During Fiji's May 2000 coup, George Speight and his fellow conspirators moved the nation away from the democratic ideals that had been so carefully cultivated in the late 1990s.

The events that led to Speight's capture, however, did little to counter the undemocratic movement that brought him to power in the first place.

Fiji's coup began on May 19, 2000, when disgruntled businessmen and rogue members of Fiji's military elite counterrevolutionary force stormed Fiji's government center and took Prime Minister Mahendra Chaudhry and 26 ministers of the cabinet hostage. The terrorists had overtly anti-democratic aims. Their leader, businessman George Speight, announced, "We are not going to be daunted by accusations of racism or one-sidedness. At the end of the day, it is [about] the supreme rights of our indigenous people in Fiji" Indeed, the terrorists were fighting to remove power and rights from the island's ethnic Indian population.

Fiji's racial tensions are rooted in the English colonists' importation of Indian laborers to work in the sugar fields in the late 19th century. By the time Fiji gained independence in 1970, those laborers' descendants had become important members of Fijian society. In particular, they dominated the nation's economy. Ethnic Melanesians (native Fijians), on the other hand, controlled the property and the government. However, in the late 1980s ethnic Indians achieved a majority in Fiji's government for the first time. This led to two coups in 1987, both aimed at increasing ethnic Fijian political control. The ultimate outcome was a racist constitution in 1987 that prohibited an Indian majority in parliament and required that the president and prime minister be ethnically Fijian. Although this constitution was replaced by a new and supposedly more equitable constitution in 1990, the only real change was that it made an Indian majority in parliament possible.

In the aftermath of those tumultuous years, Fiji's Indian population dropped from 50 percent of the 800,000 citizens to about 44 percent. Although the country remained peaceful, its persisting racist constitution caused the international community to impose tough economic sanctions on Fiji. In 1997, probably due to the pressures placed on it, the Fijian government adopted a new, truly colorblind constitution. The new constitution allowed Chaudhry in 1999 to become the first Fijian prime minister of Indian descent. His Indian-dominated Labor Party also took control of parliament.

Although many ethnic Melanesians were unhappy about the new political structure, even more became deeply concerned when the government began to discuss the laws relating to land ownership. In Fiji, over 80 percent of the land is owned by Melanesians, but Indians lease much of it for long periods of time.There has frequently been heated discussion over the lengths and conditions of the leases. It was supposedly fear of this reform that prompted Speight and his followers to plot and carry out their coup.

Although many Fijians, especially outside the major cities, claim to be unsympathetic to the terrorists, Speight did have support. In the days after the coup, ethnic Melanesians burned the homes of Indians, looted Indian shops, and seized government buildings and foreign-owned companies, including power plants and hotels. Meanwhile, many Indians fled the country. After ten days of mayhem, the military declared martial law.

But military authority did not end the Indians' plight. While negotiating with Speight, the armed forces did little to stop the continued looting and destruction of Indian property.The military finally agreed to a new constitution set up by a council of tribal chiefs. It was subtitled "Blueprint for the Protection of Fijian and Rotuman Rights and Interests and the Advancement of their Development." Included were sections guaranteeing that major political posts be held by ethnic Fijians; other sections mandated the teaching of Melanesian history at the expense of Indian history in schools.

However, it was not the individual acts of violence or the movement toward institutionalized racism that came as the biggest surprise. Rather, it was the weak response of foreign governments, particularly Australia, to the small democracy's turmoil. Once it became certain that Chaudhry's government would not be allowed to return to power, it became equally clear that international intervention was needed if democracy were to survive. Being Fiji's strongest, closest, and most stable ally, Australia was in the best position to help. Over two-thirds of Fiji's international trade is with Australia, and the Australian government had been aiding Fiji's economy in several important ways, most notably by allowing Fiji unilateral duty-free access to many of its markets. In addition, Australia was in the unique position of being able to serve as the leader for an international movement against Speight William Cohen, for one, said that the United States would follow Australia's lead, whatever it did.

Despite such leverage over Fiji, Australia's actions were ineffective.When the coup began, Australia, along with many other countries, verbally reprimanded the conspirators and slowly began to question the Fijian military's actions. But Australia never moved beyond mere talk, even though it was clear that Fiji's military was ignoring violations against ethnic Indians and that it was negotiating for a return to discriminatory laws. On July 18, five days after the hostages were released, and almost two months after the crisis began, the Fijian military announced that the interim government would continue. Only then did Australia announce formal sanctions against Fiji, which suspended aid and military cooperation.

It quickly became clear, however, that the sanctions were not enough. Even before they were declared, the Fijian military government had made the promise of a return to democracy within three years. The sanctions had no effect on expediting the election timetable or reversing the new discriminatory constitution. In fact, despite the sanctions, the leaders of the coup were only charged with minor crimes, and speculation arose that Speight would even have a position in the new government.

Indeed, Fiji's reaction to the international condemnation was defensive and critical of the steps taken. Ratu Inoke, the interim information minister, said, "These sanctions are thwarting the work of the interim administration to achieve economic recovery and protect living standards of ordinary people.... Recovery will hasten democracy; that is the interim administration's priority." Not only did the interim government look upon Australia's sanctions as a hindrance, but it also considered many of the sanctions inappropriate. Inoke went so far as to describe Australia's humanitarian efforts, which bypassed the Fijian government, as an "attack on our sovereign status as an independent state" These comments demonstrate that racism and parochialism will continue to plague the Fijian government even after Speight has been removed from office.