Editorial: Rugby backdown an embarrassment

Fiji had to be sent a strong message that its international relationships could not continue as normal. So said the Foreign Minister last June, some three weeks after George Speight overthrew Fiji's democratically elected government. Phil Goff's remarks prefaced the Government's decision to deny entry visas to the Fijian national rugby side and an under-21 team which were due to play here. "We cannot pretend that things are normal and allow normal contacts to go ahead," he said.

To all intents and purposes, it appeared that the Government, working closely with Australia, had embraced a sporting boycott as part of a programme of "smart" sanctions. Certainly, the Australians appeared to take Mr Goff at his word. Now, with good reason, they feel they have been left high and dry.

Australia's isolation stems from the Government's decision to soften its stance on sporting sanctions after pressure from the New Zealand Rugby Union. Fiji will now take its place in next month's Wellington rugby sevens. An exemption has been granted despite pleas by the Australian Government for New Zealand to stand firm. Australia has maintained its principled stance.

Its refusal to grant visas to let the Fijian sevens team compete in Brisbane has led the International Rugby Board to cancel that event. The rugby union claimed similar action by the Government would lead to the Wellington leg being abandoned. Perhaps, perhaps not. What is obvious is that there would have been less chance of that happening if Australia and New Zealand had stuck together.

The union, of course, was hardly an unbiased observer. It surprised no one by opposing the imposition of sporting sanctions against Fiji. To alarm the Government totally, it tossed in the possibility that New Zealand's co-hosting of the 2003 World Cup could be jeopardised if it sided with Australia.

It reflects poorly on the Government that the potential for such an impact was countenanced, let alone allowed to influence policy. Justifiably, the Australian rugby union is annoyed that the link was made. The possibility that the World Cup could be shifted from Australia and New Zealand has never been raised, it says. Nor will it be. To make such a suggestion is to mock the status of Australia, the world champion, and New Zealand, probably the most famous of rugby-playing nations. It would be rather like taking soccer's World Cup off Brazil and Argentina because they had taken a principled stand against a ruthless dictatorship in Guatemala.

The Government's backdown is the more disappointing because it clearly understands the impact of sporting sanctions. Within days of Speight's putsch, Mr Goff had announced that he expected the rugby union to consider withdrawing invitations to Fijian teams, particularly to sevens competitions. There was considerable insight in that appeal. Sevens rugby is indigenous Fijians' major sporting passion. To deny their team competition at world tournaments would send the strongest and most symbolic of messages.

The Government claimed it had been unable to gain support for that approach from any country other than Australia. Why, however, should the apathy of others prompt a backdown on a matter of principle, especially when New Zealand stood toe to toe with its most traditional of allies?

The softening of the stand also sits oddly with other Government policies. Was it not the Prime Minister who forcefully demanded that South Pacific Forum leaders confront the principles at stake in Fiji? In that instance, Helen Clark was doubtless grateful for the backing of Australia's John Howard. And was it not the Prime Minister who was further prepared to ruffle feathers by saying she would boycott the next forum meeting if it were held in Fiji?

Pacific nations have considerable right to feel confused over a policy that does not match words with action. The Government has claimed long and loud that Fiji will be an outcast until it shows a willingness to restore democracy and a multiracial constitution. Yet at the first hint that New Zealand's interests - or its own popularity - could be harmed, it has buckled. Worse, it has bowed to an argument that stands little scrutiny.

Australia recognises that sporting sanctions are pointless if they are not all-embracing. Our selective approach is simply embarrassing.