What Australia ‘pretend’ behind East Timor, New Zealand is doing the same thing.They seems to be the good guys, that’s bull****.(moderated for vulgarity) Bear in mind, the government in New Zealand and Australia are ‘white’ governed and the rest of the Pacific are islanders with their ‘islander’ way of doing things.
Clash of civilisation is still alive in the pacific with’ bullying’ much the name of the game.

these posts at kiwipolitico on the situation in fiji got me thinking. almost every fijian indian i come across in nz is a firm support of mr bainimarama, and extremely angry at the response of the labour-led government to the latest coup. the best conv…

It depends how one “reads” the self appointed saviour of Fiji, does he really intend to solve the problem or simply expoit its existence to govern for 5 or 10 years on the pretext of trying to do so?

The cynic would say watch the money …

The ongoing diplomatic fracas between New Zealand and Fiji stemming from the peaceful coup staged by Vice Commodore Frank Bainimarama and his military allies two years ago has taken on the aspect of farce….

Frankly I can’t see Clark allowing that to happen and I wonder if this may become, eventually, Key’s first albatross, which all PM’s collect. Little early wouldn’t you say, though? Key being Key, I’d guess he’s probably relying on MFAT advice in this, his first foreign outing. I wonder however if McCully has a hand in his response or if he’s getting his message mostly from the professionals?

Either way, what’s their calculation? Where’s the upside in isolating Fiji via big-boy tactics in the SP? Perhaps and hopefully, it’s a variation on Pablo’s suggested tactics, where Key plays bad cop and Rudd the good.

Let’s hope that’s what’s happening, but I don’t think it is, unfortunately.

The hidden issue here is the contest between indigenous people sovereignty and majoritarian democracy. Which makes the Commonwealth (a collection of colonialised nations – many now self governing majoritarian democracies in their Crown head image) a little uneasy of course (something Mugabe plays upon in a different way).

The latest Fijian coup leader has chosen to portray himself as the defender of the Commonwealth’s values against local indigenous people sovereignty, but not done so in the traditional western means (via the legal and political process), which really confuses the issue.

At the moment it’s a spat about someone who determined a course unilaterally being called to stay true to his own unilateral course (hold elections) – when claiming to have realised legal complications (and legal nicety was one of the issues cited against him).

If I was advising the SPF, I would advise them to kick for touch – sure back up their final warning, by “in principle” suspending Fiji from the SPF from a future date (yet to be determined) for not maintaining a democratic course (this builds up pressure, yet allows continued diplomacy).

Anita: I think international pressure was one key thing that convinced white South Africans that the apartheid regime would never be accepted internationally and convinced them to change.

The white world telling white South Africans what to do is different from the white first world telling Fijians what to do IMHO.

L

This of course requires diplomatic competency and expertise in Fijian affairs.

Neither exists under this National government. In fact, Goober John Key has been sucked into playing the game on Bainimarama’s terms.

You also point out that most pernicious paradox of trade. What better illustration is there locally than when Jenny Shipley ordered that a bus be placed between protesters and the Chinese Premier?

But, I’m not sure that we are bullies in relation to Fiji. I do believe that we should seek to effect positive change where we can and that Bainimarama has had quite long enough to at least make a start on the changes he has promised.

Otherwise the only way to apply a selective standard universally is when it only applies to aid receiving countries. The government to government aid tap being the measure that adjusts.

One example of selective standards was the US expectation that some its military allies should pay a price for not hosting their ships (even though not all other allies would do this either).

But I’m still fairly convinced that the requirements the EU imposes on candidate members (democracy, human rights) have had a quite substantial (if maybe not decisive) impact on several European countries in their transition to democracy. Or do you consider this is a special case given the economic power of the EU which isn’t replicated anywhere else?

When external pressure did act as a contributing factor to what essentially is an internally-generated movement for change (say, in Chile in the late 1980s or South Korea and Taiwan in the early 1990s), it was quiet diplomacy and the use of discrete incentives rather than public posturing that had the best effect. That was the point I was trying to make.

Many African countries have also made democratic progress as a result of international encouragement.

Not to mention Greece, Portugal (where a military coup *restored* democracy), Spain, Turkey (which is being dragged into democracy as a result of the prerequisites of EU membership), etc.

There are quite a few others.

How has NZ impinged on Fiji’s rights? Surely it’s *our* right as a sovereign nation to decide how we engage with Fiji and it’s people. That includes visa policy, trade, aid and negotiations.

We’ve actually been very soft with Fiji. We allow Air NZ to fly there, we allow trade and banking to continue mostly unimpeded. The only sanction on the Fijian military (whose ranking members are essentially criminals for supporting the cup) is to ban them from here.

I don’t think it’s of much relevance that we don’t treat other despotic states in a similar matter. We have to eat, and there are limits on what can be done in the real world. I feel it’s best that situations like these are solved first by the people involved, then by neighbour countries – and NZ is a neighbour of Fiji and not of Saudi Arabia and the like.

I find it hard to understand just what MFAT officials are thinking on this issue. Though is some of the problem sour grapes that the prior regime supported by NZ was in fact somewhat a product of our so-called diplomacy and thus for reasons of ego we wish a return to the prior corrupt state.

Unilaterally dropping the ban on travel to NZ by relatives of Fijian leaders would be seen by the Commodore and his cronies as a back down at this point (since they are playing a type of diplomatic chicken game with NZ), but some quiet diplomacy to work an exchange along the lines of restoring a full NZ diplomatic presence as a trade for lifting the travel ban might work as a starter for future talks of a more substantive nature. There is an old diplomatic tactic derived from game theory that posits that a nation should begin its approach to an adversary with an opening cooperative gesture, then reply in kind to the response (i.e. respond to a cooperative response with more cooperation, but respond to a non-cooperative response with an uncooperative reply). There is variation on the theme and it has to be applied judiciously, but offering to lift the travel ban in exchange for something might be just that sort of move.

One thing is certain, the confrontational approach is pushing Fiji closer to the Chinese as a counter to perceived Anglophone “meddling.”.