Australia and New Zealand told to adopt a more equal approach
A new report says Australia and New Zealand need to recognise the traditional orthodoxy in the Pacific has changed, and adopt a more equal approach to re-engaging with Fiji militarily.
Transcript
A new report says Australia and New Zealand need to recognise the traditional orthodoxy in the Pacific has changed, and adopt a more equal approach to re-engaging with Fiji militarily.
The report, by New Zealand academics Anna Powles and Jose Sousa-Santos, says since ties were severed after the 2006 coup, Fiji has sought closer links with countries like Russia, China and India.
But despite rapprochement with Wellington and Canberra, especially after Cyclone Winston, Fiji still shows no real desire to return to previous arrangements, highlighted by a recent deal for military equipment from Russia.
Dr Powles says driven by Fiji, Pacific countries have created a new confidence that Australia and New Zealand have to adapt into their policies.
She told Jamie Tahana that in terms of re-engaging with Fiji's military, the country has to be recognised as more of an equal for any progress to be made.
ANNA POWLES: What we've certainly seen over the last four years is a greater number of say non-traditional periphery players in the region, and I use the term non-traditional cautiously because of the connotations of that and certainly countries like China have been engaged in the region for a number of years now and are actively engaged in a number of different modes and so forth but certainly with increasing engagement with Russia into the region other countries as well.
JAMIE TAHANA: And I guess last year we had Russia ship many containers of arms and other equipment to Fiji, did that just underline it?
AP: But it was more, not so much that its indicated the Russians are coming but rather that New Zealand and Australia not surprisingly were certainly not the preferred security partner of Fiji and that's no surprise there it's going to take a long time to rebuild that relationship. But it did drive home that Fiji and other countries in the region have other partners and other friends and other security benefactors which could potentially challenge Australia New Zealand influence and access and influence into the region.
JT: Did it catch Australia New Zealand a bit off guard, if you look at New Zealand's defence White Paper now there's pretty much no mention of a changing Pacific dynamic or anything like that?
AP: Certainly there's no discussion in the New Zealand defence White Paper on this. The Australian defence White Paper is substantially more risk averse and does make comment recognising there are new players in the region and this could actually impact on Australia's influence. The line in the NZ defence White Paper is more subtle perhaps and indicates there are new players they're just not necessarily painted in a negative light. Whether or not they're slow to have caught on to it, I don't necessarily think so but I think what Australia New Zealand has been slow to catch on to is the fact that the regional dynamic itself is changing and has been changing for a number of years and that there is this resurgence of Pacific regionalism.
JT: Australia New Zealand and Fiji are working in a sense to restore the relationship, the door's open for Fiji to rejoin the Pacific Islands Forum, diplomatic relations have been restored, but Fiji in a sense are not rushing to go back to the Australia New Zealand club, they're quite happy with this new position they've found themselves in, so what do you suggest Australia New Zealand do now?
AP: Well this is the big question that everyone's been asking us around this and I think from our perspective if they are slowly, slowly, but that also means too that it's important to have, and we call it principal engagement and by that we mean that it's absolutely imperative that New Zealand and Australia seek to reengage and it's not this is not just about Prime Minister Bainimarama but it's about the beyond Bainimarama strategy and it's about building those relationships with people within government and civil society who are going to be the leaders in the future and while still maintaining the pressure on issues around human rights and democratic values and governance as well.
JT: Yes so maintaining that but you're also suggesting bringing Fiji in as a bit of a leader, acknowledging its military presence and having this peace keeping force and humanitarian relief as such.
AP: Well the reality is is that Fiji does have an active military force, it's more a reality and also a need too and cyclone Winston was case in point in terms of engagement with the RFMF over that period. And this is something that's come up out of criticisms over Fiji and peace keeping that the training they've been receiving hasn't been as good as past training, and it's obviously in everyone's interest that the Fijian military is a professional and disciplined force. But this is our region and for that reason we do need to develop good relationships based on principal values and so forth and engaging with Fiji and ensuring Fiji is part of that in the long term is important.
JT: In the conclusion, what's hit is a challenging and uncomfortable process for Australia and New Zealand because Fiji and other Pacific island countries are more autonomous, they are making their own decisions and relationships and such and is this something Australia and New Zealand have to accept and work around?
AP: Oh of course they do, Australia New Zealand are not colonial powers anymore and part of that is this goes beyond Fiji, across the other Pacific Island countries is developing relationships truly based on equal partnerships, cooperation, and mutual respect and that goes both ways. But it's incredibly important that that be recognised in a way that Canberra and Wellington engages with the Pacific and that's not necessarily the way that these relationships are playing out or have done for the last few years.
To embed this content on your own webpage, cut and paste the following:
See terms of use.