THE PRESS THURSDAY, JULY 12, 1979. France and the Pacific

Press, 12 July 1979, Page 16

THE PRESS THURSDAY, JULY 12, 1979. France and the Pacific

The debate among the 12 South Pacific Forum members meeting in Honiara about independence for French territories in the Pacific ended in a resolution which did not mention France at all, though it affirmed that selfdetermination and independence were good things. In an area of the world in which a great many countries have come to independence in the last two decades such an affirmation was to be expected. For France the decision not to name France specifically is not. and should not be, the end of the matter. The Foreign Minister of Papua New Guinea, Mr Ebia Olewale. plans to take the question of independence for French Polynesia and New Caledonia to the United Nations. France should itself be seen to be active in determining what the people of the two territories want.

Had it not been for New Zealand and Australia the vote at the South Pacific Forum might have gone the other way. The motives ascribed by some of the others at the meeting to New Zealand and Australia are concerns about trade and French attitudes within the European Economic Community. Such an interpretation of their motives received some backing from the comment made by the New Zealand Prime Minister (Mr Muldoon): “I find myself mildly embarrassed by putting the French point of view, because I haven't any knowledge of the French putting the New Zealand point of view in the Councils of the European Community.”

New Zealand has other interests at stake. The most important is stability in the Pacific, the promotion of regional co-operation necessary for the whole area, and the large numbers of Pacific Islanders who make up part of the New Zealand population. Will these other interests be served best by the stand taken at Honiara?

The answer cannot be found easily. Many countries have made the mistake of failing to give recognition to the aspirations of people in colonial territories. New Zealand has seen itself in the past as a spokesman for smaller countries and it may claim to have been a leader among the Pacific countries. It would be unfortunate should it now be seen to be pursuing a policy for totally selfish ends when the outcome runs counter to important considerations among its neighbours. However, the core of the problem is not what the neighbours, what France, or what New Zealand and Australia want, but what

the people of New Caledonia and French Polynesia want for themselves. It is in determining this that France should play a leading part.

At the moment allegations are made that France can stack the electorate with non-island citizens to ensure that any independence vote is defeated. If that is true, it is not a pretty state of affairs. France has undertaken to grant independence to French Polynesia and to New Caledonia if the majorities in those territories want it. It should not be seen to be espousing independence promises under certain conditions on the one hand and to be ensuring that those conditions cannot be met on the other.

The French interest in keeping French Polynesia for nuclear testing is obvious. In both territories France reserves control over external relations, defence, justice, currency, and secondary education. In New Caledonia civil aviation and maritime affairs are also under French control. French Polynesia has more autonomy over its own commerce. Possibly both territories would choose to stay part of France. If they prefer that course, it should be seen to be their choice. France seemed concerned that the Forum should not take the matter to the United Nations. This year it has not done so.

The question of the French territories was probably the most significant at the meeting from a political point of view. Economically, the decision to press ahead with a regional fisheries organisation was important. Nowhere is regional co-operation more clearly demonstrated than in the need to coordinate fishing policies. The regional fisheries organisation will eventually have to include the United States and probably’ Britain and France. At the moment, even if the United States came to recognise migratory species as being under the jurisdiction of a coastal State, it could do nothing to stop American fishermen from taking fish from within the 200-mile zones. Links with the countries concerned might help to overcome the problem.

The Forum countries have also rejected the American proposal.to dump nuclear waste on a South Pacific island. It is now clear that Pacific island countries are going to get a very high proportion of their produce into New Zealand and Australia without paying duty. Before the Forum met, some doubts about its future were expressed. By the end of the meeting the doubts appear to have been stilled.