijian military officers to Australian and New Zealand values and promote future cooperation, which is particularly vital considering the prominence of the military in Fijian society.
From the viewpoint of the United States, the normalization of relations is a step in the right direction. It is in the United States’ interests to promote stability and prosperity in the Pacific, and Fiji’s lackluster economy and its isolation from its regional partners are not in line with those goals. It may be argued that welcoming Fiji back into the fold flies in the face of the United States’ interest in human rights; freedom and democratization under the Bainimarama regime remains questionable, particularly in light of the August 3 jailing of ousted prime minister and political opponent Laisenia Qarase. However, with the apparent failure of their hard-line approach and by keeping communications open, Australia and New Zealand now have a better chance to affect the quality of the Fijian regime that will emerge in 2014.
(This Commentary originally appeared in the August 9, 2012, issue of Pacific Partners Outlook.)
Elke Larsen is a research assistant with the Pacific Partners Initiative at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, D.C.
Commentary is produced by the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), a private, tax-exempt institution focusing on international public policy issues. Its research is nonpartisan and nonproprietary. CSIS does not take specific policy positions. Accordingly, all views, positions, and conclusions expressed in this publication should be understood to be solely those of the author(s).
© 2012 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies. All rights reserved.
Graham.
Thanks for bringing this to our attention.
I am not sure that I would call the “exchange” of High Commissioners and a few other concessions by Australia as a “normalization” of relations between the relevant countries. I think it would be more appropriate to regard these as steps, albeit important, towards normalization.
The pragmatic approach of the US to relations with Fiji must, I believe, be seen, not in the context of a genuine concern for the welfare of the people of Fiji, but in the context of the strategic interests of the US vis a vis the increasing influence of China, (which, in any event, seems to be influencing a lot of economies, including Australia’s) in the Pacific Region.
Given the very paternalistic attitude of Australia and New Zealand to Fiji over a long time, and the (failed) isolation, the Bainimarama Government has no choice but to look elsewhere for assistance in meeting the government’s objectives and agenda. I don’t think that Fiji will ditch its new friends just because of a “normalization” of relations between the Fiji and A & NZ.
I believe that the status of A & NZ in the South Pacific region (and particularly with the Melanesian people) has been diminished by their petulance over Fiji and by the resolve of the Bainimarama Government to stand up to bullying tactics.
I take the view that the days of A &NZ taking for granted their influence over the smaller pacific nations is over and that they need to work a lot harder to understand the dynamics within those nations (which they failed to do with Fiji with its racial issues). Otherwise both A & NZ will go in again with all guns blazing before realising that they are shooting blanks!!!
Many of us on this site already knew, the usa in its dealings with Fiji had atotally differnet approach to Fiji hwy ? Because it already knew why the likes of Qarase and the sdl were up to! Need we say any more?
@ Chandra,
You are right, in almost every point you make. Couldn’t have put it better myself!
In particular, the motive behind the shift in the US position – which as you say, is largely attributable to China’s own realignment with Pacific island nations at large. So no genuine realisation of Fiji’s plight there; just a self-serving strategic interest!
As for A & NZ, again, a gradual realisation that they are not the masters of all in the region is on its way, albeit painfully slowly. It is noteworthy that the “we know better than you” attitude towards their Pacific neighbours is exactly what characterised their relationship with their Asian neighbours to the east, some 10-15 years ago. Now, however, their kick-ass economies have made A & NZ policy-makers re-think their position. No more the, “me better than you, Johnny” attitude.
WTF? Why would Fiji need enemies with “friends” like A & NZ, whose policy-makers whinge as if it is a trait inherited from those in their motherland, eh?
Rambuka disagrees with SDL…! Everyone is in Fiji is laughing at the SDL submission.
All SDL supporters should eat bread without butter…..and Jam…eat cassava and dont work on Sunday for practice…for their lifestyle…and see if they will survive..leaving in the past..!
Ride a horse and carriage and walk barefoot.
Mahendra Chaudry dont want to comment on SDL submission …..its called politically maneuvering distancing himself to look good….looking at him for 20 years there is nothing new………but just plain old bullshit…he is more interested in standing in the next election to get more millions nothing for the people same old same old….!
It’s good to see the influential US Think Tank, CSS, taking an objective look at the situation concerning Fiji.
In the light of these comments I pass on an article Iwrote for the Wellington Dominion Post in 2010.
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2010
Resolving the Fiji Impasse: Let the Pacific Lead
By Gerald McGhie*
Former NZ diplomat, former Director of the NZ Institute of International Affairs,
former Chairman Transparency International NZ
Interim Prime Minister Bainimarama’s track record does little to encourage those who look to an early negotiated settlement to the current coup/crisis. But the coup is now in its fourth year and Bainimarama remains well entrenched. Action to date has not brought him to the negotiating table.
Given the unproductive rhetoric and exhortation from both sides the stand-off seems likely to continue. Should New Zealand be looking for alternative approaches? The short answer is “yes” but power struggles, ethnic and land disputes have a habit of locking themselves into the DNA of Pacific communities. Given the essential complexity of the problem there can be no quick fix or short term solutions to the issues surrounding Fiji.
It is hard to believe that the Pacific, an area noted for its complex procedures of conflict resolution, has not yet produced a formula that all sides can accept. Overtures have been made. Sir Michael Somare has recalled that at its inception in 1971 the Forum was determined to have an inclusive membership. That principle has underlined his approach to the region ever since. He has also said that “the Pacific way is not about burning bridges” it is about “going the extra distance, compassion and participatory democracy”. If there are any lessons to be learned from previous coups, he said, “hurriedly prepared elections and token changes to rules do not ensure real democracy.”
In spite of Somare’s experience and insight, momentum has been lost. Bainimarama’s sharply worded criticisms continue. The Forum meets and disperses.
But have negotiations to date been a genuine reflection of the fa’a Pasifika? Regrettably Pacific Forum countries have an excellent record of producing documents. Most are quickly ignored particularly the Eight Points of Accountability on Good Governance and the less useful Pacific Plan. But the 2000 Biketawa Declaration has proved more durable. Somare drew on this document at a Forum meeting in January 2009 when he exhorted members to “constructively address difficult and sensitive issues including underlying causes of tension and conflict”. Biketawa refers specifically to ethnicity, socio-economic disparities, lack of good governance, land disputes and the erosion of cultural values as continuing areas of concern. These factors are all in play in Fiji: Somare’s plea was to engage the interim government fully to help political dialogue succeed.
But for governments to say that they are ready for talks is not enough. Personal animosities have reached a point where approaches have to be carefully tested. All sides must address three issues before proceeding. When to talk, what to say and how to say it. But most of all Australia and New Zealand must take a step back and allow the Pacific countries to initiate and carry out the discussions themselves. Realistically Bainimarama is in control and he will not compromise on the Roadmap, the constitutional reforms and the elections in 2014. Negotiations with him will not be easy but if understandings can be agreed and adhered to at least there will be some structure on which to base discussions.
Early contact between the parties would be modest and low key. A Pacific based Negotiating Group (PNG) would send an unambiguous message to the interim government that they will address all items on Fiji’s agenda. For their part New Zealand and Australia would offer a simple statement agreeing that they would be prepared to enter into serious negotiations at an appropriate time but until then Forum contact would be in the hands of Bainimarama’s Pacific colleagues.
These actions are limited in scope and would not at first substantively alter the character of the Fiji Government’s relations with the Forum (and New Zealand and Australia) but they would communicate to the interim Prime Minister that all Forum members intend to pursue a different strategy. That new policy would require a new tone. Fiji is a proud nation. Continued denunciations and comments dismissive of the regime would only produce greater intransigence. Thus Australia and New Zealand must be clear. Endorsing their own agenda, engaging in tough talk while indicating a readiness to seek negotiations is unlikely to succeed. More important, relations with Fiji must not be played out in terms of domestic constituency politics in New Zealand. The Fijian diaspora will know that they stand to gain from realistic negotiations.
The Pacific Negotiating Group will require a leader. To date Sir Michael Somare has spent considerable time and much reputation coaxing Bainimarama back into the fold. He should at least have the right of first refusal. Appropriate support for his activities is vital. He must have a new and well-qualified team. The UN has experience of dealing with similar knotty problems. As an expression of goodwill the Pacific Forum nations could make a joint approach to the Secretary General to seek his involvement. New Zealand and Australia would underpin the negotiations by ensuring the provision of adequate finance and support for the Pacific Negotiating Team.
Neither side involved in the negotiations is likely to achieve all their aims. They seldom do when the primary challenge is political. But Fiji’s internal disputes, unresolved since independence and before, have to be dealt with by Fijians and the decisions reached accepted by the Pacific and wider community. The involvement of the United Nations would provide a measure of legitimacy. Certainly no country in the region will benefit in the long term from a banished and ailing Fiji. Fiji’s neighbours must be aware of this.
It would be naive to assume that there are no risks or obstacles associated with this approach. But suspicion now dominates a relationship that has a long history of cooperation. Australia and New Zealand can impose costs on Fiji but they cannot impose their will. If the US can seek talks with the Taliban it’s time to demonstrate continuing diplomatic skill in dealing with a festering and unacceptable Pacific problem.
* First published in Wellington’s Dominion Post on 4 October 2010.
@ Gerald.
The Forum’s relevance to Fiji at this time is overplayed. The fact is the Forum needs Fiji more than Fiji needs the Forum.
Frank has already said that the Forum is now irrelevant to Fiji. Accept the fact that Fiji, as a proud nation, will opt not to be part of the Forum. You cant treat a proud Pacific nation like Fiji in the way you have and expect it to be acquiescent and to keep dancing to your tune.
Be aware that there are calls on the streets in Suva for the Forum HQ to be kicked out of Suva. The Forum complex in Suva will then be handed over to the NAM for use as its regional coordinating office.
You can also see Fiji’s response by the lack of priority they place on granting visa’s to Forum staff to work in Fiji. Such applications are just thrown into a filing cabinet to be looked at in due course but with no priority assigned to its processing.
You treat Fiji like shit then it is obliged to return you the favour. Thats the bottom line.
@ Gerald McGhie,
This is the usual diplomatic and political crap. This is what you should have written:
1. A & NZ Governments, stop being condascending and a regional bully and start talking to Bainimarama.
2. ANZ Governments, bugger the Forums, grow some balls and take the initiative to start a conversation.
3. ANZ Governments, you can’t negotiate with Fiji by dividing the polynesians and the melanesians and using the Samoans to do your dirty work.
4. There is nothing to negotiate with Fiji
5. Don’t bully because Fijians don’t take kindly to that.
6. Fijians are proud and not stupid.
7. Read 1
8. Stop Kevin Rudd from eating ear wax.
9. Stop giving residency to racist thugs and rapists.
10. Go to Darwin and look across the ocean…..they’re Fiji’s new friends
11. People of Australia and NZ are still friends of Fiji.
If I were you, I would use this as a blueprint document for dealing with Fiji..That other piece that you wrote should be left for the beaurecrats of NZ…..scratching their heads while reading and saying wtf is that…..and I’m sure that Kevin got hold of your article as well. No wonder he cannot stop eating his ear wax.
Chand, you posted while I was writing the accompanying response but I’d just like to say that you are being unnecessarily harsh in your response to Gerald. He’s a retired NZ diplomat and it isn’t in his nature to be quite so pungent and to the point as you are. But he has done a great deal behind the scenes to try to get NZ’s hardline stance modified and deserves our thanks for that.
Gerald is one of the old school of NZ diplomats with a far keener finger on the Pacific pulse than many of his successors. His articles -especially for the NZ Institute of International Affairs- put an alternative case to the NZ body politic that arguably played a big role in getting NZ to the more enlightened place it occupies today. And especially compared with Australia.
Dear Graham,
I am not being harsh…just provided an alternate view…a view from the ground level and not from a diplomatic and or political pedestal. A common man’s viewpoint with simple language.
You probably have more inside knowledge about his workings etc and we thank him for that.
Me being a common man on the street tells me that the eventual “capitulation” of the ANZ governments have come about because of the US stance and the fact that the current Fijian government could stand toe to toe with them and not be bullied.
The NZ foreign ministers public comments were in stark contrasts to Gerald’s writeups.
Me thinks about 2 years too late to appear on Grubsheet.
“* First published in Wellington’s Dominion Post on 4 October 2010.”
Chand, your “common man’s view” is widely held in Fiji and I agree with it. I think Gerald was merely reminding us that some people in New Zealand and Australia were running much the same line as the Americans two years before. But they were voices crying out in the wilderness and to a large extent still are.
Gerald, you deserve a great deal of credit for your efforts to keep the lines of engagement open with Fiji and it is very much appreciated. As you know, there are individuals in both countries who’ve tried to explain the shortsighted nature of New Zealand and Australian policy towards Fiji.
On the NZ side, you were undoubtedly among the most prominent, arguing – as you did in this article and others – about the futility of wielding the big stick. If only it had been heeded earlier. Bridges need to be built and fast.
It’s a great shame that Fiji is still being excluded from the Pacific Forum and won’t be attending the Cook Islands summit . Komai is right. It’s my sense too that the Fiji Government no longer cares too much. An important regional body has been damaged in pursuit of a policy that someone like you always realised couldn’t be enforced.
I am told that I subscribe to Grub sheet but I do not get notifications of articles. Am I meant to?
Gerald
To All
Fiji has to turn a new page……..Frank on the right track.
Who cares about what New Zealand and Australia think about Fiji. Everything is going well in Fiji on the ground and we have more then a 100 trading partners in other countries.
For onece Fiji chooses who it deals with in trade.
Fiji should strenghthen from within develop its human resource and natural resource and be self sustainable.
Look at Cuba under Castro ………..after 20 years or more the US had to re-engage coming thru the door to Cuba’s benefit …….not bullying Cuba that was before Castro…Now Cuba is thriving..!
Why should we wait for “aid to gain from Australia and New Zealand”
Fiji should brand itself and dictates its own destiny. Totally forget NZ and Au they will re-engage in Fiji’s terms and condition…..and Fiji will create its own destiny and be treated with respect.
From within Fiji the itaukei must be made to work thru new legislation.
I tell of you this are the “living dead” the itaukei if they wake up and work the same as other Fijians …………and use the land” which is a must” Everyone will see a thriving Fiji with or without NZ or AU.
I respect Au and NZ but Fiji does not need their “Aid to Gain” in which case the itaukei must be made to work the whole of Fiji will economically thrive……and all will settle down and Fiji will benefit from within and be more marketable in everyway.
AU and NZ follow its own strategic plan for itself ………Fiji should do the same for its ownself dont even mention this two brothers AU and NZ ……….just use them when the need be…trade with them whatever but no need to consider their …..opinion too much…!
Fiji should stregnthen from within to gain their respect ………..if it runs the AU and NZ for everything then ……….expect to be kicked around by them……..Fiji should continue to look for new trading partners…………!
Richard Pruett said…
It’s come to my attention that Mr. Graham Davis continues to insist that the United States has “parted company with its ANZUS allies over Fiji.” He cites an August 9 commentary by a research assistant at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) in Washington, DC. Mr. Davis notes that the commentary is labelled a private view, but he then claims it “reflects the general American position and ought to put the issue beyond doubt.”
Mr. Davis then goes on to write: “When Grubsheet signalled this change of direction several months ago – based on information from US sources – we were ridiculed by the anti-regime lobby and a former US embassy staffer in Suva.” Since, to my knowledge, I am the only former U.S. Embassy staff to respond to Mr. Davis’ earlier claim, which was in March of this year, I assume he’s referring here to me.
I did not seek to ridicule Mr. Davis but merely to clear up various misconceptions. Those misconceptions included assertions that Washington had severed ties with Fiji after the 2006 coup, that U.S. policy toward Fiji had substantively changed in the past year, and that the United States had only begun to re-engage with Fiji. Those assertions remain demonstrably wrong for the reasons I stated in my C4.5 posting of March 6.
CSIS is a public policy research institution. Its private views do not necessarily reflect the official views of the United States Government. U.S. foreign policy is determined by the President of the United States and the U.S. Secretary of State after a deliberative interagency consultation process. On issues of foreign policy, statements by the U.S. Department of State are definitive.
The U.S. Embassy in Suva has published a synopsis of U.S. policy toward Fiji on its website under the title “The Three Pillars of U.S. Policy Toward Fiji.” This is not an ad hoc policy designed for Fiji only but the application toward Fiji of a number of U.S. policies with global applicability. It has remained unchanged since early 2007.
I don’t know who constitute Mr. Davis’ “American sources,” but he could not do better than to check his information with the Regional Public Affairs Officer located at U.S. Embassy Suva.
My own reading of the CSIS article doesn’t suggest that the United States has “parted company with its ANZUS allies over Fiji.” On the contrary, it seems to be saying that with the recent changes by Canberra and Wellington, their policies toward Fiji are now even more congruent with the longstanding policy of the United States.
Richard Pruett
Retired U.S. Foreign Service officer
Former U.S. Deputy Chief of Mission in Suva
August 18, 2012 4:25 AM
Where have you been Graham : ” …….US interest in human rights, freedom and democratization……………… ” ?
Fiji is geostrategic, probably has oil and the Chinese who sell real assistance cheap are beating the socks of the US, which bribes governments and political parties, called subversion – all over the Western Pacific – that’s why the hypocrtites in Washington who support dictatorships are sucking up to Fiji again. Remember, Bavadra’s platform listed investigation of money given by US to the Alliance government and not accounted for. Do you imagine Rabuka acted without US support ?
US is already training its puppets to take power in Fiji with US support.
An exchange of diplomats is just that. It does not represent a fundamental change but it is a step and it remains to be seen whether anything of any value will come from the move.
Fiji has not been well served by the rhetoric and attitudes taken by many regional players. New Zealand and Australia have indeed taken a paternalistic attitude to the Pacific that it will take some time for genuine change to emerge it must also be said that some Pacific island states have taken the opportunity to air some views that probably have their basis in historical attitudes. The Pacific is a competitive place – was at ever thus?
That being said it is important that Australia and New Zealand as well as Fiji now see the value of charting a course that is advantageous not only in the short term but also in the medium and long term. That means building on the new relationships developed since 2006 – but also reinvigorating the old partnerships.
The Centre for Strategic studies refers to the Lowy Poll showing Australia and New Zealand and is still viewed “warmly by the people of Fiji”. If it is to succeed new policies must draw on this goodwill and seek to establish a more equitable basis on which to move forward
In the light of the Global financial Crisis a few countries can claim clean bill of health in either governance or economic affairs. New Zealand is grinding its way through our range of sordid criminal fraud cases involving millions of dollars and catastrophic losses to individual investors. Other western states have similar experiences.
Equally clearly, few states can afford the luxury of rejectionist attitudes. The smaller the state them or does this rather too poignant observation apply.
In the Pacific, New Zealand needs Fiji is a good friend and helpful neighbour. I assume that policymakers in Fiji will see the reverse is also in their own interests.
Graham’s Grubsheet provides a valuable forum for discussion. It contains excellent background information and current news. Croz Walsh also helps guide many New Zealanders through the intricacies of Fiji’s situation. There is a great deal to build on.
I am afraid my most recent comment seemed to be beset by “bugs”. Consequently I was unable to revise the text once it was written.
Please read with a non-critical eye in terms of the typos.