My memory isn’t perfect - and I must admit that the hazy days of September are lost in the glow of early Autumn Oxford - but I don’t recall Australia’s long-serving Foreign Minister making such stern noises after the Thai coup. According to the report in today’s The Nation, Alexander Downer has “urged Fijians to passively resist the rule of military chief Voreqe Bainimarama after he toppled the pacific nation’s elected government in a coup”.
Minister Downer said:
I think the ordinary people of Fiji and the institutions of government in Fiji should show passive resistance to this imposition of dictatorship on their country…I don’t think public servants should cooperate with the commodore and the military. I don’t think the police should cooperate with the commodore and the military. I think they should show passive resistance to this regime…
In his press release, Downer called it “a tragic day for Fiji and for the region”. He also threatens that the coup “will have serious and adverse consequences for Fiji’s economy and standing in the international community”.
Back in September, the press release concerning the Thai coup had a much friendlier tone. I accept that the situations are not completely analagous: I am certainly not going to stake an undifferentiated position that a coup is a coup is a coup. Coups can be very different beasts. But Downer had nothing approaching similiarly harsh words for the Thai Generals.
In fact, on September 20, in an interview with the ABC’s Louise Yaxley, Downer clarified his position on working with Thailand’s military regime:
YAXLEY: We have a military coup at the moment. While you say it is still early days, do you see a point where Australia would work with a military regime?
DOWNER: Well look, I’m not sure what they’re going to do. I mean, the day has barely dawned in Bangkok, so I’m just simply not sure what they’re going to do, and we’ll have to wait and see. We’ll just need to find out more about what’s happened before we start to make policy changes in relation to Thailand. But obviously it’s a very important relationship to us, the relationship with Thailand. We have a free trade agreement with Thailand, we have a lot of trade with it, we have very close political relationships with them – opposition and government together – we obviously have, our military in particular, has close relationships with many people in the Thai military as well.
What explains the very different tone of the Foreign Minister’s statements back in September?
I can only speculate, but I do find it interesting that the two most recent coups in “Australia’s region” have been greeted with such different responses. There are, I guess, many good explanations for this difference. One is that in September the Thai Generals probably had something of a better reputation than their Fijian counterparts. Another is that the Australian government has invested a great deal in Fijian democracy through aid and capacity building. That probably helps to explain Downer’s attack against the Fijian coup-makers.
Downer’s moderate stance on the Thai coup is couched, in contrast, in the rhetoric of a mature relationship that he hopes will endure even with military rule. There was certainly no call from Downer for passive resistance on the streets of Bangkok. Perhaps it would have been a laughable suggestion.
The Fijian coup-makers obviously aren’t considered on the same plain. But, this begs the question, are they that much worse? Are the Thai Generals that much better? I don’t know the answers to these questions. Some other blogs are, in their own ways, offering some insight: Fiji coup – utterly illogical, Fiji’s military coup: it’s not so simple, and A Military Coup in Fiji – Suprise! Downer obviously thinks the Thai and Fijian coups are very different and so the Fijians don’t escape his stinging rebuke or harsh put-downs: “We are going to be very tough on these people – this is a simply disgraceful thing that has been done by Commodore Bainimarama”.
The contrasts are stark. I can’t help feeling that contradictions leap out of these Ministerial statements.
It all begs the further question… Just what message is the Foreign Minister trying to send?
6 responses so far ↓
1 nganadeeleg // Dec 6, 2006 at 11:29 pm
Basically, Downer is picking winners.
Here’s a few differences:
- Bainimarama is considered unstable
- Thaksin was more on the nose than Qarase
- Thai people generally accepted, even welcomed the coup
(it was seen a circuit breaker to a long standing political stalemate)
- Fiji’s coup appears to be military backed with little other support from the establishment, which contrasts with the Thai situation and the apparent royal acceptance of the coup
- Australia is a bigger player in the Pacific than it is in Asia, and is a major aid contributor in the region
- The Fiji police chief is Australian (ex AFP)
- There is an Asian/Thai way of doing things and western influence is considered interference
2 Colin Bishop // Dec 7, 2006 at 6:50 am
There is a general lack of support for this coup with the President, Great Council of Chiefs, NGOs, Police and Judiciary all coming out in favor of the Constitution. I believe this coup will fail from lack of support and a new government installed that will probably be the majority of the previous government with a few new faces.
3 Bangkok Pundit // Dec 7, 2006 at 7:11 am
Nick
I agree generally with Nganadeeleg that Downer was picking winners. The coup in Thailand couldn’t be reversed, but the coup in Fiji can be. The pressure that Australia and other like-minded countries can exert on Fiji is much greater than it could exert on Thailand. From Australia/NZ/EU/US, Fiji receives some $200 million of aid and there is a joint approach against the coup. If the Australian/NZ government starts issuing travel advisories warning their citizens not to travel to Fiji then this would have serious affect on the tourism industry.
I also think there is some personal animosity because of the behind-the-scenes dealing and with the Australian military having ships close to Fiji and talk from the Fiji military of a foreign invasion/takeover – ie the Australians “invading” Fiji.
I think Downer had some harsh words for the coup in Thailand, but not for the Generals.
From Wikipedia: Foreign Minister of Australia Alexander Downer stated, “We want to see a return to democratic rule. It’s of grave concern for us that the government has been overthrown in this way. There was an expectation in Thailand that there would be an election towards the end of this year and it is of concern to us that the military appear to have simply seized power.”
From Ninemsn:
Australia is gravely concerned at the “unacceptable” overthrow of the Thai government in a military coup, Foreign Minister Alexander Downer said .
In the interview with Yaxley:
Obviously, to see democracy destroyed in that way is a matter of grave concern to us. But, what we’ll do as a consequence of it it’s far too early to say.
4 Nicholas Farrelly // Dec 7, 2006 at 8:29 am
Thanks everyone,
I agree that the Minister’s statements show something of his attempts to pick winners. He has to be practical, and I take Pundit’s point that the Fiji coup could still be “reversed”. There seemed no such possibility on September 20 in Bangkok.
Many of the points raised here are interesting for other reasons. There is much left to discuss.
Thanks for your comments.
NSF
5 patiwat // Dec 7, 2006 at 9:15 am
Australia was one of the few countries in the world that condemned the Thai coup, along with NZ and Denmark. See here for a more comprehensive list of responses.
The US and UK were “concerned” and wanted a peaceful resolution, but had nothing to say about the constitutional process. China, of course, said it was a local matter.
6 laminar flow // Dec 7, 2006 at 4:10 pm
Australia also contributed to the coalition of the willing to invaded Iraq under the premise of WMDs.
Australia companies had contracts in the Oil for Food scheme with Iraq, as seen in a recent law suit.
Leave a Comment
Please note: New Mandala encourages vigorous debate. However, for the moment we will only be publishing high-quality comments that make original contributions to discussion. There will, of course, still be space for pithy, humorous, eccentric and cheeky input. Short and sweet will usually trump long and involved. Repetitive ranting, unimaginative point-scoring and idle abuse will not be entertained. Comments which carry a real name are also more likely to be approved. Thank you for your ongoing interest and contributions.