Rewa high chief and former United Nations security executive Ro Naulu Mataitini has warned that Fiji is “undermining our own diplomats” and risking its national interests by sidelining career envoys and failing to properly resource its missions abroad. In a strongly worded social media statement on April 27, Mataitini said political behaviour and poor strategic focus have allowed foreign powers to gain disproportionate influence in Suva and across the Pacific.
Mataitini — who combines chiefly status with experience in international security — said the region has become a focal point for global geopolitics and that foreign states are responding by placing substantial diplomatic resources in Fiji. “Other countries are establishing a presence in Fiji at an accelerating pace. Not consular offices. Not protocol posts. Their presence is strategic — designed to advance their national interests,” he wrote, adding that “new embassies are opening” and non-resident ambassadors are “flocking to Suva.”
The chief questioned whether Fiji’s diplomatic footprint abroad matches the scale of that external engagement. “Do we place the same priority on our ambassadors in Canberra, Beijing, Wellington or Washington? The honest answer is no,” Mataitini said, arguing that some Fijian missions have been reduced to “protocol and consular offices” rather than instruments to advance and defend national policy. He urged that Fiji must leverage the insights of its Heads of Mission rather than cede influence to external envoys who enjoy “unfettered access to our ministers.”
Mataitini singled out Australia by name, accusing successive Australian high commissioners of exercising “enormous influence” over the Fijian government. “The current HC is selling Australia’s interests brilliantly. His success is built on our political gullibility,” he wrote, pressing the question of whether Fiji is shaping policy in Canberra or merely reacting to Australian priorities.
Those remarks come amid an accelerating regional diplomatic contest in which Pacific island states have seen increased attention and deeper ties from a range of capitals. Mataitini framed his critique as a call for a “strategic reset” of Fiji’s foreign policy at a moment when external actors are investing in Suva with senior envoys and well-resourced missions. He warned that without a stronger, better-resourced diplomatic posture, Fiji could struggle to defend its interests as competitors vie for influence.
Mataitini’s intervention adds a prominent local voice to ongoing debates about how small island states should manage external engagement and protect sovereignty in an era of intensifying geopolitical rivalry. His combination of chiefly authority and international experience is likely to amplify discussion in political and diplomatic circles about whether Fiji’s foreign policy machinery needs reinforcement — in staffing, funding and strategic direction — to match the changing external environment.