Melanesian Spearhead Group chair defers Fiji meet
Updated
The member nations of the Melanesian Spearhead Group have postponed next week's leader's meeting in Fiji and have blocked the country's military-backed leader Commodore Frank Bainimarama from taking up the chairmanship.
Late last night the current chair of the MSG, Vanuatu Prime Minister Edward Natapei, released a statement saying next week's meeting had been deferred as the group's other members Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, Papua New Guinea and New Caledonia's indigious political party were concerned about the long term ramifications of Fiji holding the chairmanship.
We begin by hearing a portion of Mr Natapei's statement.
Presenter: Geraldine Coutts and Campbell Cooney
Speaker: Reading of Edward Natapei statement, current chairman of the Melanesian Spearhead Group and prime minister of Vanuatu; Briji Lal, Fiji-born academic from Australian National University
- Listen:
- Windows Media
NATAPEI STATEMENT: This is a collective decision of the leaders of Papua New Guinea, Solomon Islands, the FLNKS and Vanuatu, in light of the current impasse we in the grouping over the chairmanship of the MSG. The potential long-term ramifications of allowing Fiji to chair the MSG this time can not be ignored. There are basic fundamental principles and values of democracy and good governance that our organisation is built on, and we must continue to uphold them.
COUTTS: A statement from the current chairman of the Melanesian Spearhead Group Edward Natapei, who's also the Prime Minister of Vanuatu.
In a statement of a reply the interim government of Fiji says it's disappointed with the decision and the fact that it came so close to when the meeting was to be held and before all political options had been exhausted. The statement also says that to Fiji's knowledge it is only Vanuatu that has an issue with Fiji, and that the decision has dispossessed Commodore Bainimarama's role and responsibilities. But what is behind the decision of the MSG, which has previously been strong in its support of Fiji, Fiji-born academic Professor Brij Lal from the Australian National University spoke with Pacific correspondent Campbell Cooney:
LAL: There are three things that are very clear - the first one is that as the communiqué says this "current impasse" would in the MSG about Fiji chairing this organisation, so obviously there is debate and discussion going on in MSG itself about Fiji's leadership of this organisation. The second thing is the MSG and Mr Natapei is saying that certain conditions have to be met before they will have a full-fledged engagement with Fiji. There has been a hardening of attitude, a clarification of where the MSG stands, and I think that I suspect that Fiji will be taken aback by the robust language used in the communique from the Vanuatu Prime Minister. They have made all the preparations, they had made all the grand statements about other Pacific Island leaders coming to Fiji, we had the President of Kiribati going to Fiji, Tonga has begun to make noises about engaging Fiji and participating in this. But of course none of the Melanesian states who are the founders of the MSG has expressed an opinion on the manner in which this was being done.
CAMPBELL: There certainly seems to a lot riding on next week's meeting for Fiji's interim prime minister. For him it was being put forward as something that is giving these people, of these countries, a chance to talk to Fiji because they can't do it at the Forum?
LAL: Well I think that's precisely right. I think Fiji was hoping to use the meeting to showcase its leadership of small Pacific island groups. I think it was also an attempt, not very opaque of Fiji trying to bypass the forum leaders gathering to use MSG to assert its leadership role and so on. And I think some of these things the Island leaders began to see through. I think the other thing is that again consistent with the way decisions are made in Fiji, and that is they decide on something, make an announcement without extensive prior consultation with other stakeholders. And in this case unfortunately Fiji would have to eat humble pie. It would have been far better for it to conduct its negotiations with other MSG leaders, indeed with other leaders in the Pacific in a proper diplomatic format so that what comes out at the end of it all has the consensus of other Pacific island leaders. This was not done in this case, and it is unfortunate because it reflects rather badly on decision-making processes in Fiji itself. Fiji's effort was seen for what it really was, which was to assert its leadership and bypass the forum leaders.
