KEY POINTS:
It takes only a cursory read of the supposedly tough new sanctions that New Zealand has imposed on coup-ravaged Fiji to work out that they are anything but.
It is hard to spot the difference between the list of measures unveiled by Helen Clark and Winston Peters on
Wednesday and the equivalent package promulgated back in 2000, the last occasion Fijians played Russian roulette with their country's constitution.
Those sanctions had little impact then. They will have little impact now.
Some of the so-called "smart" sanctions targeted at Commodore Frank Bainimarama and his officers will be a nuisance for them over the long term. Bainimarama is now barred from entering New Zealand where his daughter lives, while Fiji defence personnel can no longer train with their Kiwi counterparts.
But these measures will change nothing in the short-term. They are hardly going to deter the blinkered Bainimarama from his current course of action.
Though Peters has warned they may well stay in place this time, the effectiveness of those sanctions is undermined by the Fijians knowing they have been lifted previously, once some semblance of democracy has been restored.
Many of the measures are purely symbolic. For example, high-level political contacts will end. But New Zealand's High Commission in Suva will remain open to maintain a channel of communication.
While New Zealand had to be seen to be retaliating in some form, the sanctions could not be so punitive they become an obstacle to resolving this crisis which threatens to turn Fiji into a full-blooded military dictatorship. Once that happens, sanctions will be toughened up.
In the meantime, Clark and Peters have to strike a balance. They have to respond to domestic pressures and be seen to be doing something.
But they do not want to punish ordinary Fijians. The latter are already complaining about the ban on sporting contacts. Yet, Fijians have to be made aware that New Zealand expects them to take some responsibility for allowing the military to overthrow democratically elected governments when it feels like it.
The ban on sporting contacts is a farce. It is confined to bilateral contacts between the two countries. Fiji will still participate in the international sevens series in Wellington in February because this is a multination tournament.
If the Government was really serious, it would bar Fiji's team even if that meant the International Rugby Board stripping Wellington of hosting rights.
However, Labour is not going to pick an argument with the 40,000 rugby fans who have bought tickets to the event.
Trade sanctions have long been out of favour because they are easily circumvented and only hurt those at the poorer end of society. A similar argument applies to cutting aid programmes.
Freezing access to financial assets that Bainimarama and his cohorts hold offshore remains an option. However, it is understood that would require legislation.
The most effective sanction would see the United Nations barring Fiji military personnel from financially lucrative peace-keeping operations. That would cut off a major source of income to Bainimarama's junta. UN Secretary-General Kofi Annan has raised this possibility and New Zealand officials will press the point in New York.
But not with any great optimism. The problem is that Fiji is one of the few countries willing to take part in UN operations in hell-holes like Iraq or Darfur.
While Clark and Peters need to be seen to be punishing Bainimarama, they do not want to slam the door shut to further talks. They are also conscious that many Fijians, while horrified by events, have some sympathy for the commodore following his efforts to get the country out of the mess created by George Speight's coup in 2000.
The irony is that coup ended in Bainimarama installing Laisenia Qarase as interim prime minister. Their relationship soured dramatically, especially over Qarase's attempt to legislate pardons for those involved in the 2000 coup.
The ousting of Qarase is said to have become such an obsession for Bainimarama that the New Zealand Government is understood to have seriously considered blocking his recent private visit here.
It was decided instead that Peters would use the visit to tell him face-to-face of the consequences of a coup.
The minutes of the subsequent talks mediated by the foreign minister at Government House in Wellington show Qarase bending over backwards to accommodate the commodore's many demands. But the commodore's bottom line was always Qarase's removal.
It is noticeable that Clark is the one questioning Bainimarama's mental state - not Peters. He may yet renew contact with Bainimarama. Further diplomatic initiatives are on hold, however, until the outcome of the coup is clearer.
Wellington and Canberra have entertained the faint hope that the coup might have fallen over relatively quickly had Fiji's tribal elites, the public service, disgruntled elements in the military, the commercial sector and the populace generally combined in a campaign of passive resistance.
Though Clark and Australia's foreign minister, Alexander Downer, have been trying to incite mass action, it looks unlikely.
The big worry for Clark and Peters and Downer and his boss, John Howard is this coup is very different from its 1987 and 2000 predecessors.
The Rabuka coups of 1987 were about toppling an Indo-Fijian administration and restoring political dominance of indigenous Fijians.
In 2000, Speight's occupation of Parliament and holding of hostages divided indigenous Fijians, including the military. But the military - in the form of Bainimarama - was instrumental in getting a return to a democracy of sorts.
The latest coup has its roots in the previous one. But the military is no longer acting in the interests of the wider Fijian society. The motive for the coup is nothing more than the self-interest of its self-serving commander who has become a parody of Speight. In mounting the coup, Bainimarama has broken the law to such huge extent that he cannot take his soldiers back to the barracks because he cannot risk a future, legally constituted civilian government putting him on trial for tearing up the constitution.
New Zealand and Australia are still hoping that there will be mutiny in the military as senior officers realise that Bainimarama has rail-roaded them into effectively running a military dictatorship which will have crippling international consequences for the country.
Otherwise - as National MP John Hayes observed this week - Wellington and Canberra will have to find a back door out of this crisis which Bainimarama can walk through. The trouble is right now there are no obvious doors. Moreover, Bainimarama is not walking anywhere.
