‘…if Fiji fails to meet the May 1 deadline, it looks remote that a threat of suspension from the Forum is ever going to work. A suspension, if it happens, will clearly affect other smaller nations, especially if the interim administration were to adopt any retaliatorymeasures Moreover, such an isolationist tack might further drive the military leadership to the corner and risk cutting off the possibility of keeping channels of communication open for any negotiations’

 

The outcome of the special Pacific Islands Forum leaders’ meeting in Port Moresby to discuss the Fiji situation late last month was wholly expected: an ultimatum to its military-led Interim Government to hold elections by a set date.

Niue Premier and Forum chairman Toke Talagi has told Fiji that it must hold elections by the end of this year and come up with a schedule for doing so by May 1, failing which it will face suspension from the Forum.

This will mean non-participation at all Forum meetings and events by its leader, ministers and officials and according to the statement issued, “ineligibility of the Fiji interim government to benefit from Forum regional cooperation initiatives and new financial and technical assistance, other than assistance towards the restoration of democracy under the framework of the Biketawa Declaration.”

For all the tough language that was used by Prime Minister John Key and Australian Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in the run-up to the meeting about Fiji’s possible suspension from the Forum, it could never have been a realistic option. PNG Prime Minister and host Sir Michael Somare’s craftily worded opening address to the leaders made it amply clear that the Pacific community did not share the western countries’ sense of urgency for a suspension.

And even if Fiji fails to meet the May 1 deadline, suspension will still be an extremely difficult option to exercise and will come at a huge cost—not so much to Fiji as some other islands nations.

Fiji remains the hub of the South Pacific and a number of smaller islands nations, particularly Tuvalu and Kiribati, are completely dependent on it for transport and trade links with the outside world.

The reluctance of their leaders to take a hard line on Fiji even at last month’s meeting is an indication of how much a possible suspension could affect their countries.

Fiji also houses a range of regional organisations including the Forum headquarters, besides the regional offices of international development and aid organisations and the diplomatic missions of several countries. The University of the South Pacific’s Fiji campus is home to over 15,000 students from around the Pacific islands region. Almost all of these students had to be evacuated at tremendous costs to their home governments in the wake of the George Speight-led coup in 2000.

Commodore Bainimarama is well aware of the leveraging value of Fiji’s regional gateway status. He has publicly said that the decision to suspend the country was entirely up to the Forum and that it would not affect his interim government’s plans in any way. “That’s for them to decide, not me. It’s their call,” he told the Fiji media after pulling out of the Port Moresby meeting.

On the eve of the meeting, when the media was full of reports of the country’s suspension as a very possible outcome, he was reported to have said that elections would be held only after the electoral reform process that his administration has embarked on was completed, which may even take five to 10 years—a statement that drew strong criticism from Prime Minister Key.

By all indications, if Fiji fails to meet the May 1 deadline, it looks remote that a threat of suspension from the Forum is ever going to work. A suspension, if it happens, will clearly affect other smaller nations, especially if the interim administration were to adopt any retaliatory measures.

Moreover, such an isolationist tack might further drive the military leadership to the corner and risk cutting off the possibility of keeping channels of communication open for any negotiations.

As it is, New Zealand and Australia have maintained this isolationist approach since the months following the December 2006 coup and might well have lost a valuable window of opportunity to engage with Bainimarama before his military administration had the chance to dig in its heels.

Recent events give every indication that the leader and his military council are now firmly entrenched and used to the allurements of power.

In the past few months, Bainimarama has appointed himself the finance minister, presiding over a situation that has seen his military spend some 39 percent more than what the national budget allocated it—some F$23 million extra funds have been spent on the armed forces’ salaries alone.

He also recently claimed for himself some F$200,000 of taxpayer funds as “back pay” for his 30-year military service and had Commander Francis Kean reinstated as the Navy chief after serving a sentence on charges of manslaughter after a man died outside a club following an altercation with him a couple of years ago. Kean is Bainimarama’s brother-in-law. Critics of the move said the reappointment of Kean was not only nepotism, it also brought disrepute to the integrity of that high office.

These developments might well have cost him a fair bit of goodwill he might have had in Fiji—particularly among those who supported his initial drive against the country’s widespread corruption and the race-based electoral system besides the sweeping promises he made for a better Fiji as a justification for his December 2006 takeover.

Rather than follow the same isolationist approach and wait for Fiji to take any action, it would be far more prudent for the international community to keep all channels of communication open and in fact get Pacific leaders—especially of the Melanesian bloc like Sir Michael Somare—to front up for negotiations with Bainimarama and the military administration—to find not just a quick, but a lasting solution to Fiji’s long-standing problems.