Recognition of Fiji

Press, 27 January 1988, Page 16

Recognition of Fiji

The New Zealand and Australian Governments appear to be edging towards what amounts to a diplomatic recognition of the Fiji Government. In both instances the steps are indistinct. The New Zealand Government is being somewhat cagey about recognition or non-recognition and is taking the position that New Zealand has not customarily made acts of formal recognition but has allowed recognition to be inferred from the level of dealings with a Government. The Australian Government has recently adopted a policy of recognising States rather than Governments but has made no decision on the recognition of the Fiji Government. Both New Zealand and Australia are giving humanitarian and economic aid to Fiji.

The outcome is that the issue is blurred in both cases. At an earlier stage, the two Governments co-ordinated their policies and, when Australia recognised the State of Fiji, it seemed that this was a break in the cooperation between the two. However, the New Zealand Government was briefed on the proposed change, so it would seem that there is some co-ordination in the blurring as well as in the more clearly defined positions that characterised the earlier responses to the events in Fiji.

The Australian Government acted more sharply at the beginning by withdrawing its High Commissioner, by not sending him back, and by stopping all aid. The deputy High Commissioner became acting High Commissioner, although he may have been called something else. The New Zealand Government left its High Commissioner in Fiji but he appeared to become the New Zealand representative. In any event, High Commissioners are the most senior representatives among Commonwealth States and Fiji’s relationship to the Commonwealth is rather unclear. Neither New Zealand nor Australia has resumed military aid. The two Governments may get themselves into some fine binds about the positions they have adopted. In another part of the world, New Zealand supports the accreditation of a coalition, which includes the Khmer Rouge, to the United Nations but

does not give diplomatic recognition to what is hardly even a Government in exile. After the Kissinger and Nixon visits to China in the early 19705, New Zealand formally recognised China and withdrew formal recognition from Taiwan. The change in policy was distinct. Formal recognition was clearly used at the time. New Zealand has no diplomatic links with North Korea and this has been taken as an unwillingness to recognise North Korea. Australia had an embassy in North Korea and North Korea had an embassy in Australia. However, North Korea withdrew its staff without giving an explanation and Australia wants an explanation before normal relations are resumed. Australia does not support the Kampuchean coalition for a place in the United Nations, but gives no recognition to anyone else either. The New Zealand position of allowing recognition to be inferred from the level of dealings with a Government may present great difficulties because New Zealand’s dealings with some Governments are very slight indeed, not because New Zealand has anything against them but because the countries may be small or of little relevance to New Zealand’s interests.

That is not so with Fiji. This is a country important to New Zealand strategically, economically, and socially. The Government now in power came to that position through a series of contorted acts which began when the Army overthrew a democratically elected Government. New Zealand’s action in leaving its High Commissioner there to deal with all parties was reasonable.

Even so, New Zealand should certainly take no action which could be interpreted as showing any approval for the present arrangements in Fiji or give any sign of approval that what happened was acceptable. However, in the end, New Zealand will probably have to accept that, in spite of its abhorrence of the coup and the events afterwards, New Zealand’s interests will be best served by reinstating formal relations. New Zealand will have to swallow hard, but it would be better to face the issue rather than fudge it.