SUVA — A prominent Rewa high chief and former United Nations security executive has warned that Fiji is weakening its own foreign policy by sidelining its diplomats and allowing foreign envoys to exert outsized influence on government decisions.
In a strongly worded social media statement on April 27, Ro Naulu Mataitini said political behaviour and a lack of strategic focus have “eroded Fiji’s ability to defend its national interests.” Mataitini, writing as both a traditional leader and experienced international official, accused some Fijian politicians of prioritising personal prestige and ceremonial status over sober diplomatic strategy. “There is something about politicians. To get elected, they will promise anything. But once inside Parliament, too many follow their worst instincts,” he wrote.
Mataitini warned that Fiji’s foreign policy has “suffered for years” as outside powers increase their footprint in the region. He said new embassies are opening in Suva and non-resident ambassadors are “flocking” to Fiji, describing the latest wave of diplomatic representation as strategic rather than merely consular or ceremonial. “They see Fiji as a platform for influence in the Pasifika. They send their best people. They resource them properly,” he said, urging equal commitment from Fiji’s own foreign service.
Directing particular criticism at Canberra, Mataitini said Australia has deployed High Commissioners who “exerted and continue to exert enormous influence over our government.” He added: “The current HC is selling Australia’s interests brilliantly. His success is built on our political gullibility.” Mataitini challenged whether Fiji places comparable priority on advancing its interests in capitals such as Canberra, Beijing, Wellington or Washington, asking rhetorically whether Fiji’s ambassadors are resourced to shape foreign policy or relegated to protocol and consular roles.
The Rewa chief called for a “strategic reset” of Fiji’s foreign policy and urged greater leverage of the insights of Fiji’s Heads of Mission. He asked whether foreign envoys in Suva have “unfettered access to our ministers” and whether that access is allowing outside governments to shape Fijian policy to their advantage. His intervention frames diplomatic capacity as central to national sovereignty amid intensifying great-power interest in the Pacific.
Mataitini’s comments add to an ongoing regional debate about the balance between courting foreign investment and protecting independent policy-making as the Pacific becomes a focal point of global geopolitics. While Suva has welcomed deeper engagement that can bring development benefits, Mataitini’s critique highlights rising concern at the local level about how diplomatic relationships are managed and whether Fiji’s own foreign service is sufficiently funded and empowered.
The statement does not appear to have prompted an immediate public response from the Fijian government or individual foreign missions. Mataitini’s remarks are the latest development in scrutiny of Fiji’s external relations as the country navigates competing strategic interests and growing diplomatic attention in Suva.