There is a huge difference in Fiji’s isolation at the Forum between last year and now.

Dev Nadkarni
Like last year’s Pacific Islands Forum meeting in Nuku’alofa, this year too in Niue the elephant in the room was Fiji. Only bigger and all the more menacing—ironically because of its absence.

There is a huge difference in Fiji’s isolation at the Forum between last year and now. In Nuku’alofa, the drive to isolate Fiji was spearheaded by New Zealand and the then Howard-led Australian administration.

Pacific leaders present then did not quite share the intensity of the ANZAC nations’ stridency in their dealings with the Fijian leadership.

However understated, there was a discernible sense of empathy with the difficulties Fiji was going through among other Pacific leaders, notably the Melanesian bloc.

It is against that backdrop that the Fijian leadership made assurances of holding elections by March 2009 much to the relief of the Pacific leaders and the skeptical, grudging assent of New Zealand and Australian leaders.

It was as if that strong sense of Pacific empathy had its effect on Bainimarama while he made that assurance. In fact, he went on record recently saying he felt compelled to make that promise though he was not sure if the practicalities on the ground would actually allow the elections to be scheduled.

Tuvalu’s Prime Minister Apisai Ielemia. Pic: Dev Nadkarni

It’s hard to say whether or not the presence of Pacific leaders really spurred him to make that promise. But then as now, observers suspected the promise had the singular overriding consideration of appeasing the European Community that had threatened to cut off a tranche of funds due to be released for Fiji’s sugar industry, pending its assurance to hold the elections in March 2009.

The Forum was the biggest and most credible platform to make that assurance especially in the presence of Pacific leaders. The funds were accordingly released later last year.

But for the Pacific leaders, Fiji’s backtracking on that promise—and worse—its decision to stay out of the Niue Forum on what several leaders saw as unconvincing grounds has been as disappointing as it has been a cause for rising concern.

Fiji’s reason for boycotting the Forum was because New Zealand did not invite it to the post-Forum dialogues in Auckland having issued only transit visas to the Fijian delegation that would only enable them to change planes in Auckland while flying to and from the Niue meeting.

Pacific leaders who passed through Auckland after the Forum en route to their respective countries expressed their disappointment quite openly—rather uncharacteristically so for Pacific leaders.

Tuvalu’s Prime Minister Apisai Ielemia told me that whatever the Fijian leadership had to say about the elections could have been said at the Forum in the presence of Pacific leaders.

“In fact, we understand Pacific issues better and would have been able to offer some perspectives, if not suggest solutions. We are all very keen to help Fiji come out of what it is going through in every way possible,” he added.

Solomon Islands Prime Minister Dr Derek Sikua. Pic: Dev Nadkarni

It was disappointing that Fiji had decided to withdraw into its shell, he said—a sentiment also echoed by the Solomon Islands Prime Minister Dr Derek Sikua.

“It is unfortunate that Fiji decided to stay out instead of having an open discussion with all of us in Niue,” he said.
Samoa's Prime Minister Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi has come out even more strongly against the Fiji regime's decision to boycott the Forum in media interviews after the Niue meeting.

Referring to the Fijian leader, he is quoted as saying, "What he is doing is ridiculing the independence and integrity of all the members of the Forum".

So, unlike last year, when Fiji’s isolation seemed to be driven by the region’s metropolitan countries, this year Fiji was the sole architect of its isolation.

Going by the sombre mood of some of the Pacific leaders I met and spoke to, it appears Fiji has well and truly painted itself into a corner.

New Zealand Prime Minister Helen Clark’s contention that the visa issue was just an issue to stay out of the Forum and avoid facing Pacific leaders is gaining credence in the Pacific leadership who believe that the Fijian leadership had every right to say what it wanted to say at the Forum even if it had what it thought to be valid reasons to delay the elections.

“Even if it has what it thinks are genuine reasons for not holding elections, unless these are spelt out, how does anyone know,” said one leader who did not wish to be named.

“By staying out in this manner it has made those reasons look quite questionable, like it or not.”

Dr Sikua however said that the Pacific nations had decided to join forces in stepping up the pressure on Fiji and wanted the issue sorted out before a follow-up meeting that Papua New Guinea Prime Minister Sir Michael Somare has undertaken to host in PNG either later this year or early next year.

Asked if the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG)—of which Fiji is a member along with the Solomon Islands, PNG and Vanuatu-—would also consider mounting the pressure, Dr Sikua said that could very much be a possibility depending on how the situation progresses.

But for one comment from Sir Michael Somare who was quoted in the media as saying he understands what Fiji is going through, the overwhelming feeling in the Pacific leadership camp is one of disappointment, even a growing sense of despondency in sharp contrast with the more conciliatory, even empathy-sodden mood in Nuku’alofa last year.

A measure of the leaders’ frustration is the fact that “expulsion” from the Forum was no longer a taboo concept while discussing worsening scenarios, though in reality such an eventuality may simply not be an option for sheer practical and geopolitical reasons; not the least because Fiji is a logistic hub and houses the headquarters of very many regional organisations.

While most saw Ms Clark’s likening of Fiji to Zimbabwe as being a bit over the top as things stand today, some leaders were clearly worried about the repercussions if such dark perceptions were to spread more widely.

For if trade embargoes and shipping restrictions are brought to bear, the people of Fiji would no doubt be put to hardship; but those from other Pacific islands nations—especially the smaller states—would be made to suffer equally if not more: Fiji is a trans-shipment point for merchandise to smaller ports in the region not serviced by the main trunk shipping lines.

The region has given no less than a firm ultimatum to Fiji’s leadership to show a credible roadmap with milestones leading up to elections and the return to democracy by next year. The writing is clearly on the wall.

Time is running out for it to come up with a convincing response to the unprecendented opprobrium it has received from its own peers and engage once again with the Forum nations before their sitting in PNG at the end of the year.
 
If instead it chooses to tread further up the path of self-isolation that it seems to have set for itself judging by its action of staying out of Niue, the situation in the region will undoubtedly take a turn for the worse.
Fiji will still be the elephant in the room for a long time to come. It is only hoped that it saves itself from being likened to a rogue one.