Testing Times for Pacific Forum

[Stacey King]

Islands Business - Letter From Suva: Laisa Taga

Over the years, the Pacific Islands Forum Secretariat has spent some F$200 million on hosting meetings in Fiji. That’s definitely a lot money. It means an average spending of more than F$5 million a year, if you take into account that the Forum was established in 1971.

If you look at it in economic terms, it’s a budget that translates to a throng of expenses that benefit the local economy—airfares to bring in those who come to meet, hotel bills, transportation costs, communication costs, food and drinks, entertainment and, generally per diem spent in Fiji. It also includes expenses by those expatriates employed by the Forum Secretariat.

You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out the benefits of such meetings to Fiji’s highly-stressed economy. Apart from this, Fiji is also expected to forfeit new financial and technical assistance. That may include an infrastructure fund worth millions of dollars funded mostly by the Asian Development Bank. Letter from Suva was unable to obtain how much the technical and financial assistance is worth when this edition went to press. But it can confirm, however, that Fiji stands to lose out all these if Bainimarama keeps playing his guessing game. Failure by Bainimarama to put a date on the polls by May 1 would see Fiji losing out on this much-needed finance. Can it afford this, particularly at this difficult and crucial time?

Definitely not, but it could if it does not comply with the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) Leaders’ decision announced late last month in Port Moresby. At that meeting Fiji was issued an ultimatum: announce by May 1 an election date to be held before the end of 2009 or face suspension from the Forum. And that would mean:

• Fiji not allowed to participate in all the forum meetings and events;
• It will be ineligible to benefit from Forum regional co-operation initiatives and new financial and technical assistance; and
• The suspension will remain until a democratically elected civilian parliamentary government is restored.

No Pacific islands state has ever been suspended from the Pacific Islands Forum in its 38-year history and if Fiji is suspended it will be the first.

Whether Bainimarama will comply with the ultimatum, no one really knows. But if we go by past record, he might just snub the leaders and “tell them to go jump”, according to a regional observer.
“We’ve seen him done that before: not honouring his commitment announced in Tonga that Fiji would hold elections by March 2009; pulling out of the Niue Forum in 2008; and again the January Port Moresby summit despite promising PNG’s Sir Michael Somare last year that he would attend.”
Instead, he sent an envoy—his attorney-general Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum—to the meeting. Sources at the meeting said sending Sayed-Khaiyum was a ‘big mistake’ made by Bainimarama.

“Had he sent his former foreign minister Ratu Epeli Nailatikau, the outcome of the meeting would have been different. Ratu Epeli is not only highly regarded amongst the leaders, his chiefly status would have also helped Fiji’s case,” they said.

Samoan Prime Minister Tuilaepa Sailele Malielegaoi has also described Bainimarama’s decision to send an envoy as a “very disrespectful behaviour”, he told the Samoa Observer.

With history showing, Bainimarama does not respond well to threats and deadlines. Already he has thumbed his nose at the ultimatum, saying Fiji will consider options to restore democracy “at our own pace”.

Other people have said that the decision by the leaders to put a timeline on Bainimarama may backfire on them. It could further harden Bainimarama and this could see him digging his heels in and refusing to listen to the leaders. So what then? How do we get Bainimarama to start talking to the leaders? If Bainimarama refuses to hold elections this year, what does this mean for the Forum? And to Australia and New Zealand who have been leading the campaign to take tougher stance on Fiji?

An article by Frank Gaglioti in www.wsws.org said that Australian PM Kevin Rudd’s aggressive stance has nothing to do with any concern for the democratic rights of ordinary Fijians. Canberra’s real concern is that prolonged military rule in Fiji may trigger further instability throughout the South Pacific. A previous coup in Fiji, in 2000, was immediately followed by a similar overthrow of the Solomon Islands government. The Australian foreign policy establishment especially fears that regional instability could allow rival powers to increase their influence.

“If Bainimarama refuses to hold elections and PIF fails to suspend Fiji, Canberra’s authority will be badly undermined. If, on the other hand, the country is suspended, then a host of other problems will emerge. Fiji’s capital Suva functions as the effective hub for Australian operations in the region, with the PIF secretariat, Australian Federal Police, and other organs based there. A forced withdrawal of all or some of these organisations from Suva would be a serious blow to Australian interests.”

The unfolding crisis, Gaglioti says, has served to expose Rudd’s hypocritical declaration of a “new partnership” and “mutual respect” between Canberra and the Pacific Islands countries. In reality, the Labor government will prove no less ruthless than its predecessor in seeking to further Australia’s aggressive, neo-colonial agenda in the region, and to exclude rival powers such as China from gaining a foothold.

BAINIMARAMA AND THE FORUM

Already the Fiji situation is testing the unity of the Forum. There has been no leader in the region who has pushed the Forum so far that member countries are now having to relook at their own allegiances and interests.

“Now more than ever before, the Forum is being put under closer scrutiny. Questions about its relevancy have also been raised. We are beginning see cracks within and if we are not careful, it will split the Forum.

“Just look at the POM summit, a number of Pacific countries, including PNG were reportedly reluctant to impose sanctions on Fiji,” the regional observer said.

“And the lead-up to the POM meeting—remember what happened? Host Somare was trying to defer the meeting to allow Bainimarama to attend, while the chair was trying to consult the leaders. In the end, 11 out of the 15 leaders agreed that the meeting should go ahead even if Bainimarama does not attend.
“For those who understand Forum protocols or way of doing business, it is normally the chair who makes Forum announcements on behalf of the Forum. In this case, Somare disregarded the Forum procedures and announced that the meeting was being postponed to allow Bainimarama to attend—sending confusing signals. Even Somare’s officials were advising some of the leaders including the Kiribati President that the POM meeting had been cancelled and that they should head back home,” the regional observer said.

ISLANDS vs ANZ

Fiji is not the only issue that is worrying the Forum. The increasing influence of the islands’ two ‘big brothers’ is a cause for concern for the regional organisation. Regional commentators have over the years noticed their increasing influence and how they have redefined Pacific priorities.

Fiji’s Sandra Tarte, a USP academic, has even suggested that ownership of the Forum is increasingly at risk, adding that it has eroded in recent years as economic, political and security initiatives of the Forum seemed to be increasingly driven by Australia and New Zealand—who are also the major donors of the Forum.

And imagine if a move by PM Rudd to get one of the two deputy secretary-general positions—currently being filled by two Pacific Islanders—given to Australia and New Zealand, which was put on the table at the 2008 Niue Forum but never discussed? It is an issue that could be raised when he hosts the Pacific Islands Leaders in their annual meeting proposed for August 4-7 in Cairns.If it does go ahead, it will definitely raise a lot of questions about whether PIF is able to serve the interests of the Pacific Islands Countries.

As Maureen Penjueli, coordinator of the Pacific Network on Globalisation says: “In recent years, Australia and New Zealand have moved from strength to strength in their quest to replace the Pacific Way with their way.

“It appears their goal is to impose their ideology, their free trade agenda, their institutions and operatives, their economic interests, their political authority and their strategic influence on the islands of the Pacific.

“If the Pacific leaders are not able to stop this, we could see the beginning of the demise of the Pacific Way and the reign of the ANZ (Australia, New Zealand) Way.”