All eyes on Giscard in debate on independence

Press, 18 July 1979, Page 12

All eyes on Giscard in debate on independence

By

CEDRIC MENTIPLAY

The decision of the President of France (Mr Giscard D’Estaing) to make a flying visit to French possessions in the Pacific is seen as a direct reaction to heated debates on decolonisation at the tenth South Pacific Forum at Honiara last week. Before the conference began, French diplomats indicated that it would be an unfriendly act if the name of France was raised during the conference. Before the conference opened, the Papua New Guinean representative, Mr Ebia Olewali, expressed regret that the motion he intended to move would be “watered down.”

In the closed conference, however, he put up a last fight, even though New Zealand and Australia expressed the belief that the forum was the last place in which to discuss the internal affairs of other nations. The resolution, passed unanimously, was more than just a comfortable generalisation. It read in full:

“The Governments comprising the South Pacific Forum welcome the progress being made in the New Hebrides towards independence, and express the hope that all the major political groups in that island territory ■ would work closely together in preparing for their independence. “Noting the desire of Pacific Island peoples, including those of French territories, to determine their own future, the Forum reaffirmed its belief in the principle of

s e 1 f-determination and independence applying to all Pacific Island peoples in accordance with their freely-expressed wishes. Accordingly the Forum calls upon the metropolitan Powers concerned to work with the peoples of the Pacific territories to this end.” This was strong action in a diplomatic sense, and it has evoked a .strong reaction from the President of France; but in itself it is indicative of the pressures being applied. Though the Australian and New Zealand representatives (Messrs Anthony and Muldoon) held to the belief that the Forum was not the place to raise the subject, both have strong views in favour of decolonisation. The pressures arrayed against France were mentioned after the Forum by

the Premier of the Cook Islands (Dr T, R. A. Davis), who was the first to say that colonialism in the Pacific would soon be finished. Asked whether by “soon” he meant a decade, Dr Davis laughed and said: “I believe.it will be half of that.” Mr Muldoon is of similar opinion, but his time span is different. “Five years is a little short,” he said, laughing. “If Doctor Tom had said twenty years, I would agree with him.”

The main impact which is toppling the French castle, however, is the approaching independence of the New Hebrides. This is a condominium, the controlling Powers being France and Britain. British pressure has helped persuade France to agree to New Hebridean independence within a year.

Another shock occurred last Wednesday, when Britain gave independence to the Gilbert, Phoenix, and Line Islands (33 in all) under the new name of Kiribati. Thus Britain may be said to be leading decolonialism in the Central and South Pacific. Nevertheless, for many France is not moving quickly enough.

At the Forum- meeting in Honiara a five-man deputation, representing the five Opposition parties, failed to gain admission as observers. I asked members of this deputation why they were trying to rush things.

“The New Hebrides will be independent this year,” said Mr Jacques Tchireau. “We do not want to be iate at the expense of the privileges of the rich people. In ten years New Caledonia will have 400,000 people — and SIOOM capital gain.” The other delegates, Messrs F. Otonary and N. Naissel, expressed doubts that France would ever release New Caledonia. “A free vote is no use,” Mr Otonary said, “When France flies in soldiers, sailors, airmen, and settlers, and gives them all the vote.” But now the whole of the South Pacific and Central Pacific area is waiting to hear from President Giscard d’Estaing, who is in New Caledonia. When will it be? Five years? Twenty years? As a hero of the French resistance during World War 11, the President should have his own views on freedom.