Fiji: Stop Or Go? As the plane comes in from the Pacific to land in Nadi, on the north- western tip of the main Fiji island, the whitcap-spreckled blue of the ocean yields to the sinuous white line of the breakers on the reef. The shallows are green or slate coloured, with brownish pockmarks or darker stripes tapering towards the shoreline. The sandy coconut-tree garnered beach is soon replaced by sugar cane. Cane everywhere – in the plains and on the maze of volcanic hillocks that make out the landscape. The farms are scattered. In the distance, lave cliffs and jagged crests, losing themselves in the clouds.
About 6000 years ago people left southern China for Taiwan, the Philippines and, skirting Papua New Guinea, sailed headlong into the Pacific to settle Polynesia’s islands - Fiji, Tahiti, Easter Island, Hawi’i, and finally New Zealand. The navigational skills used for this achievement were unrivalled until Western man entered the Pacific in the 16th century. Once avoided as the Cannibal Islands, Fiji was first visited commercially for its sandalwood and bêche-de-mer. Guns and germs decimated of the population. Commerce and religion then took tentative hold. 1875 he was forced into a Cession to the British Empire. Indentured labour first from Melanesia and then from India was brought over to work on sugar cane plantations. After WWI plantations were abandoned for smallholder cane production on land leased from the indigenous population. Thus a large Indo-Fijian minority emerged on the island. Independence came in 1970.The first constitution divided parties along racial lines. When the Labour Party (mainly Indian) achieved majority in 1987, it was toppled by a military coup. The 1997 constitution does away with racial separation. Though it provides for a ‘government of national unity’ this does not resolve the underlying tensions. A second coup took place in 1999. The current PM has refused to form such a government, citing irreconcilable differences. The Supreme Court is to find on the legality of this exclusion. Traditional political power structures have been maintained (the Council of Chiefs). As the economy grows, the power conflicts within clans, among clans in the same region, among the islands etc. increase. Decisions are postponed and corruption is rampant, partially also because the smallness of the island does not allow for competition to emerge. 850’000 people, on 18’000 km2 of mainly volcanic islands and US$ 7’8000 income per capita (at PPP). Primary education is general, and health is considered good. Out-migration, particularly among the better educated, is strong - even though the impact is somewhat lessened by remittances. Indians and Chinese are still moving in. The Fijian economy is roughly as follows: • Sugar cane, on which the livelihood of c.a 200’000 people depends directly or indirectly. No longer competitive with mechanised sugar cane, the industry relies on the EU, which buys sugar at three times the world market price (Cotonou Agreement) - a practice which is not WTO- compatible. Also, the sugar mills need replacing. Insecurity of land tenure has created tensions, as well as lowering of the product quality. Unless all of these issues are resolved, the industry will self-destruct after 2007. • Smallholder and subsistence agriculture • Fisheries (mainly by third country vessels) earn 10% of value of fees. • Subsurface gold mining; • Mahogany (40’000 ha). • Manufacturing (textile – 18’000 workers altogether; food processing, copra). • Tourism – potentially a 600 million US$ industry (but c.a ½ would go to the airlines), if 300 rooms @ year are added to the existing 5’000. Three models are emerging: (a) ‘plantation’ style in the outer islands; (b) enclaves along the coast; (c) scattered lower cost (back-packer) tourism. Employment effects are low (compared to the investment): 1-2 staff per room, at wages of 10-12 US$ per day. • Movie production. Fiji is a mix of decadence and development without transparence. Its situation is economically and socially precarious. Political stability is weak, corruption and poor governance prevalent. Three models of evolution are conceivable: (1) ‘French’ model of integration (French Polynesia). A federative structure including Australia and New Zealand could provide the engine for development and stability (and orderly out-migration) at the price of abandoning political and economic independence. (2) ‘Neo-colonial’ model, where the forms of independence are maintained, but the regional powers (AUS, NZ) would have and enforce their say – yet with limited responsibilities. (3) Muddle through, with the ongoing risk of a political involution taking hold (as in other island states in the region), eventually leading to ‘failed states’. Given the size of the society and economy, a ‘self-reliant’ development seems to me unrealistic. Stop or go? Fiji faces the deadline of 2007. If its sugar industry, which represents 25% of foreign earnings, collapses, the ripple consequences could be disastrous. In a globalising world the structural problems of small island states (physical vulnerability, distance, small markets) would in any case remain impediments to self- sustaining growth. __________________ Aldo Matteucci 61, Ludlam Cr. LOWER HUTT 6009 NEW Zealand [EMAIL PROTECTED] (preferred) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
