Race issues only part of story in Fiji crisis

By GEOFF CUMMING and news agencies

If the attempted overthrow of Fiji's first Indian-led Government was only a matter of time, why did it take so long?

George Speight's raid on Parliament, a year to the day after Labour leader Mahendra Chaudhry took office, may have seemed inevitable.

But observers of the republic say the turmoil is not simply an issue of race - of a 51 per cent indigenous majority resenting rule by an ethnic Indian Prime Minister.

Observers warned at the time of the election, Fiji's first under a new constitution which ended years of racial bias against the country's 43 per cent Indian population, that Fiji was not ready for an Indian ruler.

Sporadic unrest followed, including the occasional arson and protest marches organised by the Taukei nationalist movement.

But there seems to have been little groundswell for Friday's riots and the capture of Chaudhry by Speight's small group. Observers of Fiji politics see the crisis as oppor-tunistic, with Speight a puppet in an inter-Fijian power struggle.

The replacement of Chaudhry with an indigenous Fijian leader may be only half the picture, with the future of the President, Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, equally on the line.

Fiji's fortunes had not exactly slumped since the Labour-led Coalition swept to power a year ago.

A United Nations survey released this week presents a positive outlook for the island republic.

A rebound in the sugar and garment industries and a boost in tourism led economic growth to climb to 7.8 per cent last year.

The country is in the midst of a bumper cane harvest and tourism prospects were rosy, until Friday.

The Chaudhry Government was committed to improving the standard of living of poor Fijians and Indians alike.

It had been extending services such as water, electricity, telephones and roading. It had also cut value-added tax, lowered duties for basic food items and was working on housing improvements, job creation and a pension scheme.

"For ethnic Fijians and ordinary citizens, this Government has been very good," said Professor Vijay Naidu, director of development studies at the University of the South Pacific in Suva.

But Chaudhry's dealing with the critical issue of land ownership created fertile ground for Opposition nationalists to spread seeds of doubt. His Government failed to counter the campaign of misinformation.

Fijians own 85 per cent of the country's land, much of which is leased to Indian cane farmers. Their 30-year leases began expiring in 1997, with the bulk up for renewal this year and next.

Many Fijians oppose extending the leases; they want to enjoy economic benefits from the sugar cane industry themselves.

Argument has raged over legislation to set new leases, with Fijian landowners pressing for shorter-term tenancies and rent reviews.

Chaudhry's offer of a $28,000 grant for those whose leases are not renewed was portrayed as favouring Indian farmers.

His abrasive manner in discussions on the land issue helped to erode support. His Government was also dismissive of the Opposition, labelling last month's first nationalist march a failure because of a small attendance.

When Police Commissioner Isikia Savua warned the Government to heed the marchers' concerns, Chaudhry told him to stop making political statements and stick to controlling law and order.

Some observers say the Government should have done more to allay the concerns of grassroots Fijians, to whom extremist politicians directed their racist and anti-Government propaganda.

The concerns were manifested in a petition to Mara which called for a constitutional review to allow only an indigenous person to become Prime Minister and revert all freehold land to native land.

It talked of the Indian-dominated Labour Government beginning the process of "taking away the only assets left to Fijians - the land, forests and fishing rights" - and of the 1997 constitution allowing Indians to monopolise power and divide indigenous Fijians.

Shailendra Singh, editor of the business monthly the Review, said strategies to oust the Government were openly discussed at public meetings. "Chaudhry appeared too confident of his coalition with two Fijian parties ... and the backing he had from the President, Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara."

Singh said the Government seemed oblivious to signs of trouble. Just a day before he was ousted, Chaudhry told people in a radio broadcast not to be afraid.

But analysts maintain that unease over the land issue was insufficient to explain Speight's attempted coup.

"This is just a handful of people who want to be in power," said one Auckland-based Fiji-Indian.

Rumours are strong that Speight acted with the tacit support of wealthy Indian businessmen who felt threatened by the Coalition's efforts to redistribute wealth to the poor.

Speight is said to be motivated largely by his dismissal last June as chairman of Fiji Pine and a failed bid for a contract to harvest mahogany.

But in holding Chaudhry hostage for five days, and putting the issue before the Great Council of Chiefs, Speight is making clear that he has powerful backing.

The role of Major-General Sitiveni Rabuka, architect of the two 1987 military coups and Prime Minister from 1992 to 1999, appears increasingly pivotal.

Rabuka, who chairs the council of chiefs, has been suggested as an presidential alternative to the ageing Mara.

While the chiefs, who began meeting yesterday, are expected to pressure Mara to appoint an indigenous Prime Minister, the President's future is also expected to be on the table.

Mara has already said he will not remain President if he cannot enjoy almost full support from the chiefs.

His influence stems from his own chiefly title and close association with an elite of European, part-European and Fiji-Indian business interests.

But his leadership, and that of the old chiefly order, is increasingly under challenge from an emerging political force - mainly young, brash, Western-educated Fijians.

Rabuka, a commoner, enjoys the respect of this group, Speight among them.

Speight told reporters at the weekend: "Rabuka has to decide which leader to back because this is the end of the Mara dynasty."

Rabuka has denied he was behind the attempted coup, but Fiji Indians are wary of reports that Speight's soldiers trained on Rabuka's estate on Vanua Levu a week before they stormed Parliament.

A Victoria University lecturer in Pacific studies, Teresia Teaiwa, said the conflict in Fiji was not between indigenous Fijians and ethnic Indians.

"The race card is misleading and mischievous and, unfortunately, Mahendra Chaudhry played right into it with his abrasive leadership style," said Teaiwa, who formerly taught at the Suva campus of the University of the South Pacific.

"The current hostage crisis illustrates the erosion of indigenous Fijian social order and the fragmentation of indigenous Fijian leadership."

More Fiji coup coverage

Main players in the Fiji coup

Under seige: map of the Parliament complex