Search results

The Melanesian area is characterized by both a high level of cultural and political heterogeneity and an abundance of resources. In many cases, state structures are weak and the state is scarcely functional. Even more importantly, the traditional big man-system supports corruption and prevents effective nation-building. With these facts in mind, this article overhauls the resource-curse thesis and examines the role of resources in Melanesian conflicts. Using West Papua, Papua New Guinea, the Solomon Islands and New Caledonia as comparative examples, it highlights the similar conditions but different outcomes in these countries. While West Papua, Papua New Guinea and the Solomon Islands can be considered weak political units, New Caledonia is performing quite well. The author suggests that the reason for this discrepancy might be New Caledonia's functioning state; thus, the meaning of resource abundance is secondary. Regarding the Melanesian conflicts, the author concludes that resources are not the original cause of conflicts but that they strongly support already existing conflicts. Alternatively, if a strong political framework is provided by state or non-state actors, resource abundance supports cooperation.

The question of land in Fiji is a question of fundamental importance. Besides of its use for subsistence agriculture, land has an identity-forming function. Beyond that it is fair to say that land and specifically the economic use of land has been applied a political dimension within existing traditional control mechanisms. Should these mechanisms be violated or manipulated, conflicts arise, even more pronounced when existing power structures based on property are jeopardized and the respective life existences are at risk. Land in Fiji is politically used to maintain existing power relations. Fiji's split into native and Indo-Fijians as the two major ethnic groups is often seen as a reason for the Fijian conflict. However, land plays also a major role in this conflict which is being justified as well as fuelled by restrictive land rights. The nature of the conflict in Fiji demonstrates the economical and political relevance of land as a non-defined cultural treasure. The Indo-Fijians are considered newcomers, who should serve the old-established landowners. The article argues firstly that the difference is not so much between ethnic groups, but between landowners on the one hand, and those without land on the other. Secondly it shows that Fiji's governance structures fail to manage this conflict-prone difference.

Fijis Staatsstreiche haben kulturelle, politische und wirtschaftliche Gründe. Der Hauptgrund indes dürfte in der Diskriminierungspolitik liegen, die in Fiji praktiziert wird. Die ethnische Fijian Supremacy, ausgedrückt im Landeigentum, basiert auf traditionellen Gesellschaftsstrukturen und -vorstellungen. Land und die Eigentumsrechte an demselben sind als solche in einer monetarisierten Gesellschaft relativ unbedeutend. Die Signifikanz von Land drückt sich eher in dem Mehrwert aus, der sich mittels einer produktiven Nutzung geldwert erzeugen lässt. Die Nutzer des fijianischen Landes sind aber in der Überzahl Inder. Reiche, mit wirtschaftlicher Macht versehene Inder treffen hier auf arme, aber politisch mächtige Fijianer. Dies ist ein Konfliktpunkt.

"Zwischen Australien - der regionalen Vormacht in der pazifischen Inselwelt - und den kleineren Inselstaaten besteht eine gewaltige Asymmetrie, was sich nicht zuletzt in den politischen und ökonomischen Beziehungen und der Regionalorganisation - dem Pazifischen Inselforum - widerspiegelt. Während Australien versucht, seine Stellung auszubauen, ist eine auswärtige Macht wie China dabei, Alternativen zu bieten." (Autorenreferat)

The question of land in Fiji is a question of fundamental importance. Besides of its use for subsistence agriculture, land has an identity-forming function. Beyond that it is fair to say that land and specifically the economic use of land has been applied a political dimension within existing traditional control mechanisms. Should these mechanisms be violated or manipulated, conflicts arise, even more pronounced when existing power structures based on property are jeopardized and the respective life existences are at risk. Land in Fiji is politically used to maintain existing power relations. Fiji's split into native and Indo-Fijians as the two major ethnic groups is often seen as a reason for the Fijian conflict. However, land plays also a major role in this conflict which is being justified as well as fuelled by restrictive land rights. The nature of the conflict in Fiji demonstrates the economical and political relevance of land as a non-defined cultural treasure. The Indo-Fijians are considered newcomers, who should serve the old-established landowners. The article argues firstly that the difference is not so much between ethnic groups, but between landowners on the one hand, and those without land on the other. Secondly it shows that Fiji's governance structures fail to manage this conflict-prone difference. (Asien/GIGA)