KEY POINTS:
Zoologists call it displacement activity: an animal in a state of stress, frustration or uncertainty will perform an irrelevant action. A bird confronted by an opponent may peck at the grass. Humans respond to nervousness or confusion by scratching their heads. And that very odd creature called a politician will, when faced with an challenge she does not know how to deal with, start throwing her weight around somewhere where she counts.
How else to explain the startling contrast between the Iron Lady stance adopted by Prime Minister Helen Clark towards the military regime in Fiji and the meek and compliant nature of the snub she and her administration delivered to the Dalai Lama when he visited this week? Clark's meeting with the spiritual leader of the world's Buddhists and the Tibetan leader-in-exile since the Chinese occupation and annexation of his country in 1959, in an airport departure lounge in Brisbane, was carefully planned but intended to look serendipitous. The reason was plain: we are in the midst of negotiating a free-trade agreement (FTA) with the Chinese, who take a very dim view of any government recognising the Dalai Lama as the leader of a would-be independent Tibet. Meanwhile, the Foreign Affairs Minister Winston Peters did not meet His Holiness, but NZ First leader Winston Peters did.
Taken together with the Government's apparent connivance in March when New Zealand-based Chinese journalist Nick Wang was denied entry to a photo opportunity between Michael Cullen and Chinese Vice-Premier Zeng Peiyan, and with previous occasions when protesters have been hustled out of sight of visiting Chinese dignitaries, it adds up to a pretty craven look.
Critics of the Government's tiptoeing, such as Green MP Keith Locke, occupy an impeccable moral position when they demand that our representatives ignore the pressure - implicit and very probably explicit - brought to bear by the Chinese. But the People's Republic is the dragon of the world economy and this country would be foolhardy to ignore its sensitivities in matters of international relations.
Others have compared our position unfavourably with that of the Lange administration, which defied the nuclear hegemony in the 1980s. But the matters are not equivalent. The US in the mid-1980s had much less power over our trade fortunes than China does now. A better comparison is with the Lange Government's decision to release the Rainbow Warrior bombers, Mafart and Prieur, to what everyone knew would be brief internment on a Pacific atoll. Lange's attempt to paint the climbdown as a diplomatic victory fooled no one. And Clark's pas de deux with the Chinese is equally transparent. It would have been better for her to admit, in terms as vague and diplomatic as she chooses, that she was acting pragmatically, in this country's best interests.
Better, too, for her to practice a bit more of the diplomatic soft-shoe shuffle with the Fijians. The expulsion of our High Commissioner, Michael Green, is the sign of a Government under pressure, but no one should take comfort from that. It's hard to back down when your back is against the wall and Clark's thundering approach is the wrong one for a Pacific nation leader who needs to show leadership.
On his return, Green stopped well short of endorsing Clark's security warning to intending travellers. The PM would do well to work quietly behind the scenes to resolve the Fiji crisis, rather than coming out with guns blazing, causing collateral damage to Fiji's tourism industry. She may think she is diverting attention from the cringing attitude to China - but she is fooling nobody.
