THE PRESS THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 1989. No military aid for Fiji

Press, 6 April 1989, Page 20

THE PRESS THURSDAY, APRIL 6, 1989. No military aid for Fiji

The suggestion of Mr lan Thorpe, the former head of Fiji’s Armed Forces, that New Zealand restore military aid to that country will almost certainly be rejected by the New Zealand Government, as it should be. The coups in Fiji were carried out by the armed forces, and although the present Government is not military it holds power by grace of the military. Brigadier Rabuka, who led the coups, remains a power in the country, even if he is not in a formal position of high authority. New Zealand should not have any part of helping a military force that so pointlessly overthrew a democracy. After the first coup, the New Zealand Government put its aid to Fiji on hold; after the second coup the aid was formally suspended. The aid allocation for Fiji in 19871988 was $6.2 million. In February last year, when Brigadier Rabuka retired from the forefront of politics, New Zealand restored humanitarian aid, but not political or military assistance. $4.78 million was spent in that financial year.

The suspension of aid expressed New Zealand’s disapproval of the coups. The restoration of limited aid in February, 1988, expressed New Zealand’s approval of the few measures Fiji had taken to return to civilian and constitutional government, recognised Fiji’s humanitarian needs and was for foreign policy reasons. The first justification is part of the carrot and stick approach New Zealand and Australia take to the Fiji crisis. The recognition of humanitarian needs was both exactly that — an acknowledgement that there were significant needs — and a way of showing that New Zealand had no quarrel with the people of Fiji, although it did with the political leaders who had been associated with the coups. The sound foreign policy reason for restoring some aid is that Fiji is a country that cannot manage without aid. Without some New Zealand support it might turn to countries that New Zealand would rather not see involved in the South Pacific. In January Fiji turned down an offer by the

Soviet Union to conduct a geological survey in Fijian waters. Late last year the Fijian President, Ratu Sir Penaia Ganilau, said that Fiji would turn to Asia if New Zealand and Australia tried to use foreign aid as a means of dictating changes to Fiji’s proposed constitution.

In 1988-1989 $4 million was allocated to Fiji for aid. This is a substantial cut on previous levels. Some of the cut was punitive, but not all. New Zealand was allocating less to aid over-all. The projects on which the aid was to be spent were humanitarian. One quarter of the money, $1 million, went to the Fiji Pine Commission for a project in which < New Zealand is encouraging the cultivation of trees. This involves the transfer of technology. That technology transfer also applies to another big project, the cultivation of hardwoods; some $750,000 is being spent on that. Other projects include the stocking of regional libraries, training people in mending outboard motors, staffing and providing laboratory equipment for the School of Medicine, for the College of Agriculture and for the Institute of Technology. New Zealand also helps with tertiary training by bringing people here. About $500,000 was provided to bring children to New Zealand for medical treatment. A grant of $200,000 was made to the Fiji Development Bank with a tag that the money should be spent on non-commercial developments, on such social services as village projects.

Coups happen in an imperfect world and they require compromised responses. Thus, we should aid Fiji, but in limited fashion. The projects the New Zealand Government has chosen to continue to support are reasonably described as humanitarian. The concerns New Zealand has had about other countries being willing to step in with aid are sound.

New Zealand and Australia have coordinated their aid responses. Both have refused to have anything to do with assisting the military forces of Fiji. The co-ordination — and the refusal — should continue.