The proof of Bainimarama's commitment to transparency and sound process is, as always, in the implementation. But for the moment, his words should be taken at face value. The start of a credible process should be welcomed.

Shadow Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade Julie Bishop said just this week that it was time for Australia to re-engage with Fiji and said a Coalition government would pursue such an approach. Carr has signaled he is committed to bipartisanship in foreign policy.

Trans-Tasman cooperation in foreign policy is important to both Canberra and Wellington when it comes to the Pacific Islands region. Bob Carr's first working visit is to New Zealand. New Zealand Foreign Minister McCully has welcomed Bainimarama's announcement as a 'real step in the right direction.' He will likely be keen to cooperate with Carr on using Australian and New Zealand policy to incentivise further reform in Fiji.

The timing of Bainimarama's announcement presents Carr with an ideal opportunity to signal a shift in Australian policy that fortuitously does not involve reneging on core Australian principles about democratic process. The alignment of the stars here is too rare to be missed.

Photo by Flickr user vapourtrails.

A visit by Rudd to PNG to meet with O'Neill and Somare and encourage them both to reach an amicable agreement (which may mean a concession from Somare and a gesture from O'Neill which restores respect for the courts and constitution) for the good of the country is worth considering. 

What's the worst that could happen? If there's no outcome, Australia would appear impotent and be accused of interfering (though that is hardly a new occurrence in the Pacific – look at Fiji). But it could work and at the very least would send a signal to the people of PNG that Australia cares deeply about their future. It would also tell the world that Australia is serious about its middle-power credentials and values stability in its neighbourhood — worthwhile signals, given Australia's aspirations for a temporary seat on the UN Security Council.

It may be easier to exercise creative foreign policy in countries and regions where Australia bears little responsibility but Canberra needs to bring that same creativity to its own neighbourhood if is to convince the world it is a serious middle power.

The Australian Government pragmatically and correctly opted to stay out of the heady days of the constitutional crisis in December. But the enduring nature of the crisis and the damage being done to PNG's international standing in the lead-up to important general elections mean it is time for a rethink in Canberra.

Image courtesy of the Minister for Foreign Affairs.

His family's declaration that they will continue Somare's struggle to reclaim the prime ministership will also offend the population. PNG is a vibrant democracy with no tradition of dynastic leadership transfers in parliament. PNG's leadership may well have been dominated since 2002 by Michael Somare, who was also the founding prime minister, but the people will not sympathise with his family's desperation to stay in power.

For Peter O'Neill's Government (whose record since the constitutional crisis has not been blameless, with the controversial deportation of a New Zealand businessman and a diplomatic spat with Indonesia), the resolution of the mutiny is good news. It strengthens its legitimacy as a new generation government committed to stability.

One positive conclusion to draw from all the instability of the past couple of months is that PNG has not followed the path of many African states which have endured similar challenges. No civil unrest or even mass public protest followed either the constitutional crisis in December or the dramatic events of yesterday. No state of emergency was declared. Diplomatic missions have not had to evacuate staff. Business has proceeded largely as normal. The population has effectively looked on as politicians have engaged in battle for the spoils of office.

With elections due in June, there is, however, no certainty that the nation's politicians will turn their focus to the good of the nation rather than pursuing their personal ambitions.

Photo by Flickr user ComSec.

Importantly, the Fiji Government now feels secure enough to commence discussions on a new constitution. It needs to demonstrate to the nation that it is genuine about the consultation process that is promised to commence in February, explained here by Attorney-General Aiyaz Sayed-Khaiyum, and to do that it has to lift the PER.

For its part, the Australian Government has consistently said it would not engage with the Fiji Government until it made some credible steps towards restoring democracy. It is not clear from the statements of the acting Foreign Minister or the Prime Minister whether a 'step in the right direction' is enough to warrant any new overtures from Canberra to Suva.

But it is the only 'step' we have seen from Suva for some time. Canberra should use the opportunity offered by the lifting of the PER to initiate some serious conversations with the Fiji Government about assistance for the consultation process on a new constitution. If Australia can offer funding to allow some international experts in constitutional development to provide much needed advice on this process, without strings attached, it could go some way towards encouraging a more open Fiji.

Canberra could also demonstrate good faith by opening talks about the restoration of respective High Commissioners, waiving sanctions on officials who want to visit or transit Australia to engage in talks on constitutional development or elections, and encouraging the participation of potential leaders in international dialogue opportunities.

If the Fiji Government follows through on its intentions to commence early consultations on a new constitution, a 'wait and see' approach from Australia now could see Canberra's influence further marginalised. Our Fiji Poll showed that 83% of Fijians thought Fiji should be left to sort out its return to democracy on its own, as opposed to 16% who thought that foreign countries should put pressure on Fiji.

A proactive approach from Australia that is calibrated to help the Fiji people decide their own priorities for constitutional reform might just help the formation of a more sustainable democracy.

Photo, of the Fiji press in 2009, by Flickr user Jachin Sheehy.

A possible alternative is a national unity government or grand coalition that could govern in 'caretaker' mode until election writs are issued. As things stand, it seems unlikely Somare and O'Neill would agree to this because both would have to compromise and cede an advantage each perceives they have.

But there are advantages to this solution. Ministries could be shared equally among both cabinets or the cabinet could be extended temporarily to satisfy both sides. The budget and other vital legislation could be passed quickly. While it could increase the bounty available to members on the government benches prior to elections, it could also remove the political advantage that the dominant party has in the campaign, which would be no bad thing. 

A level playing field might just make for a better outcome in many constituencies. It might also restore some public and investor confidence in PNG's political system after the damage wrought this week.

Successive PNG governments have failed to deliver benefits to the population from the country’s immense resources wealth. Both sides in PNG would do well to remember that the growing youth population of their country is unlikely to tolerate politicians who pursue their own ambitions at the expense of the people. PNG needs a government that can convert revenue from natural resources into improving health and education for all and providing opportunities for young people.

Australian journalists have speculated on what Australia can do to help. For our nearest neighbour, 15th largest trading partner, second largest aid recipient and former colony, the Australian nation should bear some sense of responsibility. But there is little, if anything, Australia can do in the current impasse. So far, the public reaction has been peaceful.

If the deadlock is prolonged and triggers some violence, there may be some calls for assistance to maintain law and order — particularly if the division among PNG's police means they cannot respond effectively. Even in this situation, Australia may only be willing to offer the assistance of its existing Australian Federal Police advisers in PNG.

This crisis has been brought about by PNG's politicians and ultimately has to be solved by them. While the Australian Government can certainly encourage both sides to agree to talk to each other, Australia can really only watch with interest and hope for the best.

Photo by Flickr user goingslo. 

The quality of voter registration has been an issue in Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea, so Fiji has to get this first step right if it is to persuade the international community it is serious about 2014. The features of the EVR system envisioned in the tender document may be ambitious for a developing country but if a high-quality registration system can be established in Fiji, that should be a positive development.

The tender document says voter registration will commence on 1 January 2012 (that's only a few weeks away) and be completed by 30 June 2012. It also indicates that the Fiji Government is following through on an earlier promise to lower the voting age from 21 to 18. This means Fiji citizens who are currently 15 years old and have lived under a military dictatorship since they were ten years old may be voting for the first time in 2014.

Fiji does not have the same youth bulge as the rest of Melanesia. According to the 2007 census, those aged between 10 and 19 years made up 19% of the population — not enough, perhaps, to determine the eventual result but a significant proportion with no real memory of democratic government.

I'm no expert in electronic voter registration but I'm guessing that providers of this kind of technology would derive from democratic countries and would probably have some connection with democratic governments, having provided a similar service to them.

Donors would have preferred to have been asked to assist with voter registration and therefore gain greater confidence that Fiji was serious about election preparations. But the capacity of the Fiji government to fund this activity itself and to seek international expertise from democratic countries in establishing it should be welcomed, however cautiously, by those putting pressure on Fiji. 

Donors who want to influence Fiji need to stay engaged and keep offering assistance with future election preparations. The Fiji government is unlikely to accept future assistance from countries which condemn this first step but might be inclined to be open to those who indicate they are interested in the process.

Danny Philip, the Prime Minister of Solomon Islands, resigned ahead of a no-confidence motion that looked certain to defeat him and has been replaced by Gordon Darcy Lilo. The protests that followed his election by the parliament hint that he may not be the most popular choice. But it would not be the first time that a politician accused of corrupt activities held the top job in Solomon Islands and so does not necessarily prevent Darcy Lilo, long a key power-broker in Honiara, from being an effective leader.

In this unfortunate confluence of instability in the region, tiny Nauru has to win the contest. The Nauru parliament has elected its third president in under a week. While the consequences of political instability in Nauru are arguably not as significant as in the vastly more populous Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands, it is hardly conducive to building confidence in the nation's ability to address the needs of its people.

These events are of course not as threatening to the health of democracy in the Pacific as the prevailing situation in Fiji. In fact, they prove that the democratic process works and political crises can be resolved without recourse to violence, which is undoubtedly positive. What is troubling about them is that they suggest a continuing inclination to provoke instability to achieve political advantage.

Changes of leadership during election cycles are not uncommon in the Pacific nor are they inherently negative developments, but they don't help international perceptions of the region or encourage confidence in economies.

The events of the last few weeks highlight an inherent tension in parliamentary politics in the Pacific. Constitutions and parliamentary standing orders allow governments to be thrown out and replaced without reference to voters. This flexibility permits both poor and good leaders to be replaced and the make-up of coalitions to be altered – for good or for bad. Removing or constraining this flexibility would be anti-democratic. 

But strong oppositions which hold governments to account are also vital to the effective functioning of parliamentary democracy. As long as provoking instability to achieve or stay in office is more attractive than acquiring and practicing the skills to pressure the government from the opposition benches, the integrity of parliamentary politics risks impairment.

Photo by Flickr user hopscotch_mom.

Australia's Opposition also recognised the importance of the relationship with PNG. Foreign Affairs and Trade Spokesperson Julie Bishop had led the way with this speech to the Lowy Institute in June. Opposition Leader Tony Abbott's participation in the lunch the government hosted for Prime Minister O'Neill on the same day the Carbon Tax legislation was passed in the House of Representatives reflected a welcome bipartisan commitment to good relations with Australia's nearest neighbour.

The occasion of the Ministerial Forum allowed both governments to announce the long-awaited results of the review of the PNG university system led by Sir Rabbie Namaliu and Professor Ross Garnaut. Both governments committed to funding the reforms proposed by the review. The PNG Government has also committed to providing free education to all students up to year 10 by next year, following similar initiatives for primary school in Vanuatu and Solomon Islands. If realised, this promises to make a big contribution to improving PNG's poor education outcomes of recent years.

The introduction of a Work and Holiday visa arrangement is probably not as exciting as it sounds. This type of arrangement is typically a political tool, offered to add breadth to a bilateral relationship but with only limited benefits for the young people of either country. Unlike the more liberal Working Holiday Visa available to young people from a number of European and North Asian countries, the Work and Holiday visa has a quota of only 100 in PNG's case and requires applicants to have the support of their government, putting the onus on students to convince their government they are worthy of inclusion in the program. 

Our nearest neighbour deserves visa arrangements a little more generous than this, and than the Pacific Seasonal Worker Pilot Scheme (which has so far not seen large numbers of Papua New Guineans participate). But it is nevertheless a good start to encouraging closer people-to-people relations.

As a sign that the official relationship is evolving beyond aid, both countries agreed to sign an Economic Cooperation Treaty. Australia committed to further assistance for the establishment of PNG's sovereign wealth fund. The much more significant role played by business in the Ministerial Forum and during O'Neill's visit is a further indication that Canberra acknowledges relations with Australia's 15th largest trading partner should be about more than aid. The establishment of a committee of senior government officials and business leaders is also a positive move.

O'Neill may only be Prime Minister until national elections are held in mid-2012, so he has little time to prosecute the reforms he promises before being subjected to the infamous uncertainty of PNG elections. But on initial impressions, he and his government appear to be serious about changing PNG and deserve the serious attention they are attracting from Canberra.

Photo courtesy of foreignminister.gov.au.

Conducting opinion polls in countries without democracy and freedom of speech is hardly new or controversial. The highly respected US-based Pew Research Center has conducted opinion polls as part of its Global Attitudes Project in 57 countries since 2002, including in China, Pakistan, Egypt, Jordan and Russia, none of which has a proud reputation for encouraging freedom of expression and a free media.

Rather than labeling these polls as ridiculous, the US State Department uses the data to inform its public diplomacy. The Lowy Institute itself conducted an opinion poll in China in 2009. Reporters Without Borders recently labeled China the 'world's biggest prison for journalists, bloggers and cyber-dissidents', and ranked it 168 out of 178 countries in a 2011 index for press freedom. Despite the far more serious restrictions on freedom of speech that prevail in China than those in Fiji, there was no Australian government criticism of our China Poll. 

The refusal rate on the question that is bothering the Australian government – that relating to the performance of Commodore Bainimarama as Prime Minister — was only 2%. The poll did not 'purport' to show strong support for the Bainimarama government – the poll simply reported the results of the survey and 66% of the Fiji people said Bainimarama was doing either a very good or good job as Prime Minister, 25% said he was doing an average job and 8% said he was doing either a fairly poor or very poor job. We did not invent these figures.

Just because the people polled expressed views that conflicted with what the Australian government believes the Fiji people think does not make the poll ridiculous. Thanks in large part to the Fiji regime's restrictions on free speech, the Australian government has relied on the views largely of elites – academics, NGO leaders, Fijians with chiefly status, former politicians, some businesspeople, blogs written largely by Fiji citizens residing in Australia and New Zealand – to inform its views of what the Fiji people think. 

With the exception of the occasional taxi driver, the people diplomats rely on for information and opinions tend not to be gardeners, textile workers, nurses, teachers, shop staff or unemployed people. Such people probably don't come to the attention of the regime in Fiji, and they may not feel as fearful as outspoken critics of the regime about the consequences of expressing an opinion.

Unless there is clear evidence (not just an assumption) that the 1036 1032 people surveyed felt intimidated and lied about their true feelings, there is no reason to dismiss the poll. It wouldn't be the first time diplomats were confounded that public opinion did not equate with the views of the people they speak with. I have a feeling the occasional foreign diplomat serving in Canberra, whose contacts are public servants, ANU academics and press gallery correspondents, might raise their eyebrows at the results of Newspoll and Nielson from time to time.

Mr Marles also used his speech to lash critics of Australian policy towards Fiji. He argued there should be more criticism of the abhorrent Fiji regime and that those who criticise Australian policy need to ask themselves a fundamental question. Those who argue Australian policy needs reform should 'own their views', he said, and need to address the conduct of the Fiji government and ensure it is at the heart of the issue in anything they write about Australian policy. 

I'm a critic of Australian policy towards Fiji but only because I think it could be more effective in encouraging reform in Fiji and ultimately edging out the abhorrent regime, not because I support Bainimarama, whom I have criticised regularly. Questioning Australian policy does not equate to supporting a foreign dictatorship. This is not a matter of 'if you are not with us, you're against us.'

Mr Marles' comments were made in a speech to the Lowy Institute so we have to assume they are a true reflection of how the Australian government thinks about freedom of speech in Fiji. The lessons we have to draw are that the Fiji people should not be asked to express their views and that critics of Australian foreign policy towards Fiji are unreasonable. You have to wonder if Canberra really is committed to freedom of speech in Fiji or only to the kind of speech which confirms the views of the Australian government.

This is the first opinion poll conducted in Fiji since 2008 and the first to canvas the views of the Fiji people about Fiji's international relations. Rather than dismissing it, as opponents of Bainimarama have done, why not seize on it as evidence that the Fiji people are interested in expressing their opinions, an opportunity denied them by their own government?

Some of the results are inconvenient to opponents of the Bainimarama regime, but not all are. As Michael O'Keefe pointed out in an opinion piece in The Australian, there is some positive news in the poll that cannot be ignored. What about the 98% of people who say they think it is important to have the right to freely vote in national elections, the right to freely express yourself and the right to a fair trial? What about the 96% of people who say it is important to have a media free from censorship? 

Should we be dismissing these opinions as those of a fearful and intimidated people whose views cannot be trusted or should the international community try to assist them? As Prime Minister Gillard said, this is a question about values and whether you believe in democracy. Our poll presents clear evidence that the Fiji people do believe in democratic values; they do not deserve to be summarily dismissed.

From Australia's point of view, should we write off the 76% of people who want Fiji to have a good relationship with Australia or should the Australian Government try to capitalise on this strong support for Australia?

It has been suggested by no less than Samoan Prime Minister Tuilaepa that the Fiji people were too afraid to speak against Bainimarama. I have to admit that I thought exactly the same thing when I saw the results. It perplexed me that, despite Fiji's economic malaise, increasing poverty and the Public Emergency Regulation which suppresses people's rights, the Fiji people were still willing to say Bainimarama was doing a good job. I thought fear must be the explanation. 

But if this was the case, why did only 1% of respondents refuse to answer and only 1% say they did not know? Furthermore, the people who participated in this survey were not advised that it had been commissioned by the Lowy Institute so they did not necessarily know the results would be published. And lastly, while an approval rating of 66% seems high, it is still lower than the 73% approval rating (in a poll conducted by Tebbutt Research using the same methodology used for the Lowy Institute Fiji Poll) that Prime Minister Laisenia Qarase achieved in June 2006. Bainimarama is less popular after five years in power than Qarase was after a similar period, a result which Fiji's SDL party can celebrate.

Rather than attack the methodology or the motivations of the Lowy Institute and Tebbutt Research, it would be more constructive for Bainimarama's opponents (of which I am one) to debate why the Fiji people hold the opinions they hold. Do these results reflect the lack of information available to the Fiji people? Do they reflect the media censorship which controls the flow and quality of information and the lack of freedom of speech imposed by the Public Emergency Regulation, which means opposing voices are not heard in the public domain? Do they reflect lower public expectations of government brought about by a series of coups?

There is surely a case for greater civic education efforts in Fiji – by non-government organisations and by the international community. The poll shows that the Fiji people are less willing to approve of the military playing a permanent role in politics than they are of the military's current role, and they are not entirely convinced the Fiji Government is making progress in moving the country back to democracy. This shows a people thinking about their situation and what is in their best interests. To ignore them would be a missed opportunity.

Poll methodology

The methodology of the Poll is explained on p.23 of the publication but a summary and further information is provided here:

The poll was conducted by Tebbutt Research, a Suva-based company which has conducted polling in Fiji since 1992, published annually in conjunction with the Fiji Times. The Lowy Institute reported the results of the poll. The results are the views of the people of Fiji, not the opinions of any member of staff of the Lowy Institute, nor any member of staff of Tebbutt Research.

The Lowy Institute has a strong reputation for high quality opinion polling, having conducted 7 annual opinion polls on foreign policy in Australia and an opinion poll in China on foreign policy.

As with all opinion polls commissioned and published by the Lowy Institute and opinion polling conducted by Tebbutt Research in Fiji, participants in the survey were not paid a fee. Interviews were conducted face-to-face in the major urban and peri-urban centres of Viti Levu, consistent with previous polls conducted by Tebbutt Research. Fieldwork was conducted by the Tebbutt Research field team in accordance with global best practice, specifically the ESOMAR standard.

1,032 people were interviewed on a face-to-face, door-to-door basis, with one respondent aged 18+ per household. Start points were selected at random. Respondents were selected at random and respondents were selected at random from within the household, to quota. Data was post-weighted to the Fiji Bureau of Statistics population estimates. 

The breakdown of respondents was:

• Ethnicity: 48% indigenous Fijian, 44% Indo-Fijian, 8% other.
• Gender: 51% males, 49% females.
• Location: 23% Suva, 25% Nasinu, 5% Lami, 15% Nausori, 12% Nadi, 15% Lautoka, 5% Ba.
• Age: 18-20 (12%), 21-29 (23%), 30-44 (33%), 45+ (33%).
• Education levels: no formal education 2%, primary school 11%, middle high (10-11 years) 13%, upper high (12-13 years) 32%, technical or trade school 21%, some university 14%, university degree 7%.

The Lowy Institute has presented the results of an opinion poll of the Fiji people and has not manipulated them in any way. 

Photo by Flickr user Henry Work.

• The Fiji people recorded warm feelings towards Australia (74°) and New Zealand (72°) but relatively cool feelings towards their Pacific Island neighbours (50° to 55°).
• China attracted fairly warm feelings (64°) from the Fiji people and 60% of people strongly agreed with the importance of a good official relationship between Fiji and China.
• 79% disagreed with Fiji's suspension from the Pacific Islands Forum and 76% disagreed with Fiji's suspension from the Commonwealth.
• 83% thought foreign countries should let Fiji sort out its return to democracy on its own.
• Despite Fiji's suspension from the Pacific Islands Forum, 77% believed Fiji's leadership role in the Pacific was either the same or stronger than it was five years ago.
• 51% said the Pacific Islands Forum was more important to Fiji than the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG), while only 16% said the MSG was more important.
• 61% thought the Government was doing a good job of listening to the people.
• The Fiji Government's delivery of basic services attracted strong support (for example, 82% thought the Fiji Government was doing a good job delivering education).
• 67% said the Fiji Government was doing a good job ending racial divisions.
• A slight majority (53%) said democracy was the preferred form of government but:
  • 98% said the right to freely vote in national elections, the right to freely express yourself and the right to a fair trial was important to them.
  • 96% said the right to a media free from censorship was important to them.
• The poll coincided with Bainimarama's recent bans on Methodist Church activities but 66% said the Church should not be involved at all in politics.
• 68% approved of the Fiji military's role in politics at the moment but approval for a permanent role for the military slipped back to 53%.

* The figures with ° indicate where participants were asked to nominate their feeling, with 100 meaning a very warm, favourable feeling and 0 meaning a very cold, unfavourable feeling. 

Photo by Flickr user yuko_ppp2501.

...may be removed from office by the Head of State, acting in accordance with a decision of the Parliament, if the Speaker advises the Parliament that two medical practitioners appointed by the National Authority responsible for the registration or licensing of medical practitioners have jointly reported in accordance with an Act of the Parliament that, in their professional opinions, the Prime Minister is unfit, by reason of physical or mental incapacity, to carry out the duties of his office. (Section 142, clause 5[c].) 

To date, only one medical practitioner (Somare's personal physician) has examined Somare but the Governor-General was expected to appoint two medical practitioners to report on Somare's health. The lack of clarity around Somare's health has raised some doubts about the legality of yesterday's vote, and it could yet be challenged. Papua New Guinea rarely misses an opportunity to prove its reputation as the 'land of the unexpected' and there could be more surprises to come.

If, however, O'Neill continues in the job of Prime Minister and appoints a new cabinet, this will represent a break with the Somare era in PNG politics. O'Neill has an opportunity to make some credible cabinet appointments and start to recapture public confidence in government. 

With a number of highly ambitious and prominent members of parliament backing him, O'Neill will also need to manage high expectations within his cabinet. He will have to act quickly to assert the authority of his government and deliver real outcomes from the promises of great wealth that are on offer as part of PNG's resources boom — before the country begins to gear up for important general elections due in mid-2012.

Photo by Flickr user Contando Estrelas.

Dr Fraenkel and others have suggested I have abandoned opponents of Bainimarama in Fiji. I am somewhat astonished at the level of perceived influence this suggests the Lowy Institute has in Fiji. 

The Lowy Institute publishes research, generates ideas and convenes events to encourage discussion of Australia's role in the world. We do not serve a government, a political party, a corporation, a lobby group or a team aligned to one or another side of any argument in Fiji. We do not implement foreign policy, nor are we a player in Fiji. I have no personal or financial interests in Fiji. My professional interests are very simply focused on analysing the efficacy of Australian policy in the Pacific and offering ideas that might help policy-makers think about how to make it more effective.

Opponents of Bainimarama who do have vested interests in Fiji might be better served debating what they can do to restore democracy in their country and perhaps focusing on the real problem in Fiji, which is not the Lowy Institute but the illegitimate government of Frank Bainimarama. Outsiders, such as the Australian and other governments, can hope to influence change, which is what my paper advocates. But the ultimate responsibility for making it happen has to be taken by the citizens of Fiji.

I have been accused in various places of being an agent of the Australian Government and of Australian business. Neither is true. The Lowy Institute is an independent, non-partisan think tank that was founded by one of Australia's leading businessman, Frank Lowy, but receives funding from a variety of sources, including Australian and US-based foundations, the Australian and other governments and some Australian and international businesses. The Melanesia Program at the Lowy Institute is funded by the philanthropic Myer Foundation. 

I was not commissioned to write a Policy Brief by Australian or Fiji business organisations or by any government. However, I believe that foreign policy analysts should consider that the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has a mandate to advance 'Australia's international strategic, security and economic interests, including through bilateral, regional and multilateral engagement on Australian Government foreign and trade policy priorities.' One of the reasons I did not advocate Australia impose full economic and trade sanctions on Fiji – which could certainly be a much more effective way of hurting the Fiji regime – is that I know the Australian Government would find it difficult to ignore the Fiji interests of two of Australia's big four banks, as well as other Australian financial sector and tourism investments, and to risk damaging the livelihoods of ordinary Fiji citizens.

I accept Jon Fraenkel's criticism that I did not provide a full assessment of where the situation in Fiji is likely to go. My assessment was that further entrenchment of authoritarianism and of Bainimarama's rule was likely, and I developed my recommendations as a way Australia could try to assist Fiji to avert this outcome. I set out to analyse how effective Australian policy had been in achieving the Australian Government's own objectives in Fiji. I outlined the very difficult environment in which Australian diplomats were trying to achieve these objectives.

I did not accept at face value Bainimarama's intention to hold elections in 2014. I argued the exact opposite — that we should be sceptical about the promise and put in place a strategy that puts more pressure on Bainimarama to hold elections that have a chance of being free, fair and workable.

Importantly, I also acknowledged the potential risks of following my recommendations. I said Bainimarama would likely reject an alternative strategy to influence him to restore democracy but that this rejection would have the benefit of solidifying crumbling international opinion against Bainimarama — one of the reasons current Australian policy is not as effective as it should be. 

I did not suggest abandoning sanctions, as the Samoan Prime Minister, for whom I have the utmost respect, seems to believe. I said travel sanctions should be maintained on Bainimarama and key members of the regime, but I did recommended that Australia adjust the travel restrictions so that non-political actors who might be strong supporters of democracy and friends of Australia do not get caught up in them, and so that Australia can create an environment where the Fiji Government might listen to Canberra. I also suggested Australia could consider imposing more effective sanctions in other areas against Fiji.

I do not believe Australia is omnipotent or driving events in Fiji, as Dr Fraenkel suggests in his article. The Australian Government, however, does believe it has influence in the region and pursues a policy approach designed to influence change in Fiji. If it did not believe this, it would not spend diplomatic resources implementing the policy and keeping the Pacific Islands Forum's position intact. 

I have acknowledged that the fault for the policy failings lie with Bainimarama. My concern, though, is that Bainimarama's actions and the greater ambivalence towards dealing with the Fiji regime on behalf of other governments are undermining Australia's influence.

But the challenging environment in Fiji is no reason to hold back on developing a more effective approach to influencing change. Effective and creative diplomacy the world over is conducted in order to influence change. Kevin Rudd, like Stephen Smith, Alexander Downer and Gareth Evans before him, goes to work every day because he believes Australian diplomacy can influence change. That is what inspired me to write my Policy Brief.

Photo by Flickr user Cak-cak.

I acknowledged in the paper that the measures I outlined would probably fail – that the Fiji Government would again reject any offer by Australia to help restore democracy and will castigate Canberra for interfering. I also argued that the failure of the policy I recommended should have a consequence that existing policy has not yet created.

If Fiji rejects a package of assistance for democratic reform from a partnership which includes countries it has been anxious to impress (like Indonesia, India, Malaysia, South Korea and Papua New Guinea) it should help solidify crumbling international opinion against Bainimarama and make it clear internationally and within Fiji that the Fiji Government is not committed to a democratic future or to genuine international partnerships. This could increase international pressure on Fiji and offer support to those in Fiji who could lead a democratic government in the future.

That the Fiji Government is unwilling to acknowledge criticism of its actions is unsurprising – this is a Government that continues to enforce a Public Emergency Regulation and a Media Industry Development Decree that prevent people from voicing an opinion contrary to that of the Government.

What is surprising about this press release is how alarmed the Fiji Government admits it is over the defection and flight of Lt Col Tevita Mara. 

I'm not sure whether Mara has the capacity to be the 'game changer' that the Fiji Democracy Movement wants him to be. Mara is certainly no Nelson Mandela or Aung San Suu Kyi and his own participation in the Bainimarama regime is cause enough for some doubt about his commitment to democracy. But for the moment, he can give a voice to people in Fiji who have none, and he can likely reveal more about the inner workings of the Fiji regime than any internal opponent. 

If the Fiji Government believes Mara to be a fugitive and political opportunist, why is it so alarmed about what he might say in Australia and New Zealand and why issue a press statement which not only draws attention to Mara’s significance but maligns the Foreign Ministers of Australia and New Zealand and denigrates the government of Tonga? Could the regime be preparing an excuse to renege on an invitation to the Pacific Islands Forum's Ministerial Contact Group to visit Fiji, or is it worried that Mara's defection might mark the beginning of the end?

If the Fiji Government had ignored Mara's defection or quietly requested his extradition from Tonga, I would not have thought his activities in Tonga and Australia very important. The strident nature of the Fiji Government's intervention on this issue (and its willingness to completely misrepresent my arguments) only makes me think that what Mara has to say might be very significant in the life of Fiji's military dictatorship.

• Australian policy has failed to achieve its own goal in Fiji: to encourage a restoration to democracy.
• Bainimarama's regime has formed other international partnerships which undermine the effectiveness of Australia's approach.
• Australia's regional leadership and international reputation is threatened by the entrenchment of the Bainimarama regime.
• Australia should develop a more effective policy that protects its long-term interests in Fiji and advocates democracy.
• Consistent with Foreign Minister Kevin Rudd's statement that creative middle powers like Australia should work in coalitions with non-traditional partners to tackle old problems in new ways, I suggest that Australia should form a coalition with key allies and new partners such as Indonesia, India, Malaysia, South Korea and PNG and offer a package of assistance for constitutional and electoral reform in Fiji — as a means of putting pressure on Bainimarama to prove that he is committed to free and fair elections in 2014.
• To allow space for this new approach to work, Australia needs to break an impasse, and I suggest this could be done through increased dialogue between officials (which does not equate to appeasement) and through winding back sanctions to only apply to key members of the regime so that friends of Australia and supporters of democracy are not caught up in them.
• I don't think my proposal is a guaranteed way to persuade Bainimarama to hold elections. While he may think twice before rejecting a multi-partner offer of assistance from Asian democracies he is keen to impress, the most likely outcome, supported by this poorly conceived comment from the Fiji Foreign Minister about Mr Rudd, is that he will reject it.
• I argue that this outcome will assist Australia to highlight Bainimarama's intransigence and solidify crumbling international opinion against him. Countries which have wavered in their conviction that the Fiji regime is illegitimate, guilty of banning freedom of speech and perpetrating human rights abuses will be reminded by Bainimarama's rejection of this offer that Bainimarama is not serious about democracy and intends to remain in power beyond 2014. A more united international approach that puts more pressure on Fiji might then have a more realistic chance of having an effect on Bainimarama.  
• If, on the other hand, Bainimarama accepts the offer, I suggest Australia should offer Fiji some other measures which help future potential leaders of Fiji (outside the military) benefit from access to Australian and other leadership examples. None of these measures are designed to reward Bainimarama personally but would allow Australia to have some influence in a transition to democracy in Fiji and cultivate other leaders who have been marginalised by Bainimarama.

The people of Fiji are just as deserving of freedom as the people of Egypt, Tunisia, Libya and Syria. Australia's current approach does little to help them achieve it and may even make it less likely by serving to entrench the Bainimarama regime. 

A different approach from Canberra might help at least to expose the plight of the Fiji people to a wider international audience. It would also help to restore Australia's reputation as a creative middle power.

Photo by Flickr user JSA_NZ.

The Fiji Government has instead developed new allegiances and partnerships which undermine Australia's influence and leadership. Australia's allies have begun to quietly question whether isolating Fiji is the best way to restore democracy in Fiji.

A Foreign Minister who so enthusiastically backed the wannabe democrats in North Africa can hardly back away from holding the line on Australia's interests in seeing a return to democracy in Fiji. But with the current approach to Fiji manifestly not working, is there room for Australia to be the kind of 'creative middle power' Mr Rudd envisages?

I argue that Australia should build and lead a new coalition with traditional and non-traditional partners (such as Indonesia, India, Malaysia, South Korea and Papua New Guinea) to work with Fiji on a package of assistance for electoral and constitutional reform — consistent with Fiji's 2014 election timetable. 

While Bainimarama has strongly resisted external pressure and rejected previous offers of assistance for holding elections, he has also been courting new allies and partners, including most recently Indonesia. He will be reluctant to reject overtures from a coalition that includes countries he has been keen to impress.

An approach like this is complex and needs to be developed carefully. The Australian Government would need to build more confidence in Fiji first — through more contacts between Australian and Fiji diplomats and through winding back travel restrictions to apply only to key members of the regime, removing a significant irritant in the relationship — and restore some much-needed trust and goodwill, to clear the way for a more effective approach. 

Canberra would also need to convince new partners that there are benefits to forming a coalition to help Fiji.

If Fiji proves open to accepting an offer of assistance from a new coalition, Australia could reward it by implementing other measures to enhance the capacity of leaders across all sectors in Fiji. I have suggested measures such as the establishment of an Australia-Melanesia-Indonesia leadership dialogue, public sector twinning arrangements and the inclusion of Fiji in the region's PACER Plus trade negotiations.

If the Australian Government does not take action now to rebuild its relationship with Fiji, it will lose any opportunity to influence Fiji's transition back to democracy and may find it more difficult to deal with the possibility that Bainimarama will be the popularly elected leader of Fiji in 2014.

Australia can renovate its relationship with Fiji with a sharper focus on its longer term interests rather than on calls for early elections.

It can do this without abandoning strong support for democracy. Fiji could reject a new creative overture but if it does, the Fiji Government's efforts to blame Australia and other countries for Fiji's problems will be less credible. The onus will be more explicitly on Bainimarama to prove to the international community and importantly to the people of Fiji that he has credible plans to restore democracy to Fiji. 

Kevin Rudd believes Australian foreign policy should make a difference. If Australia wants to maintain its credibility as the dominant power in this region and be a creative middle power on the world stage, it should start by making a difference in Fiji.

The full paper, 'Policy Overboard: Australia's increasingly costly Fiji drift', can be accessed here.

Photo by Flickr user UN Information Services.

Luxembourg is the second smallest member of the EU, which is a major donor in the region. But it does not hold the rotating presidency so is unlikely to be formally representing the EU. Although Luxembourg is one of only five countries to spend more than 0.7% of their GNI on aid, it does not appear to extend this largesse as far the Pacific Islands. If the lure of aid was the determining factor for an invitation, surely China, which funds the MSG Secretariat, would have merited an invitation.

Could it be that Luxembourg, a competitor for Australia's candidacy for a temporary seat at the UN Security Council, is seeking an opportunity to lobby for more votes? And is this really any stranger than Kevin Rudd speaking at the African Union?

The members of the Pacific Islands Forum (excluding Fiji) first committed to support Australia's candidacy for a 2013-14 temporary seat at the UN Security Council in 2008 and reiterated that support last year. Canberra would hardly have been counting on Suva's vote, and an invitation to the MSG was never in prospect. But DFAT might want to be checking that Port Moresby, Honiara and Port Vila remember their commitments.

The strenuous efforts of Parliamentary Secretary for Pacific Island Affairs, Richard Marles, in flying the Australian flag all over the Pacific, are undoubtedly constructive and praise-worthy, but they only partly compensate for the Foreign Minister's lack of attention. Mr Rudd is yet to visit any Pacific Island country as Foreign Minister. His last bilateral visit to the region – to Papua New Guinea and Solomon Islands — was in March 2008 when he was Prime Minister. Other visits as Prime Minister included travel to Niue for the 2008 Pacific Islands Forum and to Papua New Guinea for a special leaders’ meeting on Fiji in January 2009.

Pacific Island governments could hardly fail to notice the conspicuous absence of the Australian Foreign Minister from their shores while he pursues new friends further afield. They may conclude that courting new friends should be their priority too.

Photo by Flickr user adrian.

If a popular protest persisted, Commodore Bainimarama, like President Mubarak, would attempt to stare the people down and assure them that he, and he alone, can maintain stability in the country and must be allowed time to enact his reforms to build a better Fiji. 

Unlike the White House in Eygpt's case, the Australian Government would find it all but impossible to restrain from encouraging the demands of the Fiji people for democracy, and would no doubt be accused by Bainimarama of inciting violence and instability. 

As in Egypt, tourists might be deterred from taking their holidays in Fiji, which would in turn cause economic hardship for all whose livelihoods depend on it.

The eventual consequences of a Fiji popular push for democratic reform would depend on whether Bainimarama's closest advisers and allies were willing to risk their comfortable positions to side with the people and tell him to step down. Fear of personal repercussions and the absence of a credible leadership alternative suggest advisers and allies would be unlikely to take this risk. If really pushed, Bainimarama might offer a carrot, like bringing forward consultations on a new constitution or more government measures to tackle poverty.

As Sam pointed out, it is worthwhile remembering that after all the dramatic efforts of the Egyptian protestors, the military is still in control. A similar outcome might await Fiji in the event that a popular protest toppled Bainimarama, a probability that would dissuade many potential protesters.

The real lesson for Fiji from the Egypt experience is yet to be realised. If the Egyptian people can hold Field Marshal Tantawi to account for the promises of the Supreme Council of the Armed Forces' Communiqué #5 — namely, to amend the constitution, put the amendments to referendum and hold parliamentary and presidential elections in six months — this will serve as an important model for other nations to follow. 

If Egypt, population 78 million and with little experience of democracy, can manage this remarkable reform in six months, Frank Bainimarama needs to explain again why he needs eight years to do the same for Fiji, population 890,000 and with quite recent experience of parliamentary democracy. Commodore Bainimarama is a proponent of looking north. If his counterpart in Cairo succeeds in establishing a genuine parliamentary democracy and maintaining a protected special role for the military in Egypt, Bainimarama might be well advised to look east for advice.

Photo by Flickr user Jaredw_1986

1. A reality check. The Coalition cannot defer this spending from the Opposition benches in Canberra. Even if the question of funding the reconstruction in Queensland is still on the national agenda when the Coalition next finds itself in Government, there will inevitably be a reassessment of what spending cuts are desirable and viable at that time. This particular aid program will likely be more than halfway through its implementation at the time of the next Australian election and a new government would find it difficult to axe it then.
2. Bipartisan commitment. If the Coalition is so quick to identify spending cuts in the aid program now, what does that say about the bipartisan commitment to increasing aid to 0.5 per cent of gross national income by 2015-16, confirmed during the election campaign  last year? Mr Abbott appears to have recommitted to that target but his use of the slogan 'charity begins at home' and the Coalition’s willingness to consider two reasonably deep cuts to the aid program within the space of two days creates some doubt about the Coalition's potential management of an effective doubling of the aid program. Aid is only 0.33 per cent of GNI in the current budget. Scaling up at a measured pace may also prove to be difficult for the Government which is under pressure to fund domestic reconstruction efforts and keep its promises on returning the budget to surplus.
3. What does all this have to do with the aid review? The fact that Australia's alternative government talks of charity beginning at home in a discussion about one of our most significant bilateral relationships reflects an extraordinary lack of sophistication in the national conversation on aid.  Against this background, the panel’s task suddenly seems even more complex and more important. The task of  blogs like this in interpreting aid to a wider audience also takes on greater weight.

I attended an excellent conference hosted by the ANU's Development Policy Centre on 7 February that debated a number of important aspects surrounding the proposed doubling of the aid program. It was a useful step in moving discussion about aid beyond what Bob McMullan called an 'elite conspiracy'. It also revealed that the Government has a big task ahead to explain to the Australian nation in clear and simple terms why and how it plans to double aid over the coming five years.

Kevin Rudd told Parliament on 9 February that Australia's foreign aid policy was 'based on prosecuting Australia's national interest, our national security interest, our economic interests and our international humanitarian interests'. This was a good start. The Prime Minister and other members of Government need to expand on such statements in popular public forums — this would go a long way to helping voters understand why Australia not only can, but should, afford to fund the reconstruction at home and enhance efforts to improve the lives of millions in developing countries. It is incumbent on the Government to engage the public more broadly on this issue.  

The circumstances wrought by the recent natural disasters mean this discussion may be perceived to be sensitive, but the Australian people deserve more opportunities to engage in informed debate about foreign aid expenditure. 

Photo by Flickr user stevendepolo.

While Somare's decision to step aside reflects a respect for PNG's institutions, his railings against the media and Sam Abal's complaint that state institutions were being 'vindictive' in pursuing Somare do not inspire confidence in the PNG Government's commitment to good governance.

Meanwhile, in Vanuatu, the Deputy Speaker of Parliament has called an extra-ordinary session of Parliament on Christmas Eve to debate a motion of no-confidence in the new Prime Minister, only days after the Speaker, Maxime Carlot-Korman ruled out the same motion and then left the country.

Vanuatu has been down the road of successive no-confidence motions many times. At times they have been constructive — removing poor governments and installing better ones. Ultimately, however fascinating the ongoing political intrigue is to analysts and political junkies, the image of instability it projects is risky for a Vanuatu oft praised for its progressive reforms and economic success.

To complete the week of melodrama, Fiji assumed the chair of the Melanesian Spearhead Group after Vanuatu Prime Minister Sato Kilman reversed the policy of his predecessor and apologised to Fiji for refusing to hand over the chairmanship. The previous policy was no more than an attempt to hold Prime Minister Bainimarama accountable to the MSG's own establishment agreement. Solomon Islands stepped in to negotiate a reconciliation ceremony and the official handover of the chair. 

At the close of 2010, all four independent Melanesian nations are experiencing political crisis of one kind or another. Let's hope 2011 is calmer and more stable in the neighbourhood.

This opinion piece from the Financial Times (Ed: requires free registration) offers some useful analysis that could also be applied to Fiji.  The influence of Australia, New Zealand, the United States and the EU in Fiji will be limited while Bainimarama believes China will be Fiji's saviour and while other Pacific Island countries patch up their relations with Fiji. However, as in Burma, domestic antipathies towards a powerful China, which in Fiji's case does not bring many opportunities for locals with its aid and investment, may mitigate against reliance on the Asian superpower. Moreover, there are still very strong people–to–people links between Australia and Fiji, which make it more likely Australia will play a role in Fiji's future than not.

Bainimarama has made it clear engagement will be on his terms alone. He has demonstrated an impressive ability to resist international pressure to date, which has included rejecting the only significant carrot on offer — EU support for the floundering Fiji sugar industry. As with Burma, encouraging reform in Fiji — whether through more pressure or through engagement — will be a long game.

Photo by Flickr user United Nations Photo, used under a Creative Commons licence.

With the possible exception of a slight opening to more engagement with Fiji, there is in fact not much that is startlingly new in Campbell's address. It's just a much clearer explanation of US policy in the Pacific than we've seen before from Washington – and an acknowledgment that the US commitment to the region could have been demonstrated better in the past.

What is new is the context in which the 'enhanced engagement' is taking place – the growing presence of other external players in the region. For the first time since the Cold War, the Pacific is becoming a playground for potentially competing interests. China, India, Russia, Taiwan and the UAE are just some of the foreign powers are stepping up their own games in a region traditionally dominated by Australia and New Zealand and ignored by the rest of the world. 

The European Union and Japan have also been at pains this year to emphasise the strength of their relationships with Pacific Island countries. 

Kurt Campbell's reference to the 'common interest' the US shares with China and Russia in the 'development and welfare' of the Pacific Islands is reminiscent of Australia's commitment to 'coordination' with China in the Pacific. Pacific Island countries may have to thank China for stimulating much greater global interest in their fate. 

Australian policy-makers regard the Pacific as Australia's backyard, and while they are proficient at policy coordination with like-minded New Zealand, they will be sensitive about sharing their supremacy in the region with the surfeit of new players – even if one of them is really an old player and Australia's closest ally.

Image courtesy of Wikipedia.

The US has opened a door to dialogue with Fiji (more on the re-engagement of the US in the Pacific to follow). With little encouraging rhetoric coming from Canberra at the moment, Suva could play a clever game by engaging more closely with Washington and ultimately putting more pressure on the Australian Government. President Obama's congratulatory message to the people of Fiji may have been pointedly directed at encouraging a return to democracy, but it also signaled that the US wants good relations with Fiji and is prepared to be creative with its policies.

Bainimarama might well think he can rely on China to be Fiji's saviour but the evidence, as my colleague Fergus Hanson's research can attest, shows China's generosity has limits.

Fiji's economy is based heavily on tourism (dependent on Australian and New Zealand travelers), sugar (dependent on currently suspended European Union support) and remittances (dependent on Fiji's expatriates resident in Australia, New Zealand and employed by US security companies and as UN peacekeepers). Fiji is also reliant on financial support from the IMF, World Bank and the ADB (where the US and Australia wield considerable influence). Fiji's top five export markets are Australia, the UK, US, New Zealand and Japan. 

Limited Chinese loans, aid projects that employ Chinese nationals and suggestions of arms procurement from China will not increase employment opportunities or reduce spiraling poverty (Ed. note: link fixed).

Fiji's national interests lie squarely with western hemisphere powers. Unless Bainimarama is confident China can service the full range of those interests, he needs to get on with making his diplomatic efforts work for the people of Fiji. Engaging seriously with an interested Washington would be a good start.

Photo by Flickr user sammie, used under a Creative Commons license.