Page 33 - IB July 2021

Opinion Opinion

stepped up. Foundational regional leaders envisaged it way approach is that in managing the implementation of the trade
back in 1971. The history of Pacific regionalism is littered agreement, both the PPIU and PPJC can pursue a parallel
with trade and economic agreements – SPARTECA, PARTA, monitoring and evaluation role when it comes to PICTA. Such
PACER, PICTA, PACER Plus, iEPA, cEPA (yet to be fully negoti- a role can be expedient for PACER Plus for a number of rea-
ated). There could have been a SPARTECA II in the late 1980s sons. Firstly, the majority of PICTA signatories are also signa-
had Fiji’s proposal been backed by others. Regional planners tories of PACER Plus. What is thus good for PICTA is also good
must be constantly wringing their hands wondering where for PACER Plus, and they can supplement and complement
they have gone wrong in regional economic and in advanced each other in advancing Intra-PICs and PICs-Australia/New
regional integration. Zealand trade. This is likely to motivate regional economic
PACER Plus now holds the key for more concerted regional integration as never before.
economic integration and even for more advanced regional in- Another good reason is that such an inclusive role is particu-
tegration. Its re-negotiation, as proposed above, is still valid. larly evocative of Australia and New Zealand’s long-standing
The Prime Ministers of Australia and New Zealand, in a Joint commitment to preferential treatment of PICs. Greg Fry
{ PACER Plus now holds the key for more concerted

regional economic integration and even for more ad-
vanced regional integration

Statement of 31 May, after their meeting in Queenstown, writes in ‘International Cooperation in the South Pacific: From
{
have given the green light. They acknowledged that PACER Regional Integration to Collective Diplomacy’: “This notion of
Plus is more than just a free trade agreement (FTA). Its full ‘region’ specifically did not include the territories of Australia
title is PACER Plus Trade and Development Agreement. They and New Zealand despite their membership of the organisa-
looked forward to “more PICs joining the agreement in order tion. This was based on the premise, accepted by Australia
to realise its benefits of enhanced economic integration and and New Zealand, that the cooperative process was there to
inclusive growth.” serve ‘developing’, rather than ‘developed’, societies.”
It can be assumed that the invitation to more PICs joining Such cooperative process and the regional integration that
the agreement was directed with an eye especially to the two it will engender is likely to be doubly powerful and transfor-
big Melanesian traders of Fiji and Papua New Guinea. This mative, in this case: it being driven by two trade agreements
makes sense. The two traders’ contribution to regional eco- working in concert. The agreements’ respective foci, whilst
nomic integration and to more advanced integration can be different, will tend to produce results that are supplemental.
quite substantial on the strength of their respective national These will precipitate unprecedented economic integration.
trade. Such an inclusive approach on the part of the signato- This first phase of economic integration can quickly advance
ries of PACER Plus, especially sanctioned by Australia and New further to another stage where the integrated economies
Zealand, is likely to be the crucial contributory factor to the would be considering shared regional institutions that are
integrated regional economic picture envisaged by the early geared to providing much needed and competitively priced
regional leaders. trade services in the areas, for example, of trade finances and
The choice of a renegotiated PACER Plus to invite Fiji and credit insurance.
PNG aboard is a moot point. It can be argued that if Fiji and A number of trade agreements have come and gone. Some
PNG want to sign onto the agreement, they can do so on the are still tottering - seeking their efficacy. PACER Plus, on the
strength of the agreement as is. However, in the context of other hand, is proceeding forward with determination. Its
regional economic development and growth of PICs espe- PPJC has the backing of its principal developed partners and
cially their specific disadvantages, any legal argument can be their respective Prime Ministers. Should the Implementation
swayed by persuasive development polemics on equity, equal- Unit recommend adjustments to the agreement and its practi-
ity trade justice and morality. cal operationalisation as proposed above, it can be antici-
Moreover, any opportunity to re-look at existing agreed pated that PACER Plus is likely to be the prime mover that will
texts for the purpose of renegotiation is a means for self- take regional economic integration for Pacific regionalism to
development and enrichment. Re-negotiating PACER Plus, as heights never before attained.
I have advocated, is thus propitious. The Institute for Interna-
tional Trade in Adelaide, for instance, has recently undertaken editor@islandsbusiness.com
a project to investigate the future of Special and Differential
Treatment (SDT) in WTO. A positive result from such a survey The author is a former Fijian Ambassador and Foreign Minis-
can be an added basis for renegotiating PACER Plus. ter and runs his own consultancy company in Suva, Fiji.
Another opportunity for PACER Plus to take an inclusive

Islands Business, July 2021 33