SUVA — Rewa high chief and former United Nations security executive Ro Naulu Mataitini has delivered a sharp rebuke of Fiji’s foreign policy, warning in a social media statement on April 27 that the country is “undermining our own diplomats” and ceding influence to foreign powers by failing to properly resource and empower its missions overseas.
Mataitini said political behaviour and a lack of strategic focus have hollowed out Fiji’s capacity to defend national interests. “For many years Fiji’s foreign policy suffered,” he wrote, arguing that the acceleration of foreign diplomatic activity in Suva — new embassies, non-resident ambassadors and well-resourced missions — has not been matched by reciprocal effort from Fiji abroad. “They see Fiji as a platform for influence in the Pasifika. They send their best people. They resource them properly,” he said.
The chief questioned whether Fiji’s ambassadors in key capitals are being given the tools they need. “Do we place the same priority on our ambassadors in Canberra, Beijing, Wellington or Washington? The honest answer is no,” Mataitini wrote. He asked whether posts have been downgraded to “protocol and consular offices” and whether Heads of Mission are being consulted and deployed to shape policy, or simply sidelined while foreign envoys enjoy “unfettered access to our ministers.”
Mataitini singled out Australia as an illustrative example of the imbalance he sees. He wrote that Fiji has “now had three Australian High Commissioners who exerted and continue to exert enormous influence over our government,” and accused the current Australian High Commissioner of “selling Australia’s interests brilliantly” on the back of what he described as Fiji’s political gullibility. He asked pointedly whether Fiji is influencing Canberra or merely following.
The intervention comes amid a period of intensifying geopolitical competition in the Pacific, where increased diplomatic footprints by global powers have been accompanied by public debate in the region about strategic autonomy, economic vulnerability and how small island states manage external relationships. Mataitini framed his critique as a call for a “strategic reset,” saying that the present moment — with greater foreign presence in Suva and heightened global tensions — demands urgent reassessment of how Fiji protects and advances its interests.
Mataitini’s status as a traditional leader and his background in international security give weight to the critique and are likely to reopen discussions in government and civil society about funding, staffing and the mandate of Fiji’s diplomatic network. His questions about whether Fiji’s missions are staffed and empowered to shape foreign policy echo wider regional concerns about how Pacific states balance growing external engagement with the need to retain sovereignty over policy choices.
The government had not publicly replied to Mataitini’s remarks at the time of his post. The chief’s comments add a new, high-profile voice to an ongoing conversation about Fiji’s foreign policy direction and may increase pressure on ministers to set out how they will resource and use diplomatic channels to promote national interests as great-power competition in the region intensifies.