By Pesi Fonua

Labour mobility for Pacific Islanders, and the trans-shipment of radioactive materials through the South Pacific, are two issues that Tonga's Minister for Foreign Affairs and Defence, Hon. Sonatane Tu'a Taumoepeau Tupou, said will keep appearing on the agenda of future Forum meetings until they have satisfactorily been dealt with.

The issue of Labour Mobility is a proposal coming from most of the Forum Member island countries, for Australia and New Zealand to allow the Pacific Islands' unskilled, semi-skilled and skilled workers to have access to seasonal working visas to be able to work in these two countries, for example during the fruit picking seasons.

Labor Mobility was a bargaining tool for Pacific Island leaders when they negotiated the PACER free trade agreement with Australia and New Zealand. Their argument was that with free access to the island market for Australia and New Zealand products would eliminate any import substitution industry that anyone was hoping to establish in the islands, and the only way to narrow down the trade deficit between the islands and these two industrialized countries was for them to allow in Pacific Islanders to work on a seasonal working visas.

Nuclear waste

The trans-shipment of nuclear waste products through the South Pacific islands has not been satisfactorily addressed. Tonga's Minister for Foreign Affairs and the acting Minister of Defence, Hon. Sonatane Tu'a Taumoepeau Tupou, said that the response from the countries which are involved in the trans-shipment, Japan, France and the United Kingdom that the shipment "was safe" was not acceptable, "because nothing is fault proof, and if something goes wrong we will all die."

The following are extracts from an interview with Hon. Sonatane Tu'a Taumoepeau Tupou the leader of the Tongan delegation to the 36th Pacific Islands Forum meeting that was held in Port Moresby, Papua New Guinea, from October 24-29. Tonga will host the next Forum meeting in 2006.

Labour Mobility was an issue that might be used by Pacific Leaders to bargain with Australia and New Zealand for a fairer deal under the PACER free trade agreement. Was that the case?

At the Retreat, the Fijian Prime Minister addressed the question of Labor Mobility and the issue of trade access, in goods and services. I supported him, to allow Pacific Island countries to have access to seasonal visas for unskilled, skilled and semi-skilled Pacific Islanders. The two issues became not dependent of one another.

In terms of Labor Mobility, the Australian Prime Minister outlined their policy, that you are either a citizen or a permanent resident, and nothing in between. But they understood the significance of Labor Mobility for Pacific Islanders. He advised that there might be reservation for people like fruit-pickers. He said that his Cabinet was some what divided over the issue, some were for it and others were against it. He also said that it was the same for his Labor Party. He could not make a decision at the retreat but he said that they would continue working on it, so by the Forum next year in Tonga we should be able to say one way or the other.

John Howard put a lot of emphasis on trade and the building of industries in Pacific Island countries, during his press conferences. What is your view on the two regional Free Trade Agreements, PACER and PICTA. How would they benefit Tonga?

We have to take advantage of these trade agreements, and to do so we have got to focus on our three priority areas that have been established in our national plan, Tourism, Fisheries and Agriculture. It is a question of doing it well so that we can benefit from the provisions of these two agreements.

Pacific Island leaders appeared to be uncomfortable with PACER. What was the stumbling block?

I think the stumbling block is really the market, the big countries are the market for goods and services. That is something for our Minister of Labour, Commerce and Industries to really focus on, in terms of what it is that we really want to sell and trade.

With regards to PACER I think the general thinking is that Australia and New Zealand will benefit more from it than the other Forum countries?

The bigger the market the more are the advantages. It is the question of selective engagement, and what it is really you are trying to benefit from. What sort of trade, goods and services that you focus on. We don't seem yet, to be in a position to promote and to project this. Ours is very selective, we either have pumpkin, vanilla or kava. We haven't really diversified sufficiently to utilize these provisions. So we are importing goods and exporting a little less.

That was why people in the media raised the issue, that Labor Mobility was essential for some island countries to be able to balance their trade figures?

Labor mobility will certainly offset it in terms of our disadvantages with the economy of scale. But it is like watching a freight ship coming into Tonga. It comes in fully laden then it leaves virtually empty. You have to make sure that you have something to trade with, so seasonal visas are possibly something that we can aim for. It has to involve both the power of the government to intervene as well as the commitment of village people to go and come back. It has to be well organized. I understand that with the involvement of Mumui Tatola and others, what they do is, they select the workers to go and then they have peer pressure on them to come back, so others in other villages can go. That was the draw back in the Hutt Valley scheme, because government selected who would go, and the first two rotation was quite good but then by the third one we started to lose people by the wayside. So the onus is to make sure that people come back is probably best done by the villages themselves.

We have got to have these seasonal visas to offset this trade imbalance. Australia and New Zealand are big countries, and I reckon they can absorb a good number of Pacific islanders.

I don't believe that this issue is going to go away, it is going to be raised again and again, and it is quite rightly so because this type of assistance goes directly to the individual, and directly to the villages, and that will develop us. And it would narrow down our trade deficit.

John Howard said that the answer to unemployment in the Pacific was to build industries in the region. Was there any specific plan along that direction?

He proposed a Trade and Technical Training institute in one of the Pacific Island counties. The idea needs to be thought out in terms of the diplomas or certificates that would be issued, whether it would be accepted in Australia and New Zealand, and the United States. I made a point that under our Defence Co-operation Program and Mutual Assistance Program from New Zealand the army trains 40 to 50 technicians and trades people annually, and at the end they get certificates from both Australia or New Zealand, so when they finish, they actually go out and use this certificate to migrate, and they get good jobs. We reckon, a third of them end up in Australia and the United States, the other third go to New Zealand and the other third stay at home and go into the Private Sector. So they need to work this out, the concept to absorb those school leavers that are not going to pursue tertiary or degree courses, but who can get those certificates and then that would be the vehicle for employment in Australia and New Zealand, where this type of skill is very much in demand.

With regards to the development of industries in the region, one thing that Howard repeatedly raised in his press conferences, was good governance as a means of attracting foreign investment and the building of industries. Was it discussed in your meetings?

It was raised in the context of the Pacific Plan, in those terms, Good Governance does attract foreign investment and so forth, but the opposite was also true. I mean you take a country like China in which economic growth is growing by leaps and bounds, and it is moving to a form of good governance. But in the Pacific, setting a regional auditing system, setting up a regional ombudsmen, these types of services which could be available to the region.

But with regard to actually actively trying to attract foreign investment, was there a specific scheme?

It was pretty much left for individual country to find investment. There has to be a fundamental change (in Tonga), with regards to leases. A five year lease is a disincentive, and if you give him a 20-year lease, that is also a disincentive. There is a reform in the operation of public utilities that is necessary in order to attract investors. I think that was one reason why the Japanese just went to Samoa because the cost of electricity, water and labour in Tonga was exorbitant, so these are things that if you want to attract direct investment, then you have to look at the fundamentals of how are you going to do it. I think the Minister of Labour Commerce and industries, is quite aware of this and he has been trying to address it. I think the Minister of Lands is aware of it as well and he has got to dialogue with the Minister of Labour and the business community. The current law allows us to give bona fide investors a visa for two years. We have many bona fide investors and two years is not the answer. You need to give them reassurance in terms of their visa that is much longer than two years, so you have to amend the legislation. These are the sort of things that we have to do.

Across the board we have a lot of work to do to make sure we can, and of course make sure there is political stability.

While we are talking about trade, Tonga's accession to the WTO is expected to take place either late this year or early next year. Was the WTO issue discussed during the Forum meeting?

The WTO accession was a key issue across all the post dialogue panels. I think Samoa and Tonga are on the list of accession. But apart from that it was necessary to get the assurance from industrial countries, Japan, China, India, dialogue partners to help with our accession to the WTO, to take a special account of the smallness of our economy so that we are not disadvantaged by being lumped together (with bigger economies). The panel that I was in, with the UK, Japan, China and India were very supportive. I am not quite sure how the USA reacted, but Japan, China, the United Kingdom and India, were all very supportive and understood the necessity to give us a Special Preference Treaty arrangement, instead of being lumped together with other countries which are larger with abundance of natural resources.

So from your understanding our WTO membership will be this year or next year?

My understanding is that something may be decided on at the Hong Kong meeting in December, and I think it will be next year because they still have a number of negotiations to be carried out later this year, and the Minister of Labour will have to conclude some trade agreements. I know they have signed a number of treaties with a number of countries, but I don't know how far have they got with the USA, but I think it is getting very much toward the end.

On a different issue, the New Zealand immigration have introduced a restriction on the issuance of visas for people who want to travel from Tonga to New Zealand for Christmas. This restriction has a negative impact on airlines?

It is an issue that we raised with the Prime Minister, Helen Clark, but the PM was not aware of such a restriction, so she was asking her staff to get clarification.

During the Post Forum Dialogue with dialogue partners, Taiwan offered Nauru millions for the repatriation of stranded workers from Kiribasi and Tuvalu. In the case of Tonga was there any such direct financial assistance to Tonga?

In our dialogue I reemphasized that Tonga's main industries are Tourism, Fisheries and Agriculture. In our bilateral talks with China, India and Thailand, they all offered different types of assistance, training, and technical expertise. They also offered to assist together with the European Union and New Zealand in our hosting of the Forum next year, but we will work with the Prime Minister's office on the kind of formal request that we will make.

In the Communique, there was a moratorium on the number of dialogue partners. What was the reason for restricting the number?

It is normal for dialogue partners to apply because of the number is increasing together with the number of associate members, Forum thought it was time to review the criteria for dialogue partners, so that the interests of the region can be better served, if not better focused.

I noticed that the Taiwanese were pushed out. The signing of the agreement with Nauru, Kiribati and Tuvalu was not allowed to be signed at the Forum venue, it had to be signed somewhere else. Does the Forum still want Taiwan to be a dialogue partner or not?

No, the formula for those who have relations with Taiwan was set in 1992, the issue of Taiwan and cross strait dialogue between Taiwan and China was left entirely for only them to resolve. And that was why the formula was set that the dialogue with Taiwan will occur when the main dialogue is finished, and it has to be in a separate venue. For those who wish to dialogue with Taiwan, they would not be representing the Forum.

The majority of the Forum members uphold the one China policy and that was the compromise that was set in 1992. It took us two years to agree on that. It is our view that the issue of Taiwan is better dealt with between Beijing and Taiwan. Peaceful reunification is something we all wish would happen, but it can only happen if both sides sit down and talk.

Is Taiwan a dialogue partner?

Yes, with those that have diplomatic relations with Taiwan, and those who want to go there.

There seems to be a lot of enthusiasm among dialogue partners, and it appeared that there were also a lot of countries which were willing to assist Pacific countries?

There is a lot of enthusiasm, following the adoption of the Pacific Plan and the reason was because it was the first time that the leaders' vision has been put into writing and set out in priorities terms. No plan is perfect, every thing we do have some imperfections in it, but there is a system for regular review, called the Kalibobo Roadmap, that is where the short comings of such a plan is open for criticism. So it is a living document, and it has flexibility within it. That is why there was enthusiasm because they could see where they were going to target their assistance.

India, China, Japan have made payment commitments for our first priority, and they will put it in their development aid program. China for instance has announced nine new initiatives, assistance to the Forum Secretariat, assistance to SPREP, assistance to tourist organization and they have added on to what they called the China Forum Fund another $2 million, India for instance has outlined all what they can do. So we asked India for the bulk purchasing of pharmaceutical products, because they make cheaper products than anywhere else. They also have agreed to grant us the license to produce pills to combat avian flu. So they were very enthusiastic. The Pacific Plan has made it easier for donors to look at it and see where they can focus their aid.

Do you think there is a possibility for the Pacific Forum to develop and become something like the European Union?

That is futuristic. The Pacific Plan, actually said, in my view, said and unsaid requirements, that you are unconsciously going on to. Member states of the Forum and the Forum itself is beginning to move beyond the region, and this plan is the catalyst by which you are moving to a more focused engagement with countries which are dialogue partners but are not direct aid donors in the region. So it is a realignment of relations, and it is the beginning of a new regional foreign policy.

The engagement that we have had with China in the past years has built and matured up to a point where you recognize the real role China has, and that takes account of the constructive role that Japan has played, and it is just the building up of relations beyond what our traditional allies, Australia, New Zealand and the United States have, so you have got Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, India, the Republic of Korea.

The relations with the United Kingdom is important in terms of its role within the European Union. France and the UK together contribute 13-14% of the EU budget so these are our traditional friends but the region is moving beyond the platform of yesteryear to the reality of today, and that is not to say that you are leaving your traditional allies, no it is additional to what you have. That is not what the Pacific Plan said but that is where you are going.

So there will be less bilateral talks and more multilateral talks?

Yes, your membership with the United Nations is an area where you will do multilateral talks, so if there are 13 of you from the Pacific you can form a cohesive group and you can pursue the Pacific view in an assembly that has 109 members. This is what I meant when I said the realignment of relations, and it is fundamental to Tonga to keep your cordial relations with your traditional allies.

So we have a Pacific representative in New York, Pacific representative in Brussels, and they have got to play a role determined by the Forum and their governments, in terms of promoting Pacific Plan in areas where the Forum believes it should be promoted.

The reaction of the Civil Society calling for the Forum not to adopt the Plan. They were also calling to cease all Free Trade talks?

I think the time for thoughtful reflection has passed, the fact that the donor partners welcome the Forum's decision because it help them focus. There were times for consultation, reflection and to be published.

I supposed this plan makes the Forum robust?

It has to or else the Civil Society will be right.

Going back to trade agreements, and it has been said that it marginalises small economies, what is your view on that?

It is nothing new. The Ministry of Labour has been told to assess our becoming a WTO member, if it will be worth our while. They assessed it and then they came back and said yes it will be worth our while.

The trans-shipment of nuclear waste through the Pacific remain an issue of major concern for Pacific people. What is the Forum's stance on that issue?

Well it is not going to get off the agenda until it is dealt with in a way that satisfies the governments and the people of the region. However much we are told that it is safe, the fear in the mind of Pacific Islanders is still there. What If?

We have dialogue with France, we have dialogue with Japan quiet candidly, but in my view, it is an reiteration of the Forum concern on the behalf of all these people. I am afraid it is an issue that we will discuss again in Nuku'alofa next year.