Interview with Prime Minister Sitiveni Rabuka

'The last ten years have been very educational for me'

It is almost ten years since Sitiveni Rabuka led the military coup which toppled the newly-electerl coalition government The stormy events of 1987 are long gast end Fiji has returned to more peaceful ways, but the country is arguably not yet at peace with itself. Major-General Rabuka is now the erected Prime Minister, having led the SVT to victory at the polls in 1992 and 1994. But the gulf between the native Fijians end citizens of Indian descent remains - indeed, it is institutionalised in a political system which ensures a parliamentary majority for the former. A constitutional review is currently under way end a new text must tee adopted by July 1997. For both sides, the stakes are high. In this interview, Prime Minister Rabuka speaks frankly about the crucial issues facing Fiji as the nation gears up for the great constitutional debate.

Fiji also faces some formidable economic challenges and we began by asking the Prime Minister about these.

- The main challenge is the one that everybody faces: achieving an acceptable rate of growth to ensure job creation and address the unemployment problem. We also want to improve the standard of living of the people, to upgrade our infrastructure, and to develop both the urban and rural areas.

· What sectors do you see as offering the best hope for future growth ?

- We are looking particularly at tourism and the agro-based industries. In the international sphere, we are aiming to boost trade, particularly with our traditional trading partners, Australia and New Zealand, and with new partners that we are trying to cultivate in Asia.

We are very grateful for the Lomé Convention and the various arrangements associated with it - particularly as regards access to the EU market for our sugar products. Although it would be desirable for us not to have to rely on preferential pricing for sugar, for the moment, there is no alternative. And while we are looking for alternatives and seeking to diversify our economy, we will need that system to remain in place. We would like to continue the dialogue to ensure that this happens.

In the area of trade, as I say, our focus is on Australia and New Zealand, and the regional trade agreement that the Pacific island territories have with them. This agreement is currently under review. One important aspect is the clause governing the rules of origin. If we can convince Australia and New Zealand to reduce the local input requirement from 50% to 35%, then we won't need any aid from them. The effect will be to secure existing jobs and, indeed, to increase employment, particularly in the garment industry. At the moment, most of the textiles we import for further processing come from Australia. Because of the market we have to sell to, it is very good quality material. This means the costs are high, in comparison with the local input needed to turn it into finished products, and this makes it difficult for us to get up to the required 50%.

If we don't get that reduction, things could go in the opposite direction. Manufacturers might relocate and we could be facing jobs losses. You have to remember that we are competing with Asian producers who have very low wage costs.

· Is this proposal for a reduction in the local input requirement on the agenda with the Australians and New Zealanders ?

- The review actually excludes the clause on the rules of origin. Having said this, we have effectively raised the calculation of our local input in negotiations on a series of other points. On paper, the 50% figure is unchanged but in fact, there has been a reduction of about 5%, thus giving us a little margin.

· On the sugar issue you said you were hopeful that some form of preferential access to the EU market would be maintained. Isn't there a concern that this may not last beyond the year 2000, particularly given the increasingly liberal world trading system ?

- Yes, and we are looking at that. We should be gearing ourselves up for what happens at the end of the current Lomé agreement. It remains to be seen whether, with the WTO and the new trends, the curtain will suddenly be brought down on 1 January 2000, or whether there will be a grace period in which we are given time to consolidate our diversification.

· The other big issue in the sugar sector concerns the impending expiry of the land leases.

- That is a local issue and a very important one. It has high priority on our government agenda. We are currently talking to the landowners and lessees, explaining what will happen. The legislation (the Agricultural Landlord and Tenant Act) makes no provision for further extensions to the leases, which are now nearing their end. Do we need a new act or should we amend the present law to allow extensions beyond the 50 years originally allowed for ? And if we are to do that, what happens to the compensation provisions? At the moment, these are viewed in a rather one-sided way. The emphasis is on the situation where the landlord compensates the tenant for improvements made to the land. But the rules also provide for compensation in the other direction where the value has been reduced. This may be due to constant cultivation over 50 years. What if the owner wants to return the land to its original use, planting taro, yams or cassava, as his father may have done fifty years ago, and finds he can no longer do so ? There has to be a balancing act here.

Hopefully, most of the land will be leased again under a new agreement or under an amendment to the existing law - because we will need to continue sugar production. It is also worth noting that some sugar farmers are beginning to diversify into other crops, both subsistence and commercial.

· What arrangements do you envisage for those farmers who do not have their leases renewed ? Will they be relocated ?

- Right now, we are looking at the use of state land. There are two basic categories here - what used to be known as 'Crown Land under Schedule A' and 'Crown Land under Schedule B'. Schedule A covers the land not claimed by anybody during the Commission that was set up to determine the ownership of land in the very early colonial years. Schedule B is land that belonged to a community or landholding unit that has since died out: in other words, where there is no surviving member of the land-owning unit. So we have those parcels of land available. My party's policy is to restore land to the traditional owners where possible, but in those cases where you cannot identify the original owners, there will be land available for resettlement - although resettlement is perhaps not a very good term to use.

· It is somewhat emotive.

- It implies taking a person, family or community from somewhere and planting them somewhere else - and I hope we can avoid that. On the other hand, if you look at what people are doing nowadays, everybody's relocating. People are always resettling, moving away from home and setting up elsewhere. In this case it is perhaps a necessity, in the sense that the legislation has caught up with us.

· Can I turn now to the sensitive issue of the constitution. This is another area where decision day is looming. You currently have a constitutional review under way with the Commission's report due out soon. What do you think will emerge from this process over the next 12-18 months ?

- I don't feel that the constitutional issue is a sensitive one and do not think anyone should feel restrained in asking questions about it. It reflects the reality of the situation in Fiji. There is a requirement that the 1990 Constitution be reviewed and we have a Review Commission chaired by Sir Paul Reeves. He is a very capable man who is a former Governor-General of New Zealand and a very eminent constitutional lawyer. Assisting him, we have two party nominees - one from the main Fijian party and one nominated jointly by the Indian parties in Parliament. I have total confidence in that Commission. I believe they will come up with very objective observations and recommendations.

Let me explain the timetable to you. The report is expected by the end of August. It will be presented first to the President and then to me for submission to Cabinet. I envisage it being tabled in Parliament towards the end of September. We cannot debate it until three months have elapsed from the date it was tabled - which takes us to the end of the year. A lot of work will be needed during the first half of 1997. The Joint Parliamentary Select Committee, made up of members of both the upper and lower houses, will have to work on the report and try and build consensus on the various issues.

Given that the house is racially divided, and the possibility that a premature discussion on the floor of the house may raise the temperature, I would prefer not to have a full parliamentary sitting in the early part of next year. Instead, we should go into committee and deal with it there. And then when we are satisfied that the issues can be brought out into the open, we will debate them fully in Parliament. As soon as we start talking next year, the legislative craftsmen should begin their work. On the basis of this programme, I believe we can meet the deadline to the day, promulgating a new Constitution which has been accepted by both houses on 25 July 1997. So I am very hopeful.

· Without prejudging the final outcome, do you envisage a move away from strict communal separation ? I am thinking here, in particular, of the separate voting lists ?

- I think there may be provision for some cross-communal voting. There was something like this in the 1970 Constitution which had both communal and national rolls.

· What about the longer term. Do you foresee a political system developing in Fiji where ethnic origin is irrelevant - perhaps a 'right-left' divide, if that is still a meaningful concept ?

- I am not bold enough to say that that will happen. I have seen the darkest side of Fijian nationalism. I have seen the fear that was in the Indian population in 1987. But if we move too quickly to remove the racial safeguards that are in the Constitution, we may run the risk of prolonging the bad relationship between the races that we now have. So I would say we should proceed very cautiously and let the natural healing process take its course. We also need to look beyond the Constitution at aspects such as our education system and enhancing the ability of the Fijians to compete.

· I believe the education system is also very divided.

- Some schools are reserved for Fijians although, slowly, there are Indians from families close to the schools who are beginning to enter them.

· Do you think that this is a promising sign for the future ?

- I think so. I went to a purely Fijian school and when I came out of that, everything was Fijian for me. I went straight into the army which is another Fijian-dominated institution. It was not planned that way. It is just the way it happened. My tolerance level of other races was very low. But you cannot expect somebody who gets to this level of leadership to have a low racial tolerance level. I must admit that the last ten years have been very, very educational for me - very good for my own being. I consider what I used to think before and the way I used to feel before. I have never been threatened by an Indian, but I had always been in Fijian 'safe' areas - a Fijian school and then in the army. But since coming out of that sort of cocoon, I have managed very well to accept that I have to compete with them, I have to look after them, and I have to devise policies and programmes that will be good for them as well as being good for us.

· One final question. Do you envisage Fiji seeking to rejoin the Commonwealth in the near future ?

- I think seeking is the wrong word. We will do what we feel is good for Fiji and its people. The people of Fiji are those who are here now but it will include some of those who have moved on looking for greener pastures and who are willing to come back. We were not expelled from the Commonwealth; our membership lapsed. It is up to the Commonwealth to say whether they are prepared to reconsider our member ship.