A new era of diplomacy
Audrey Young:
Page 1 of 3
5:00AM Saturday June 23, 2007
It may be good politics for Opposition leader John Key to praise Helen Clark and Winston Peters for the way they have handled the diplomatic crisis with Fiji, as he has in today's Weekend Herald, but he has good reason to mean what he says.
It is hard to see how Clark and Peters could have handled the immediate crisis better. Having been hit with the bombshell on June 7 that Fiji intended to declare High Commissioner Michael Green persona non grata, they worked hard behind the scenes to prevent it happening.
Clark has taken the hard line the circumstances demanded of a Prime Minister. Peters has been equally as condemning but adapted a "more in sorrow than in anger" tone, reflecting the sentiment many New Zealanders feel about one of their favourite neighbours.
It is inevitable New Zealand will be accused of bullying by those who prescribe only to fair-weather diplomacy in the Pacific. There are times when the "there, there" approach just will not do.
Clark and Peters have pitched their message carefully to take account of both audiences and to try to avoid pushing ordinary Fijians further into the arms of the military commander. They have also sensibly reserved New Zealand's decision on reprisals. A sudden move would have understated the offence.
They wanted to see what response the Fiji cabinet would have to an assessment that an election is possible in March 2009, which is acknowledged to be more important than the diplomatic insult. It was agreed to in principle, the importance of which was lost in the wash of the Green affair.
Also lost in the wash was an extremely conciliatory statement issued by military head and Prime Minister Commander Frank Bainimarama on Thursday, extolling the value of the relationship with New Zealand and pleading the case for limited sanctions.
Fiji's willingness to see off Green quietly by having him not return from holiday suggests his expulsion does seem to be grounded in a personal dislike by Bainimarama. Bainimarama's failure to set out a convincing case for having ordered the expulsion reinforced the personal nature of the decision.
He has accused Green of interfering but offered as evidence only a speech delivered two months ago on the coup culture. It was a strongly critical speech. It was probably more critical than some New Zealand has endured from former US ambassadors over the nuclear policy, but no less critical than New Zealand could expect from the US if the New Zealand Army installed a puppet government.
Bainimarama's behaviour mirrors the coup itself, purported to have been conducted in the name of ousting a (newly elected) "corrupt" Fiji nationalist Government.
The firm view within the New Zealand Government is that Bainimarama was motivated by his desire to avoid probable charges arising from the deaths by beating of four Counter Revolutionary Warfare Unit members after they had killed four loyal soldiers (and almost Bainimarama) in a failed mutiny in November 2000.
New Zealand's short-term response to Green's expulsion will be a package of sanctions foreshadowed by Clark to be "serious and significant". They may not sound as such when they are announced because Clark and Peters are bound to sweeten the sanctions - banning transit for Government and military leaders - with an offer to help prepare for general elections in March 2009.
A replacement for Green is likely to be sent only if and when benchmarks are set in Fiji for the general election such as dates for the electorates and rolls to be finalised.
There are also high-level back-channels of communication open with Fiji which, by their very nature, are not broadcast to the world. Just because you can't see them doesn't mean they are not there. As importantly, Clark and Peters have also maintained contact with Pacific Island Forum countries.
New Zealand's short and medium term priorities for Fiji appear to be helping it back to democracy which can put it back on path to economic development and independence. How to maintain that longer term is harder in a country with a coup culture that destabilises the whole region whenever one happens.
Constitutional reform hasn't worked on its own. Perhaps the only way to get rid of military coups is to reduce the power of the military.
No serious thought has yet been given to Australia and New Zealand recruiting large numbers of Fiji soldiers, in the way the British Army does, to boost their own ranks.
But it is an emerging idea in Australian think-tanks that may get a little more traction as officials and politicians on both sides of the Tasman start grappling with the need for a serious rethink on how they handle Fiji.
Despite expressing outrage at the situation, Clark and Peters have not delved too deeply into the politics of the coup. It is an unpredictable country led by an unpredictable man and they do not want to inflame the situation.
The racial politics of Fiji makes all coups complicated, this one more complicated that the last.
Although it was led by an indigenous Fijian military leader, it is seen widely seen as an Indo-Fijian coup. As well as the possible personal motivation for the coup, Bainimarama politically objected to measures that disadvantaged Indo-Fijians.
The coup has been embraced by many Indo-Fijians - with whom the commander has close personal relations - on the basis that "my enemy's enemy is my friend".
The fact that the Fiji Labour leader Mahendra Chaudhry signed up to be Bainimarama's finance minister was a bitter blow for New Zealand Labour and others who had supported him after he was deposed as Prime Minister in the 2000 coup. It may explain the disgust in Helen Clark's tone.
Her hard line has been seized upon by economic victims and apologists of the coup.
In this paper and other media, tourist operators have blamed the New Zealand Government travel warnings - which are relatively mild - for their own economic plight.
Clark expressed concerns again this week, with a hint of moral persuasion - hardly surprising from someone who comes from a tradition of taking moral stands against immoral situations in other people's countries.
Former All Black and Fiji resort owner Brad Johnstone would be familiar enough with that having toured South Africa in 1976 and captained Auckland against the Springboks in the 1981 tour.
New Zealand's style in the Pacific is changing. Kava diplomacy is gone. It may have carved out a more independent foreign policy under Clark's leadership in most parts of the world. But in the Pacific it has worked more closely with Australia, and along the way acquired some of its style.
The appointment of someone as senior as Green to Fiji in 2004 - he was a deputy secretary - was a sign New Zealand was taking the Pacific more seriously than it had.
It is a change of style and emphasis that is set to continue into the future, whether it is under John Key or Helen Clark.
The second perspective from the New Zealand Herald Editorial had a different take on the behavior of NZ Prime Minister, comparing her reactions to the expulsion of NZ High Commissioner to Clark's meeting with the Delai Lama.
Editorial: Fiji needs a diplomatic touch like the one we show to China
Page 1 of 2
View as a single page
5:00AM Sunday June 24, 2007
Zoologists call it displacement activity: an animal in a state of stress, frustration or uncertainty will perform an irrelevant action. A bird confronted by an opponent may peck at the grass. Humans respond to nervousness or confusion by scratching their heads. And that very odd creature called a politician will, when faced with an challenge she does not know how to deal with, start throwing her weight around somewhere where she counts.
How else to explain the startling contrast between the Iron Lady stance adopted by Prime Minister Helen Clark towards the military regime in Fiji and the meek and compliant nature of the snub she and her administration delivered to the Dalai Lama when he visited this week? Clark's meeting with the spiritual leader of the world's Buddhists and the Tibetan leader-in-exile since the Chinese occupation and annexation of his country in 1959, in an airport departure lounge in Brisbane, was carefully planned but intended to look serendipitous. The reason was plain: we are in the midst of negotiating a free-trade agreement (FTA) with the Chinese, who take a very dim view of any government recognising the Dalai Lama as the leader of a would-be independent Tibet. Meanwhile, the Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters did not meet His Holiness, but NZ First leader Winston Peters did.
Taken together with the Government's apparent connivance in March when New Zealand-based Chinese journalist Nick Wang was denied entry to a photo opportunity between Michael Cullen and Chinese Vice-Premier Zeng Peiyan, and with previous occasions when protesters have been hustled out of sight of visiting Chinese dignitaries, it adds up to a pretty craven look.
Critics of the Government's tiptoeing, such as Green MP Keith Locke, occupy an impeccable moral position when they demand that our representatives ignore the pressure - implicit and very probably explicit - brought to bear by the Chinese. But the People's Republic is the dragon of the world economy and this country would be foolhardy to ignore its sensitivities in matters of international relations.
Others have compared our position unfavourably with that of the Lange administration, which defied the nuclear hegemony in the 1980s. But the matters are not equivalent. The US in the mid-1980s had much less power over our trade fortunes than China does now. A better comparison is with the Lange Government's decision to release the Rainbow Warrior bombers, Mafart and Prieur, to what everyone knew would be brief internment on a Pacific atoll. Lange's attempt to paint the climbdown as a diplomatic victory fooled no one. And Clark's pas de deux with the Chinese is equally transparent. It would have been better for her to admit, in terms as vague and diplomatic as she chooses, that she was acting pragmatically, in this country's best interests.
Better, too, for her to practice a bit more of the diplomatic soft-shoe shuffle with the Fijians. The expulsion of our High Commissioner, Michael Green, is the sign of a Government under pressure, but no one should take comfort from that. It's hard to back down when your back is against the wall and Clark's thundering approach is the wrong one for a Pacific nation leader who needs to show leadership.
On his return, Green stopped well short of endorsing Clark's security warning to intending travellers. The PM would do well to work quietly behind the scenes to resolve the Fiji crisis, rather than coming out with guns blazing, causing collateral damage to Fiji's tourism industry. She may think she is diverting attention from the cringing attitude to China - but she is fooling nobody.
Seed Newsvine
Club Em Designs
"In this paper and other media, tourist operators have blamed the New Zealand Government travel warnings - which are relatively mild - for their own economic plight." eh?! What is the learned Audrey thinking? we had worse travel warnings than asian countries where tourists were being killed by bombs! And completely unfounded as your more recent post linking to whale oil points out (that was a very interesting read by the way).
ReplyDeleteAlso in Saturday's herald was this quote from John Armstrong travelling by P&O cruises to Suva "Suva feels about as threatening as Greymouth on a wet weekend"...(Page A10)
Hi Anon,
ReplyDeleteI agree that the travel warnings, is selective along with some media reports from Aust and NZ.
Another quote was I heard, was the only consistent injury Tourists are getting in Fiji post 2006 coup, is sunburn.