By doing nothing but pretending to ignore the interim regime, New Zealand failed to use its considerable leverage.

Dev Nadkarni
After vehemently refusing to be drawn into discussions and dialogue with Fiji’s interim administration following the December 2006 coup right through to the time of the last Forum Leaders Meeting in Nuku’alofa and beyond, New Zealand’s Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters has quite quickly climbed down from his moral high ground this year.

He has engaged with Fiji’s interim leadership on a couple of occasions, once even in concert with his Australian counterpart in talks that are yet to show any definitive evidence of impending change in Fiji. The most important question –that of elections in March 2009 still look as iffy as it ever did, despite all those talks and deliberations with all and sundry from the Commonwealth to the European Union and everyone in between.
Perhaps New Zealand, Australia and the rest of the interested world is hoping for some further indications to come through from the interim administration during the Forum leaders summit later this month in Niue.

But the big question is if New Zealand can engage with Fiji the way it is doing now -- without any real substantial change in the situation in Fiji between then and now-- why didn’t it do so for more than one whole year since the coup? It avoided almost all contact at the official level with the administration, piling measure upon measure on matters that most affected the common people of Fiji. 

In not engaging with the administration –even going to the silly extent of avoiding eye contact with Fijian leaders at summits— for a whole year, New Zealand as a major voice and an important influence in the region lost a wealth of opportunity and valuable time in bringing pressure to bear on the regime in a constructive way.

With this isolationist approach, which indeed was such as a poorly thought out non-strategy, New Zealand and its Foreign Minister let go the most opportune timing for dealing with the Fiji situation. Worse, none of the other countries in the region endorsed this isolationist approach whether in the Pacific Islands or outside.

By doing nothing but pretending to ignore the interim regime, New Zealand failed to use its considerable leverage as a friendly regional leader to put to constructive use its influence to address important issues at that early stage.

For then, the regime was newer and far less entrenched and used to the trappings of power than it is now. It would have arguably been a much better time than now to begin exerting any meaningful influence on the regime.

But it’s better late than never. New Zealand, led by its Minister of Foreign Affairs will try and bring new diplomatic pressure on the regime when it engages with it once again at this month’s Forum summit in the presence of other Pacific Island leaders –the very same thing that it should have done in a far more proactive manner in Nuku’alofa one year ago.

Holding on to the moral high ground for longer than necessary --especially for politicians, and as a result, for the nations they represent-- can be both futile, embarrassing and downright dangerous.

This, Winston Peters has himself discovered to his utter chagrin these past weeks on his own turf --although in a completely different context that has to do with controversial donations to his political party going back several years. Best known for seizing the moral high ground on a slew of issues, he is now having a first hand experience of how shaky and unsure that very ground can be.

And at this point one would hardly be surprised if he showed more than just sympathy to Fiji’s interim administration as also to other governments in the region like Papua New Guinea and Tonga while sharing –albeit secretly-- their complete disdain for that ever prying monster called the media.

Virtual group with real grunt

One of the nicer new developments in recent times for Pacific media is a new vibrant online discussion group peopled by a rapidly growing band of media professionals from around the region and beyond.

As well as backslapping banter with a distinctively coconuty, island flavour (which gets progressively livelier especially among the older hands as the week wears out), the topics range from animated discussions on the recently increased instances of overt and covert action of regional governments against media professionals, to heavy research flavoured stuff like the origins of the media in the islands region.

This sort of stuff is helping content on the group to burgeon into a useful repository of historical data on the media in the region –a subject on which there is very little by way of published resources.

The group being only just a few months old it’s probably a little premature to say so, but given its popularity and the deep and almost continuous involvement of its members, it has all the makings of also growing into the cyber world equivalent of the regional media’s collective consciousness.

In a geographically challenged environment like the Pacific Islands where the media in individual island countries are small and increasingly vulnerable, a group like this one could go a long way in providing both knowledge and moral support especially when many of them are facing hard times at the hands of their governments.

Being a group of likeminded professionals –and that too on the internet-- it has no locus standi of its own but could be more than a useful tool in receiving input and feedback on a range of issues concerning the media in the region from a highly experienced and concerned group of senior practitioners, dedicated academics and impartial observers.

Indeed it could prove most useful in strengthening the mandate of apex media organisations like the Pacific Islands News Association (PINA) should its observations, suggestions and constructive criticisms be taken in the right spirit.

That would only go a long way in not just strengthening the regional media’s operations but also getting regimes to ultimately recognise and acknowledge the important role that the media has to play in the fair governance of any country.