Flight Of A Fugitive? (Updated)

The saga of Tevita Uluilakeba Mara's flight from Fiji to Tonga is certainly gaining much attention on the web.

TVNZ web article highlights the diplomatic and cultural complications, derived from the events in question. TVNZ video.

The excerpt of the TVNZ web article:

Tonga harbours fleeing Fijian army officer
Military tension in the Pacific is raising fears of a conflict between Fiji and Tonga.
Tonga's navy spirited-away a high ranking Fijian army officer charged with trying to overthrow Fiji's military leader Frank Bainimarama. 

Lieutenant Colonel Tevita Mara, who has strong Tongan connections, is now under the kingdom's protection. Tonga's small navy is no match for its bigger Fijian military counterpart, but the kingdom's force not only rescued Mara, they are giving him sanctuary. 

"When I was rescued by the Tongan navy, I asked to be brought to Nukualofa, where the sure protection of King George's government I shall be able to tell the truth without fear of retribution about the tragic oppression that stifles my beloved land," Mara said.
Mara is the son of late president Ratu Mara. Along with Pita Driti, a high ranking commander, Mara was charged a week ago with mutiny and accused of trying to overthrow the Bainimarama regime. 

But he is now in the Tongan capital, Nukualofa, after being picked up by the Tongan navy south of Fiji's Lau islands. 

Mara is under the protection of the Tongan royal family, who he is related to. Bainimarama has said he will institute extradition proceedings tomorrow to have Mara returned to Fiji and he has asked the police to investigate who helped him to escape Fiji. 

In a press conference early this evening, Bainimarama said he takes "strong exception to the breaches of Fiji's sovereignty" and he is appealing to the Tongan royal family to "stop being in conspiracy with a self interested individual". 

Bainimarama described Mara as of a "despicable nature". Malakai Kolomatangi from Canterbury University said the move is quite surprising given the fact there will be diplomatic and military ramifications. 

"I think this needs to be settled and resolved quickly. We are perhaps looking at two major powers in terms of influence in the Pacific, going head-to-head," Kolomatangi said.
"Many observers have said in the past if you have standing armies doing nothing then you have a problem." 

The diplomatic situation between Tonga and Fiji has recently been tense, with both laying claim to the Minerva Reef which lies between the two countries. And Mara's message against Fiji's regime, believed to have been filmed in Tonga, has been posted on YouTube.
"When this hateful dictatorship has been eradicated, all of us who once served it shall answer to the Fijian people," he says on the video. 

ONE News Pacific correspondent Barabara Dreaver said this is "very much a developing situation with potentially serious implications for the region".
She said New Zealand foreign affairs official are keeping tabs on what is happening.
But Dreaver said the two countries are linked by blood ties and there is a feeling the issue will be sorted out on diplomatic terms.

Fiji Prime Minister addressed the issue in a press conference on Sunday evening. (MP3 posted below)



Fiji exiles board has a thread discussing the strange sequence of events, involving Tevita Uluilakeba Mara, the youngest son of the late Fiji President Ratu Kamisese Mara.

Post Script

The layers of expert opinions are interviewed by New Zealand media.

NewstalkZB interviews Tonga member of Parliament (M.P) Akalisi Pohiva regarding the situation. (MP3 posted below)



TVNZ interviews Associate Prof. Stephen Hoadley, a foreign affairs specialist with University of Auckland.

3 News interviews Prof. Steven Ratuva a Pacific Islands scholar from University of Auckland Centre for Pacific studies.

Save Page As PDF

Social Bookmarking

Club Em Designs

The Last Foreign Policy Bender - Australia's Dwindling Influence In The Pacific.

Revisiting an earlier post titled "Crouch, Hold Or Engage- Australia's Failing Pacific Policy",
Australia's foreign relations are presently being ascertained, analysed and audited.

While Australia's Foreign Minster Kevin Rudd stopped over for a chat with U.S Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton in Washington D.C, on his way back from the 35th Commonwealth Ministerial Action Group (CMAG) meeting in London on 28th April 2011, there are reasons to believe that some changes are in store regarding the policies of Australia.

(Video posted below)



In the press conference post-meeting, Clinton heaped praises on Rudd's efforts:

"Minister Rudd was very influential in helping us to work toward a greater, more relevant involvement in the Pacific-Asian institutions, such as joining the East Asian Summit. The Trans-Pacific Partnership, which is exploring ways to expand opportunity, is critical, and APEC and ASEAN are two other organizations where we work together."

There is much speculation whether that particular chat with Clinton was simply a social visit or a one-way dressing down, considering the results of Rudd's failed initiatives.

Rudd's uncanny ability to pursue tangents in Foreign Affairs are not in dispute. The results of the such cantankerous detours, at the expense of more important concerns are at the fore.

The question of whether those praises on Rudd are equally shared from all quarters, is a question worth asking, given the dismissal results of Rudd's handling of the Foreign affairs issues.

The Diplomat web publication, highlighted in a 2010 opinion article titled:"Rudd's Pacific Plan Lost At Sea" is prima facie evidence of Rudd's over reach:

[...]Rudd’s vision for an Asia-Pacific super forum was first outlined in a June 2008 speech to the Asia Society Australasia, entitled ‘It’s Time to Build an Asia-Pacific Community.’ Delivered shortly before his first and somewhat delayed visit as prime minister to Indonesia and Japan, the proposal called for ‘strong and effective regional institutions’ to address issues including security, terrorism, natural disasters, disease, trade, energy and food.

While acknowledging the region’s existing architecture, the new Australian leader argued for the creation of ‘a regional institution which spans the entire Asia-Pacific region—including the United States, Japan, China, India, Indonesia and the other states of the region.’ It was to be capable of engaging in the ‘full spectrum of dialogue, cooperation and action on economic and political matters and future challenges related to security.’

Rudd also stated that he didn’t intend the ‘diminution of any of the existing regional bodies.’

‘APEC, the ASEAN Regional Forum, the East Asia Summit (EAS), ASEAN Plus Three and ASEAN itself will continue to play important roles, and longer-term may continue in their own right or embody the building blocks of an Asia Pacific community,’ he said.

The new institution was immediately panned by Australia’s Deputy Opposition Leader Julie Bishop, who described it as ‘another example of the prime minister just coming up with policy whims, floating it out there without doing any of the necessary groundwork.’

She was not alone.

Graham Davis, former journalist wrote an article that appeared in Pacific Scoop titled "How Australia's Foreign and Pacific Policy Is Hostage To One Man's Ego", was scathing of Rudd:

Anyone else might be content to strut the international stage as Rudd does, posing as one of the big players and studiously trying to paper over Australia’s status as a middle ranking power at best.

Only someone with a world class ego would claim credit – as Rudd does – for being a prime instigator of the no-fly zone over Libya. That’s right. Not Barak Obama, not Nicolas Sarkozy but Kevin – the Tintin lookalike Wonder Boy from Down Under.

Although, both Julia Gillard and Kevin Rudd criss-crossed the planet with the unsure objective of firmly anchoring Australia's drifting foreign policy; Brisbane Times article singled out the mending of ties effort, a central priority during Gillard's Asia tour:

IT COULD have got a bit nasty, given the pressures on Julia Gillard to put her stamp on foreign policy and her inexperience in the field, but the Prime Minister's visit to Beijing has shown both sides determined to make the best of the fast-expanding relationship between Australia and China.

Gillard has essentially returned Canberra's handling of the relationship to the patient, pragmatic and optimistic approach that her predecessors have found to be the best, ending the prickly tone in some of the messages of the former prime minister Kevin Rudd.

Pacific regional observers pointed out repeatedly for a different approach to Fiji for some time now.

Fiji Sun article features Andrew Drysdale's opinion

The entire excerpt of Drysdales article:

Australia’s failed relationship with Fiji writer : ANDREW DRYSDALE 4/30/2011 Australia’s relationship with Fiji have featured in both political and media discussions of late. As someone who grew up in Fiji, and who played a part in rebuilding the economy following the 1987 coups, I should like to add to that debate.In the aftermath of Fiji’s 2006 takeover of the elected Qarase government by Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama, the Australian government imposed sanctions and took a hard line against the new military government. This in turn (and not unnaturally) resulted in strong negative feelings towards Australia within the Fiji government; and it should be said, throughout Fiji. One typically large and friendly doorman at a Fijian hotel asked recently “the Australians like us and come to see us - why their government hates us?” Standing in the lobby of a five star hotel looking across the pool to the islands beyond; it is a hard question to answer. After several years of reverses following political disturbances, floods, difficulties in the sugar industry and the global economic downturn, Fiji’s economy has turned the corner. The latest Standard and Poor report has revised Fiji’s long term foreign currency ratings upwards from “stable” to “positive”. The report states “the positive outlook on Fiji’s foreign currency rating reflects the improvement in Fiji’s external position, including the level of foreign exchange reserves.” A recent Fiji government International bond issue for US$250 million was fully subscribed with the order book closing almost three times oversubscribed within three hours of opening. Even the IMF in its most recent report says there are “encouraging signs of recovery”. If the Australian government’s sanctions were intended to place economic pressure on Fiji then one could be forgiven for wondering how effective they have been. Presumably to the chagrin of the Australian government, this financial improvement is in large part due to a rapid growth in the tourism sector, particularly from this country. Australian visitor arrivals to Fiji last year were a record and Australia now represents 53 per cent of all tourist arrivals; hence the validity of the Fijian doorman’s question. What is particularly puzzling is that Commodore Bainimarama did not overthrow the Qarase government in order to enshrine dominance by the indigenous Fijian over the Indian people as the previous coups have sought to do - and as the Qarase government was actually doing. Quite the contrary, his stated reasons for his actions were to bring about an electoral process where there will be equality of rights for all citizens of the country. He has repeatedly promised elections in September 2014 under a new constitution that ensures a balanced electoral system based on the principles contained in his “Peoples charter for change, peace and progress”. This document is publicly available on the Fiji government website. He is also dealing firmly with corruption that had become endemic under previous governments. Whilst it is right that Australia should protest at the overthrow of an elected government, to continue to alienate such a government and its policies is indeed difficult to understand. That is not to say all is sunshine and light in Fiji. Quite the reverse, the media is censored, meetings are constrained, a number of judicial findings are difficult to comprehend, and there are reports of individuals being taken to the army camp and abused. Nevertheless, when viewed from a Fiji perspective there is a dichotomy in Australia’s policies. Without intending any disrespect to the Peoples Republic of China, for the Australian prime minister to say on her recent state visit to Beijing “Our policy is to positively engage with China. A China that’s fully engaged in our region is good for the region, it’s good for Australia, it’s good for China” at a time when one of Australia’s own leading newspapers reports that Ms. Gillard’s visit “is taking place in the midst of the largest crackdown on Chinese civil society in two decades” reaffirms the argument that trade, money and politics are inextricably linked. By contrast Australia’s policy of alienating Fiji makes it easy to imagine that Fiji is insignificant in Australia’s trade and presumably therefore expendable politically. The Rudd government took a hard line in 2006 but in doing so painted itself into a corner. Policies intended to bring pressure on Commodore Bainimarama have in fact created a vacuum in the political and economic balance of the Pacific - and China is now filling that vacuum. Australian companies have failed to win a single major contract in Fiji for several years; losing out mostly to Chinese competitors, many of whom are implementing Chinese Aid programmes. Chinese are also buying up large tracts of land (6000 acres in one recent deal) and are building the much needed new infrastructure. Unless Australia changes its attitude and policies towards Fiji soon, Australian companies may well become invisible in the future commercial life of Fiji.At one point Australia sought to have the United Nations cease using Fijian soldiers in peacekeeping duties. The Fijian army is to a large part, armed and trained by the UN for these peacekeeping duties - duties that they have performed with great credit. These soldiers remit a portion of their UN salaries home to their families and this forms a very important part of Fiji’s economic and social life. Until he goes to an election, Commodore Bainimarama’s strength is derived from the army. Had Australia been successful, Fiji would have almost certainly turned to China to support its military. In this event Australia would have had on its own doorstep a politically alienated country that was increasingly allied with China and whose military was trained and armed by China. Fortunately the UN refused to go along with this plan. That this was even contemplated by Australia would demonstrate a lack of understanding of the forces at play in the Pacific. Australia has used the Forum Secretariat as a vehicle to alienate Fiji from its neighbours. They have also used Aid funding in an attempt to drive a wedge between Fiji and the other Pacific Island Nations. In the early days this worked; millions of dollars of Australian taxpayer’s money to the relatively impoverished Pacific Island Nations is a powerful weapon. However in a sign that things are changing, these Island leaders recently elected Commodore Bainimarama as leader of the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) - Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Fiji and the Kanaks of New Caledonia. These are the largest Island Nations in the Pacific. They have the largest landmass, significant natural resources and the largest populations. The MSG has now publicly supported the Fiji Government’s policies and Bainimarama’s roadmap towards elections. It should be noted that whilst this was going on, Australia’s foreign minister was on the other side of the globe calling for a no-fly zone over Libya. The Fijian Prime Minister has just returned from an official visit to Indonesia where he met with the Indonesian president, opened a Fiji Embassy office and held talks with Indonesian fisheries organisations and business houses.He also met their senior military officers. Agreement was reached on co-operation between the Fijian and Indonesian military which includes training and possible joint exercises to be conducted in Fiji. So, what does this mean? It means that every one of the major island nations circling the Australian coast from east of Sydney to north of Darwin are supporting Commodore Bainimarama and his policies. These countries have large natural resources and a combined population of over 245 million people - indeed their numbers dwarf Australia by 10 times. It is entirely possible that these new political alliances may result in Australia’s foreign policies having the effect, not of isolating Fiji; but rather of isolating Australia. Australia was behind the move to throw Fiji out of the British Commonwealth, and in this they were successful. But one might ask - so what? The Fijian people remain loyal to the Queen because of the covenants contained in the 1874 Deed of Cession where their chiefs unequivocally ceded Fiji to Queen Victoria, her heirs and successors. This deep-felt loyalty is to the Queen, not to some artificial and impotent remanent of the British Raj. A public relations victory for Australia perhaps, but in terms of bringing about real change it was a failure. That the Australian government has consistently failed to understand Fiji, its politics and its people is a matter of historical record. To quote Sir Robert Foster, the last British governor of Fiji in his final dispatch to the Colonial Office on the eve of Fiji’s independence in 1970 “Relations with Australia may be more difficult. Many here consider that the Australian Government has a large debt to repay, because Fiji has been exploited by big business from there and that official Australian attitudes are too often overbearing and when they are not, then indifferent”.That was forty one years ago - regrettably it would seem very little has changed.

Andrew Drysdale's article was refuted by Dr. Max Quanchi, an academic in University of South Pacific (USP) The entire excerpt Quanchi's response:

Fiji, Aussie ties writer : Dr Max Quanchi USP 5/3/2011 Readers of the Fiji Sun (30/4/2011) were misled by Andrew Drysdale when he argued that Fijians think Australia has a debt to Fiji for past commercial exploitation and overbearing and indifferent attitudes.His source for claiming that anger towards Australia was found “throughout Fiji” was a doorman at a five-star hotel. His claims that Australia “consistently failed to understand Fiji” were contradicted in the same edition of the Fiji Sun, when a full page advertisement invited organisations from Fiji civil society to apply for AusAID grants of FJ$20,000 to FJ$200,000. He also claimed Australian visitor arrivals made up 53 per cent of visitors, but in the papers that day the Bureau of Statistics announced the figure was 40 per cent (for the month of February). Newspapers the same day also carried a photograph of Australia’s Acting High Commissioner at a hand-over ceremony for a FJ$250,000 boat to Health officials on Ovalau and another full page advertisement invited Fijians to apply for full time study grants under generous Australian Development Scholarship (ADS) and Australia Leadership Award (ALA) programs. These are not evidence of a “failed” relationship, but suggest a carefully thought out, long-term, bilateral relationship. Mr Drysdale has merely repeated a tired, negative refrain. He has not acknowledged the many little AusAID, non-government and private development projects scattered across Fiji which demonstrate that while bureaucrats and diplomats might be in a stand-off situation, there is a valuable relationship being continued at the local level. His claims that the former Rudd government took a hard line towards Fiji, ignores the 11 years of the John Howard government when not only Fiji, but the Pacific generally “fell off the map”. Rudd in his first year reversed this trend by ending the Nauru refugee camp experiment, signed the Kyoto Agreement, hosted a Pacific Forum meeting in Cairns, reinstalled Pacific Affairs at a Parliamentary Secretary level and visited Port Moresby to make a joint declaration with PNG’s Michael Somare on a new relationship with the Pacific. There are several other unsupported claims by Mr Drysdale such as Australia being responsible for plans to end Fiji’s participation in UN peacekeeping duties, that Australia caused Fiji to be expelled from the Commonwealth, imposed sanctions in order to destroy the Fiji economy, that development aid was used a bargaining chip in diplomatic deals, and that the Pacific Forum was in some way compromised by Australian involvement. No evidence is offered to suggest any of these populist and indeed improbable claims are accurate. Finally Mr Drysdale relies on a comment made by the departing British Governor at the time of independence that Australian-Fijian relations might turn out to be difficult. Mr Drysdale might have gone back further in history to the 1860s and 1870s when there was a “Fiji Rush” of Australians to settle on so-called Polynesia Company land, or the 1880s when there were moves in Australia to link Fiji formally to the colony of Victoria, and later to include Fiji in a wider federal union including Australia and New Zealand. Fijians now migrate to and from Australia, form a large part of the NRL player list, and go back and forth for medical support, training and education, “Australian idol” and shopping. Fiji and Australia’s histories are entwined through these and many more episodes in the 19th and 20th centuries. That they now follow separate diplomatic pathways is not unexpected. They were both once British colonies, linked by British shipping lines, telegraph and air routes, but are now independent nations, and seek to be key players and even leaders in the region. After a two-year survey of 38 universities, 50 museums, galleries, libraries and archives and a 100 or so government and non-government agencies in Australia with connections to the Pacific, which resulted in a 203 page report, my colleagues Samantha Rose and Clive Moore and I concluded that the Pacific Islands were important to Australia and that the relationship was “personal, geopolitical, historical and permanent”. We also concluded that “this complexity and mix of bilateral and multilateral relationships now demands a high level of sophistication, long-term planning and collaborative development”. The bilateral relationship with Fiji since Australia became a Commonwealth in 1901, and Fiji became independent in 1970, has not always been characterised by the sophistication and collaboration we identified. Andrew Drysdale’s tirade adds little to improvement in this relationship. In contrast to his closing comment that “very little has changed” in the relationship since 1970, I would argue that the relationship has changed unrecognisably over the last 150 years, and even more so since 1970. Today many more new links are being forged. Confusing diplomatic rhetoric with actual ground level, people-to-people relationships is part of the problem. Governments have their own domestic, national and international agenda, but villagers see the world through different lens. The Fiji Sun’s readers deserve a more thorough analysis supported by evidence and a deep view of history than they were presented with last Saturday.  Dr Quanchi stresses he is writing in a personal capacity.

  Croz Walsh's blog posting points out, Dr. Sandra Tarte's sentiments: 

The dilemmas facing Australian diplomacy and foreign policy in the region include the obvious ones that have been highlighted in the media debate. 

Most prominent is the fact that Australia’s efforts to isolate the Fiji government have encouraged Fiji to actively seek new partnerships, including most notably with China. This has led to the growing influence of China, and what seems to be a commensurate loss of influence by Australia. Another obvious dilemma is that Fiji’s suspension from the Forum has only served to undermine what was once the region’s premier regional organisation and shifted the political focus to other regional and international groupings.

Fiji has made it clear it does not seek an early return to the Forum’s fold but is cultivating new alignments – the Melanesian Spearhead Group, the Pacific Small Islands Developing States group, the Non-Aligned Movement and the Association of South East Asian Nations (where it has sought observer status).

Most recently was Lowy Institute's Jenny-Howard jones who advocated in a 180 degree course correction, in Australian Government's policy towards Fiji:

In a speech to the Press Club in February about Australia's interests in the Middle East, Mr Rudd said: 'a creative middle power recognises that we have to work in partnerships and coalitions to achieve change — including with non-traditional partners to establish better understanding of the issue at hand and to come up with better informed solutions...Australia always stands ready to propose new partnerships to tackle new problems, to tackle old problems in new ways' [...]

But in promoting Australia's credentials as a creative middle power on the world stage in the context of the Arab awakening, Rudd has inadvertently drawn more attention to Australia's diplomatic failings in Fiji [...]Kevin Rudd believes Australian foreign policy should make a difference. If Australia wants to maintain its credibility as the dominant power in this region and be a creative middle power on the world stage, it should start by making a difference in Fiji.

Save Page As PDF

Social Bookmarking

             

Club Em Designs

Following Fiji From Afar. (Updated)

Social media has made the headlines recently and foreign affairs departments from many nations have recognized the need for such an electronic footprint- as an application of statecraft in the 21st century .

A blog: Public Diplomacy, Networks & Influence had a recent posting regarding Australia's recognition of such global outreach. Lowy Institute's Fergus Hanson also advocated such an approach, in a published paper on the subject.

Peter Thomson, Fiji's UN Permanent Representative outlined the developments currently being pursued at the UN mission. (Video posted below)



Peter Thomson was also interviewed by U.N's South-South news agency, regarding International obligations. (Video posted below)

Fiji's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, has until much recently waded curiously, but positively into the fields of E-Diplomacy by upgrading their homepage, adding a Youtube channel, Facebook page and off-course, using Twitter (@FijiMFA).

Although, Fiji MFA's Facebook page has no visible friends, Youtube channel has uploaded only 3 videos and their Twitter account has 3 followers to-date; one can seriously expect those numbers to change tremendously over a period of time and most importantly, the accompanying influence.

Crouch, Hold Or Engage- Australia's Failing Pacific Foreign Policy?

Croz Walsh's Blog -- Fiji: The Way it Was, Is and Can Be: recent post covers Jenny Hayward-Jones Director of The Myer Foundation Melanesia Program at the Lowy Institute opinion piece : Rudd Takes His Eye off Pacific Islands published in The Australian, 22 March, 2011.


This particular issue regarding the gallivanting Rudd, seemed to have been foreshadowed by SiFM post: :Cut Your Cote According to Your Cloth, with regards to Australia's foreign policy, which seems to be bursting at the seams.

It is without a doubt, the lofty foreign policy ideals, sans pragmatism of the ambitious Foreign Minister, Kevin Rudd whose public remarks at times especially on the Libya issue, contradict that of the current Australian Prime Minister, Julia Gillard.

According to a news article by The Age, the divisions between Gillard and Rudd appear to be confusing to the greater international community with respect to the real intent of Australia's foreign policy.

More so, the costs of these expensive excursions lobbied by crisis seeking diplomats of Rudd's ilk, will certainly reflect in the bottom line in terms of treasury and lives, particurlarly in the wake of the recent and repeated floodings in Australia.

Gillard, Rudd at odds on Libya

Michelle Grattan and Jason Koutsoukis

March 11, 2011

A SPLIT has emerged between Prime Minister Julia Gillard and her foreign minister, Kevin Rudd, over international intervention in Libya.

Trying to play down the embarrassing rift during her visit to the United States, Ms Gillard said the United Nations Security Council should consider a ''full range'' of options to deal with dictator Muammar Gaddafi, and made it clear Australia had no intention of taking an active part if a flight-exclusion zone was imposed.

''We are a long way from Libya and what we've said is that in the first instance NATO would need to work through this question of the no-fly zone,'' said Ms Gillard, who also discussed Libya with UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon yesterday.

Mr Rudd has been campaigning strongly for a flight-exclusion zone, declaring this week it was ''very much the lesser of two evils … a greater evil is to simply stand back and allow the innocent people of Libya to be strafed and bombed by Gaddafi''.

Behind the scenes, Ms Gillard's office has been in despair at Mr Rudd's public comments, saying his repeated interventions on Libya have come without the knowledge or approval of the Prime Minister.

An adviser to Ms Gillard, who asked not to be named, told The Age that Mr Rudd's freewheeling approach was also causing confusion at a diplomatic level.

''He's out of control,'' the adviser said. ''He puts out one press release after another, and none of it is run through the PM's office. A no-fly zone over Libya is not the Australian government's position. This is Rudd acting on his own."

Earlier this week, US officials in Canberra were forced to seek official clarification on what the Australian government was actually pushing for.

"They are asking us, 'Are you guys serious about a no-fly zone, and if so, what kind of resources are you going to contribute?"' the adviser said. "The answer of course is a firm no. We have serious reservations about a no-fly zone." A flight-exclusion zone means aircraft are not allowed to fly in a designated area, under threat of being shot down. But the Gaddafi regime's capacity to strike back would first need to be destroyed before such a zone could be enforced — and that would involve bombing and loss of life.

The public split comes amid growing voter dissatisfaction with Ms Gillard, with the latest Newspoll showing her trailing Mr Rudd as preferred Labor leader.

Yesterday Ms Gillard played down the differences between her stance and Mr Rudd's, stressing that he had said he was deeply concerned about the deteriorating situation in Libya.

But when asked on CNN on Tuesday about the growing calls for a no-fly zone, Mr Rudd said: "We in Australia have called for this now for the better part of two weeks." He has also supported a statement by foreign ministers from the Gulf Co-operation Council for a no-fly zone to protect Libyans.

Opposition foreign affairs spokeswoman Julie Bishop said it was "confusing for Australia's allies" for Ms Gillard and Mr Rudd to have different positions on Libya.

With AAP

Unnamed Australia adviser On Rudd's Overreach

"He's out of control," the adviser said. "He puts out one press release after another, and none of it is run through the PM's office. A no-fly zone over Libya is not the Australian government's position. This is Rudd acting on his own."

Rudd recently has been actively taking pot shots, as reported by Sydney Morning Herald (SMH) article .

The excerpt of the SMH article:

Rudd takes pot shot at Gillard as he firms in polls

Phillip Coorey CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT
March 16, 2011


KEVIN RUDD has taken a poke at Julia Gillard by saying he was more likely to captain the Brisbane Broncos than become prime minister again.

One month before deposing Mr Rudd last year, Ms Gillard likened her chances of taking the leadership to playing full forward for the Western Bulldogs AFL team.

Tensions have been high between the pair since Mr Rudd's ousting.
Advertisement: Story continues below

Last week, with Mr Rudd in the Middle East and Ms Gillard in the US, they had a difference of opinion over Libya and Ms Gillard admitted they had not talked to each other while abroad.

The latest Herald poll shows Mr Rudd is more preferred than Ms Gillard as prime minster by 39 per cent to 34 per cent.

Mr Rudd said yesterday he ''absolutely'' supported Ms Gillard's leadership, he was ''absolutely satisfied'' with his role as Foreign Affairs Minister, and, as for a return to the top job, ''I'm not of the view that lightning strikes twice''.

Mr Rudd did back Ms Gillard against claims by the founder of WikiLeaks, Julian Assange, that the government was giving foreign powers information on Australians associated with the whistleblowing website.

Mr Assange confronted Ms Gillard with the allegation on the ABC's Q&A program on Monday.

He said he had intelligence about information being exchanged and he queried whether Ms Gillard should be charged with treason. Ms Gillard said she had no idea what he was talking about.

Mr Rudd said neither he nor his departmental secretary and the former ASIO boss, Dennis Richardson, were aware of any such information exchange.

A spokesman for the Attorney-General, Robert McClelland, who oversees Australia's security agencies, said Mr McClelland was also unaware of what Mr Assange was alleging.

Ms Gillard was not forewarned she would receive a question from Mr Assange when she went on the live program, but her office said yesterday she was not fussed by what some were calling an ambush.

There have been calls from within the US to try Mr Assange there after WikiLeaks published thousands of confidential cables which caused the US government severe embarrassment.

Ms Gillard said the issue of Mr Assange was not raised with her while she was in the US last week. After meeting Ms Gillard on Capitol Hill last week, the senior Republican senator John McCain suggested that if Mr Assange was associated with the theft of the original cables, he would be pursued by the US.

A US military intelligence analyst, Private Bradley Manning, has been charged with stealing the information and passing it to WikiLeaks.

''As far as I know, not anyone besides Private First Class Manning has been charged with anything … and he couldn't have done all of that just by himself, other people are responsible as well,'' Senator McCain said.

Another interesting take on the shifting geo-politics in the South Pacific , with regards to the Trans-Tasman policy of isolating Fiji was published in a report by Pacific Institute of Public Policy (PIPP), recently reported by Radio New Zealand International article.

An excerpt of the PIPP report:

The trend is moving towards Frank’s Fiji, not Julia’s Australia

The continued bleating about the need for a ‘return
to democracy’ in Fiji fails to grasp an important point:
democracy never meaningfully existed in Fiji under its
previous gerrymandered systems. Four coups in 20 years
demonstrated that the system was broke and needed serious
reform. Where was Britain and Australia to help Fiji move
towards political reform and more equal representation?

That is not to condone the military takeover, and there is
good reason to be suspicious of the Commodore’s intentions
and his hijacking of the MSG is a case in point. He may
be a dictator, but he is in the ironic position of claiming to
have taken control to introduce a truly ‘one man one vote’
democratic system to replace the previous rigged system that
supported an indigenous elite. It is his only card, but a strong
one.

Many across the Pacific have long advocated a more
constructive approach than the Australian led policy of
isolating Fiji. The horse has already bolted, so better now to
take Bainimarama at his word, to ensure that the promised
2014 elections are indeed free and fair and give him no
chance to replace one gerrymandered system with another.

It is encouraging that the recent meeting of the Pacific Islands
Forum Ministerial Contact Group2 was addressed by the Fiji
foreign minister, Ratu Inoke Kubuabola. Ministers warmly
welcomed Fiji’s invitation for the group to visit Fiji in the near
future as an important opportunity to meet stakeholders
in order to appreciate the political, social and economic
challenges currently facing the country.

Lets hope this invitation is not withdrawn, and that Canberra
shifts to a more nuanced policy vis-à-vis engagement.
Perhaps it is timely to think about appointing a special envoy and
for officials to engage in dialogue with their counterparts in Suva. Time
to think about meaningful assistance with the challenges and help Fiji
move towards political reform and more equal representation.
Time to realise others, who do not hold the same affinity for democracy,
are filling the void.

PIPP report


[Hopefully]Canberra shifts to a more nuanced policy vis-à-vis engagement.
Perhaps it is timely to think about appointing a special envoy and for officials to engage in dialogue with their counterparts in Suva. Time
to think about meaningful assistance with the challenges and help Fiji
move towards political reform and more equal representation.
Time to realise others, who do not hold the same affinity for democracy,
are filling the void.

Undoubtedly, the scandalous treatment of former Solomon Islands Attorney General, Julian Moti by the Australia Federal Police reported by Solomon Star news article; coupled with the so called "smart sanctions" levied on Fiji's sporting people by the Australia Government, as covered by Xinhua news article does little to nothing, to improve the perception of Australia's history of bullying within the Pacific region.

The excerpt of Solomon Star article:

Key witness in Moti case dies

Wednesday, 23 March 2011 03:50

Moti" title="Julian Moti" class="caption" align="left">

Julian Moti

Aripaea Salmon, father of the alleged victim in the Julian Moti case died on the island of Espiritu Santo, Vanuatu on March 20 of a heart attack.

Just three days earlier on March 17, in a videoed interview, he signalled his and his family’s intentions to cease co-operating with the Australian prosecution of Moti.

Asked if he, his wife or his daughter intended to travel to Australia to testify, he replied, “no.”
Mr Salmon stated that he had been “swept along” in a case not of his choosing and over which his family had little control.

He said the child-sex tourism charges with which Moti had been charged had been presented to the family as a fait accompli and that none of his family had made any subsequent complaint after the case was settled in Vanuatu.

He said the Australian Federal Police (AFP) told them that if they did not cooperate it would “go against them.”

He also admitted that he could not be sure that the offences with which Moti was charged actually occurred.

With the family facing deportation he said his daughter could have been motivated by a misguided idea that she was saving the family from this fate.

Mr Salmon stated that when he eventually realised that the motivations for the prosecution were political, he was “disgusted’ that “the mighty Australian government” should use a small girl in such a way.

He described his family as being “crushed” and ‘broken” by the case and he laid the blame at the Australian government of the time under John Howard.

Mr Salmon said he repeatedly asked for a lawyer- preferably bi-lingual (Mr Salmon’s first language is French) when the AFP first contacted the family and was denied.

He also stated that the AFP had coached the family in what to say in their statements for the prosecution.

Mr Salmon went on to record an apology to his family, Julian Moti’s family “especially his mother” and the governments of the Pacific who had been hurt by this case.

In particular he apologised to Sir Michael Somare and the people of Papua New Guinea and to Manasseh Sogavare Solomon Islands former Prime Minister who he praised for his efforts to protect Moti.

Mr Salmon claimed he wanted the case to end and for his family to be left in peace.

“I am sick,” he said “I don’t know how much time I have left. This case has to stop.”

It’s unlikely he envisaged just how little time was left for him.

Vale, Mr Aripaea Salmon. It was a pleasure to have interviewed you.

By Susan Merrell

The excerpt of the Xinhua article of sports sanctions:

Fiji to send best team to Adelaide or none at all due to sanctions: PM

English.news.cn 2011-03-19 15:43:23

FeedbackPrintRSS

SUVA, March 19 (Xinhua) -- Fijian Prime Minister Commodore Voreqe Bainimarama said that if the island nation cannot send the best team to the Adelaide tournament due to Australia's travel sanctions, then don't send any team to it.

Bainimarama made the remarks following words that the Fiji Rugby Union is highly likely to drop top players Dale Tonawai, Nikola Matawalu and Waqabaca Kotobalavu after the Hong Kong 7s next weekend because the three are unlikely to get visas to go to the Adelaide tournament, local radio FijiVillage reported here Saturday on its website.

Tonawai is an army officer while Kotobalavu and Matawalu are navy officers.

Australia has taken a strong stance on its travel sanctions and continues to reject the visas of those Fijians in the military, the navy and the government and those connected to them.

The sanctions by Australia and New Zealand dated back to 2006 when the Bainimarama Government took on reigns through a coup.

Bainimarama has also questioned why the Fiji Rugby Union is not officially complaining to the International Rugby Board that Australia and New Zealand are not allowing Fiji to field its best team when they host the tournaments.

He said the Fiji Rugby Union should stop playing politics and fight for the right to send the best team to the IRB-sanctioned tournaments, adding this needs to be done for rugby, and no other reason.

He highlighted the fact when world's soccer governing body FIFA stepped in and cancelled a game between Fiji and New Zealand two years ago when New Zealand rejected the visa for goalkeeper Simione Tamanisau, whose father-in-law to be was in the military.

That game, after FIFA's directive, did not go ahead in New Zealand.

Why this cannot be done by FRU, Bainimarama questioned.

Fiji Rugby Union's interim chairman Rafaele Kasibulu explained that this year they have lobbied with the International Rugby Board to allow Fiji players with military ties to play in tournaments in Australia and New Zealand but the travel sanction is a government to government matter.

Kasibulu said that during the IRB CEO's visit to Fiji, they discussed the matter again with the rugby world governing body that have assisted them in showing their support through letters sent to the New Zealand and Australian High Commissions.

The Fiji 7s team cannot pull out of any IRB 7s tournaments as they have signed a participation agreement before the first competition in Dubai last year, he added.

Meanwhile navy players Kotobalavu and Matawalu were allowed to travel to the United States to represent Fiji last month and had no problems in getting their visas.

Notwithstanding the Trans-Tasman bullying and prodding, the legitimacy of such policies are now being deliberated on, by the region's leaders at the much awaited Meleanesian Sprearhead Group (MSG) summit.

Radio New Zealand International article quoted from former Fiji academic, Steven Ratuva regarding the use of MSG in geo-politics.

MSG warned against becoming political tool

Posted at 03:23 on 24 March, 2011 UTC

An academic is warning the leaders of the Melanesian Spearhead Group not to let the body become a tool of geopolitics.

The MSG is currently staging a series of meetings in Fiji leading up to a leaders’ summit next Thursday.

It will be chaired by the interim Fiji prime minister, Commodore Frank Bainimarama, who was given the role after the controversial scrapping of a similar summit last year by the then chair, Vanuatu’s Edward Natapei.

An Auckland University Pacific studies senior lecturer, Dr Steven Ratuva, says this consolidates Commodore Bainimarama’s power in his scrap with Australia and New Zealand, and he may feel he’s now the new regional leader to be reckoned with.

“Perhaps in the long run that kind of thinking may be counter productive to the MSG which really needs to be focussed more on economics and trade rather than in terms of fighting the political battle. So if [Commodore] Bainimarama uses the MSG as a means by which it can leverage politically then it might not be in the future interests of the MSG.”

News Content © Radio New Zealand International
PO Box 123, Wellington, New Zealand

Croz Walsh also highlighted the Ratuva's selective amnesia, in a recent posting:

But, Steve, since all politicians play politics (that's what they do), why can't Fiji join the game? Fiji did not kick itself out of the Pacific Islands Forum, or the PACER talks (it wanted to participate). Australia and NZ influenced the Pacific's Forum members to make that political decision.

Fiji did not ask the Commonwealth to be excluded from the Delhi Games. Australia and NZ urged the Commonwealth to take that political decision. Fiji did not ask the EU to suspend aid to its sugar industry.

Australia and NZ were at it again. And Fiji has not placed travel bans on Australian and NZ sportsmen and women. That's Australia and NZ again. So if Australia and NZ are playing politics, is this also not the "the future interests of the MSG — and the Forum? As the saying goes, "If it's good bad for the goose, it's good bad for the gander."

The MSG summit opened this week in Suva in a closed door session, according to reports from the Fiji Govternment website. The MSG summit was also reported on by Fiji Times and republished in Pacific Media Watch (PMW).org article.

The excerpt of the PMW article:

FIJI: Opening MSG trade meeting closed to media

Commodore Frank Voreqe Bainimarama. Fiji is the Chair of the Melanesian Spearhead Group, which is meeting in Vale ni Bose this week.

Thursday, March 24, 2011

Item: 7352

SUVA: The Melanesian Spearhead Group trade and economic officials meeting started at the Vale ni Bose complex in the Fiji capital behind closed doors yesterday but discussions are not expected to include PACER Plus.

The Pacific Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER) Plus, which is still negotiated, is a trade agreement between Australia and New Zealand.

Instead, discussions are expected to centre around trade agreements within the MSG bloc of Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea, New Caledonia (Front de Liberation Nationale Kanak et Socialiste), Solomon Islands and Fiji Islands.

East Timor and Indonesia are also part of the summit as observers.

The trade and economic officials complete their discussions today before the senior officials meet tomorrow.

Yesterday, the Pacific Institute of Public Policy issued a discussion paper titled "Youth quake: Will Melanesian democracy be sunk by demography" and claimed that Australia's policy in Melanesia is adrift as the region increasingly looks north to Asia.

While the media was only allowed picture opportunities, deputy secretary of Foreign Affairs and International Cooperation Sila Balawa, through the Information Ministry said discussions would be on matters that affect the people.

Balawa also told the ministry the meeting was also for the public and that everything was being done transparently so that it was public knowledge.

"We are doing everything transparently and it is public knowledge because the issues discussed has been coming out in the media," Balawa told the ministry.

"We are doing everything in a transparent manner because the issues involve the general public and the Melanesian people."

Balawa said climate change and encouraging more economic activities among the MSG countries would be discussed.

The trade and economic officials complete their discussions today before the senior officials meet tomorrow. - Fiji Times/Pacific Media Watch

As usual, some set backs were bound to occur in Melanesia, one being the recent disciplinary action taken against Papua New Guinea Prime Minister, Michael Somare, as covered by Radio NZ article. The other are snarky comments from the ex-Vanuatu Prime Minster also covered by Radio NZ article.

The excerpt of Edward Natapei's comments:

Vanuatu told it should consider pulling out of MSG now Fiji’s Bainimarama heads the body

Posted at 22:46 on 24 March, 2011 UTC

Vanuatu’s opposition leader, Edward Natapei, says the country should reconsider its membership of the Melanesian Spearhead Group.

Last year, when Mr Natapei was Vanuatu’s leader, he was involved in an acrimonious spat with the interim prime minister of Fiji, Commodore Frank Bainimarama after cancelling an MSG summit scheduled to be held in Fiji.

Mr Natapei was concerned that handing the chairmanship to an unelected leader undermined the democratic values of the MSG.

Since then Commodore Bainimarama has got the job and is set to chair a summit next week, but Mr Natapei is warning Vanuatu should distance itself from the military regime in Fiji.

“We have to make up our minds what whether or not we value democracy or not. Vanuatu should consider seriously whether or not we should be participating in the MSG now that it’s chaired by a non-democratically elected government.”

News Content © Radio New Zealand International
PO Box 123, Wellington, New Zealand

The excerpt of the Radio NZ article on Somare:

Lawyer for PNG’s PM welcomes sentence given to Somare

Posted at 21:41 on 25 March, 2011 UTC

The legal counsel for Papua New Guinea’s Prime Minister says Sir Michael Somare is satisfied with the two week suspension handed down to him by a leadership tribunal.

The Prime Minister received the sentence after the tribunal found him guilty of 13 charges of misconduct, relating to his failure to lodge financial returns from as far back as 20 years ago.

His legal counsel Kerenga Kua says the guilty findings do not amount to proof of corruption by Sir Michael, as more serious charges that he had demeaned public office were dismissed.

He says the Prime Minister will not challenge the suspension, and is taking it in his stride.

“He’s relieved that it’s finally come to the end of the road and a final decision has been made and he’s quite satisfied with the penalty that’s been meted out by the tribunal. He thinks it’s a reasonable one, all things considered.”

Kerenga Kua says it would be difficult for everyone to agree on the severity of the penalty, but Sir Michael was only found guilty of failing to fulfil the administrative requirement of submitting forms to the Ombudsman Commission.

News Content © Radio New Zealand International
PO Box 123, Wellington, New Zealand

Another news article from Radio Australia, highlighted the perceived "spanner in the works" as outlined in Radio Australia's coverage of Terry Bukorpioper, a Vanuatu-based representative of the West Papuan National Authority and secretary of the Oceania Decolonisation Committee; blaming Fiji leader for the inclusion of Indonesia at the Melanesia Spearhead group summit.

Trans-Tasman Bullies

Notwithstanding the Trans-Tasman bullying and prodding, the legitimacy of such policies are now being deliberated on, by the region's leaders [...]

The excerpt of Radio Australia news article:

Fiji leader blamed for Indonesia attending MSG summit

Updated March 25, 2011 17:43:27

A West Papuan independence activist is blaming Fiji's interim prime minister, Frank Bainimarama, for inviting Indonesia to take part in next week's Melanesian Spearhead Group summit in Fiji.

Terry Bukorpioper, a Vanuatu-based representative of the West Papuan National Authority and secretary of the Oceania Decolonisation Committee, says Commodore Bainimarama has invited Indonesia to participate because Fiji and Indonesia are both military regimes.

He says the MSG should be a Melanesian organisation for Melanesian countries, and Indonesia which administers the mainly Melanesian and Christian western half of New Guinea island, should not be present at the summit.

Mr Bukorpioper tells me that Fiji's invitation to Jakarta risks angering Melanesian people who he says strongly support West Papuan independence from Indonesia.

Presenter: Bruce Hill
Speaker: Terry Bukorpioper, a Vanuatu-based representative of the West Papuan National Authority and secretary of the Oceania Decolonisation Committee

Save Page As PDF

Social Bookmarking

Club Em Designs