KEY POINTS:
Fiji after the coup: the scenario is now so well-known it's almost a cliche. But we may have become a bit too blase about this particular troublespot for our own good.
New Zealand presents itself as a soft power in the Pacific. A trusted friend to the Melanesian
and Polynesian neighbours that make up our "front-yard".
The endemic problems confronting not just Fiji but also Papua New Guinea, the Solomons and now Tonga suggest it's time to take a more muscular approach.
But the reaction to Helen Clark's call to ordinary Fijians to rise up against the imposition of military dictate indicates her soft power approach should be let to play out a bit longer yet as courageous islanders of all persuasions show their tolerance is fast evaporating.
There are limits to what New Zealand can achieve without a willingness on the part of Fijians to first help themselves.
Commodore Frank Bainimarama laughs at the list of sanctions announced by our government this week. Apart from a ban on inter-government visits and military ties, and a toothless sporting ties ban, the only major aspect to hurt ordinary Fijians is the decision to stop them from availing themselves of the new seasonal work scheme for Pacific Islanders and suspend immigration ballots.
Fijian guest workers will not be able (in such large numbers) to send valuable remittances home to help their families. Bans on inter-government and inter-military visits will only hurt the egos of the Fijian government ministers and military chiefs. But this is not to be under-estimated in the long run. New Zealand's aid contribution is being frozen at current levels, through a bit of carefully stage-managed window-dressing which will see NGOs be the delivery agents, rather than NZ officials.
There are no trade sanctions. Fiji is just too valuable an element in New Zealand's billion-dollar Pacific trade business for this country to subject it to the type of commercial sanctions that were imposed on Iraq under Saddam Hussein.
Trade rules as it always has.
But New Zealanders - who make up some 20 per cent of the Fijian islands' annual influx of about 500,000 visitors - are among the many cancelling holidays as uncertainty in this latest Pacific hotspot takes its toll.
Will they return in droves once cheap holidays are advertised, as they were after the three preceding military coups? Or will New Zealanders go somewhere else signalling their disapproval of Bainimarama's move?
It's the moral question that we tend to duck by falling back on the useful rationale that denying Fiji its tourist trade will simply mean more hardship for ordinary Fijians (who are already facing major job layoffs) and impede the return to democracy.
It's a rationale that we also employ when visiting places like Myanmar, also under military dictatorship. Or Thailand, whose own allegedly bent prime minister was recently ousted over claims similar to those Bainimarama made about the elected prime minister he sacked, Laisenia Qarase.
Fiji's economy shrank 2.8 per cent after armed indigenous nationalists staged their racially motivated coup in May 2000 and similar contractions followed two military coups in 1987.
Many of us will once again avail ourselves of the chance to take a holiday in the sun at an affordable rate well below the extortionate rates Fijian resorts (many owned by offshore entrepreneurs) tend to charge. And we can justify our trip accordingly as helping the country boost its foreign exchange reserves.
Right now Helen Clark is warning New Zealanders that it's the equivalent of a holiday in hell to go to a place where the military are strutting the streets and proclaiming a coup.
But Clark's warning is in stark contrast to the images we see nightly on our television screens where frontmen give the lie to stories of imminent danger as they show Bainimarama watching rugby. Or the radio reports from reporters who have experienced all four coups and which suggest a laidback atmosphere.
It all looks very transitory - or is it? Clark wants to spur ordinary Fijians and the military itself to rise up against Bainimarama's illegal regime.
Her megaphone diplomacy and daily exhortations to Fijians (particularly the chiefs) to show they will not tolerate Bainimarama's antics appear to be bearing fruit.
But Clark is not playing the one card that could really hurt. What concerns me is that her Government's ban on sporting ties, which has the power to be extremely effective, is being undermined by self interest.
The Government says it cannot stop players attending events that are organised internationally like the Rugby Sevens in which Fiji is due to defend its title in Wellington next March.
If Fiji is banned, other teams might withdraw or rugby bosses move the event to another country.
If Clark wants to deal a real blow to Bainimarama's regime she should deny the Fijian Sevens team visas until democracy is reinstated in Fiji.
It's the price we just might have to pay to be taken seriously in the increasingly troubled Pacific.
