Transcript
MALAKAI KOLOAMATANGI: It is a peculiar situation, it's actually not Nauru's problem entirely, the other thing is there hasn't been, perhaps violence, maybe an uprising or rebellion that would trigger a much stronger response from Nauru.
DON WISEMAN: So they need something big and obvious?
MK: Yes, what's happening is that Nauru could argue look, ok we got problems but it's comparable to what's happening in other Pacific islands. Nauru could say that unless something really awful happens, that would encourage others to take a stand and the third point is that regional organisations such as the Forum, Pacific Islands Forum and others, don't want to be seen to be meddling in what is essentially a national issue for Nauru and to interfere would not be a good thing, and the Forum has said it's not willing to take that risk. And quite rightly so.
DW: Well, or is it though? You maybe able to class as a domestic issue but there are people who are being traumatised, we know that, there are people who are being beaten, there's not question about that, and do we say that it's an internal matter, which is Australia's defence, it's Nauru's defence as well, but should the rest of the Pacific be supporting that?
MK: Well, I mean, that's part of reason perhaps why there hasn't been an outcry, because of these uncertain, muddy issues that are not clear cut or black and white, I mean one could say for example, give the Solomon Islands example where there are certain factions, within the Solomon Islands, and a regional force was brought in to bring peace to Solomon Islands but it took the region a very long time to make up it's mind and establish these steps to that they would go in by invitation only, so I think that's part of the problem here, why people are not acting cause actually, the path forward is not clear cut.
DW: So that leaves a job for Forum leaders, doesn't it, at the Forum next month to clarify just what the region should do in a circumstance like this?
MK: That's right, and they should and that's an issue I'm sure they will talk about.
DW: Given their past efforts, they are most likely to gloss over it.
MK: That's right, they will probably tread very, very carefully, to the point where nothing gets done, and it's because of the reasons that I've already given and one thinks about the Fiji coup, a lot of the neighbours did not want to criticise Fiji, so something has to happen drastically, unfortunately in Nauru before, I think it's neighbours will get up to act.
DW: If it's a case of Australia effectively abusing Nauru, using it's power and clout to turn the island on its head, in so many ways, doesn't the rest of the Pacific at some point have to think - well this could happen to us?
MK: Yes, it's an interesting way of I mean and that's what President Bainimarama has been saying, for sometime now, that Australia and New Zealand meddles too much in Pacific affairs and it get out of it, that kind of logic could apply to Australia's doing in Nauru, but then again, I mean, it's not as if Australia is forcing Nauru at gun point to do this.
DW: Except it's a country that was on its knees economically, it needed the money, it saw an opportunity and grabbed it, so in that sense, Australia did have a gun to their head.
MK: Yes, it was Australia, it could have been China, it could have been New Zealand. My point is that Nauru was vulnerable anyway, economically and in other ways, it spilled over into the political arena and it just so happened that - I'm not defending Australia, but I'm saying it could have been someone else. The point is that when a country is like that, it is vulnerable to these effects from the outside, phosphate and so forth is virtually non existent, so it doesn't have many options and so, like many other Pacific Islands that are grabbing at anything they can find as an income earner for them, regardless of whether its tax havens or money laundering and so on, there's no choice. There are not many options that Nauru can look at.
