Page 27 - IB_November2020

Opinion Opinion

disappeared the following year (1972) on Australia’s initiative. capitalise on the same ROO proved negative. The global trade
It remains to be seen whether this structural re-organisation scenario had changed somewhat. The catchphrase of ‘free
to merge the two unequal groups was responsible for the trade’ prevailed over preferential trade. Australia and New
dilution of the natural impulse to bridge the socio-economic Zealand were thus prevailed upon to advise PICs that SPARTE-
gaps and inequality that existed then and has continued to CA (and its ROO), had outlived its time.
frustrate the Pacific Island Forum’s membership and its inher- In the late 1990s, it was back to basics in considering a basis
ent unity. for an economic union. SPF members negotiated an FTA: the
Dr. Aqorau is correct in acknowledging that the idea behind Pacific Regional Trade Agreement (PARTA). This was to be an
a ‘single custom and development union’ or ‘single economic intra-regional trade agreement, including Australia and New
and development union’ (SCDU) is not new. “What might be Zealand. The idea for a FTA just for PICs as the basis for the
novel,’ he says, “is the idea of integrating our economies to development of an economic union did not get the nod at the
have a SCDU.” The latter is so because Pacific regionalism has time. It was to come later, however, when PARTA was discard-
not faithfully committed itself to progressing the idea. Many ed. Did political economy considerations of SPF’s dichotomous
factors have come into play. and differentiated membership get in the way? Did geopoliti-
The question to be asked, therefore, is what has happened cal considerations cloud rationality in this instance?
to this bullish concept of an economic union that was envis- When it came to signing PARTA, the PICs rebelled, unhappy
aged some 49 years ago. The events of Pacific regionalism with their treatment under the agreement, and refused to
over the decades are revealing and instructive and from them sign. PARTA’s provisions lacked the trade and trade rules con-
we can learn to better strategise to avoid the mistakes of the cessions that would persuade Pacific Island trade ministers to
past. readily commit to the agreement.
It took nine long years for the South Pacific Forum (SPF) to This predicament was resolved when SPF discarded PARTA
make the first move towards an economic union. In 1980, the and quickly negotiated the Pacific Island Countries Trade
SPF opted for a preferential, non-reciprocal trade arrange- Agreement (PICTA) – an FTA for PICs only, and the Pacific
ment to establish the foundation for an economic union. Agreement on Closer Economic Relations (PACER) – an eco-
Such a preferential arrangement was considered with greater nomic framework agreement between the PICs and Australia
compliancy at the time by the global trading system. The di- and New Zealand. PACER then gave rise to PACER Plus, a
chotomy of SPF membership, resulting from Australia and New FTA between twelve PICs and ANZ. This is finally to come
Zealand’s privileged positions as developed countries vis-à-vis into force with Cook Islands’ ratification. But its 16 years of
others, played a pivotal role as well. negotiations diverted much energy and intellectual competen-
The idea of a Free Trade Agreement (FTA) amongst the PICS cies from the task of properly establishing the economic union
as basis for an economic union was still over a decade away. envisaged for PICs in 1971.
Australia and New Zealand thus agreed to establish the In the meantime, PICTA came into force after it was signed
preferential South Pacific Regional Trade and Economic Coop- in 2001. However, in 2020, only seven members (50 per cent
eration Agreement (SPARTECA). This was signed in 1980 and of membership) are implementing the agreement. The envis-
came into force in 1981. aged economic union remains a dream. Professor Chand’s
SPARTECA was unidirectional. PICs’ exports were provided advanced regional integration scenario of a regional parlia-
market access in Australia and New Zealand. Rules of Origin ment will remain on the ‘to do’ list for the time being. Much
(ROO) were devised for the conduct of trade. The agreement was discussed on these advanced regional integration projects
however lacked provisions and resources to support and pro- in the early 2000s during the formulation of the Pacific Plan.
mote the supply side of the PICs’ export trade. Thus in 1984, However, little or no progress eventuated due to claims they
SPF noted the decline in PICs’ exports under the agreement. were ill-conceived and lacked buy-in.
In the following year, SPF queried the relevance of SPARTECA. Yes, it is time for new normal. Post-COVID-19 demands all
Later in 1988, SPF noted PICs’ problems of production capac- that. But history still has a role to play. Pacific regionalism
ity and the inadequacy of the agreement’s ROO. is best advised to occasionally cast its eyes back at its own
Fiji was factoring all these issues in its approach to region- history and re-evaluate events, and itself, from the perspec-
alism. So much so that Fiji’s delegation to the 1993 Leaders’ tives particularly of political economy and geopolitics. The
meeting opted to propose a SPARTECA-look-alike agreement Blue Pacific should not become a cliché. It should learn from
to the rest of the PICs. This, however, did not see the light of George Orwell: “Who controls the past controls the future.
day. Had that progressed, it would have been interesting to Who controls the present controls the past.”
note its formative impact on economic union at the time.
Fiji, furthermore, took advantage of its close bilateral- editor@islandsbusiness.com
ism with Australia and New Zealand to negotiate changes in
the SPARTECA Rules of Origin. This consequently boosted the The author is a former Fijian Ambassador and Foreign Minis-
development of Fiji’s garment industry at the time. ter and runs his own consultancy company in Suva, Fiji.
Sometime later, however, further negotiations to expand to

Islands Business, November 2020 27