Vanuatu likely to enliven forum

Press, 2 August 1985, Page 16

Vanuatu likely to enliven forum

By

PATRICIA HERBERT,

who will attend the South Pacific

Forum conference for “The Press”

The vigorously anti-French stance of the Vanuatu Government will put fire into this year’s South Pacific Forum, hosted by the Cook Islands next week in Rarotonga. Not only has the Prime Minister of Vanuatu, Fr Walter Lini, promised a hard line on the decolonisation of New Caledonia, but the State-run newspaper—the “Vanuatu Weekly” has accused France of deliberately inflaming the independence struggle to justify a military build-up, conventional and nuclear, in the region. Then, even more provocatively, Vanuatu foreign affairs officials have suggested that the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior was aimed at Vanuatu as the thorn against French colonialism rather than at the Greenpeace organisation. They have claimed, according to New Zealand press reports, that the attack was masterminded by Right-wing, wealthy French business interests and have threatened that, if the involvement of French nationals is proved, Vanuatu will take tough diplomatic action against France. Fr Lini may not treat the forum to this brew of heady speculation but the suspicions that fuel it will undoubtedly intrude into discussions on the first two agenda items: New Caledonia and the South Pacific nuclear-free-zone treaty proposals. France will be a target in both debates although it has shown more sensitivity to regional opinion on the New Caledonia issue than it has on testing at Mururoa. On the test programme, it has shown no signs of stepping down from the stridently nationalistic position it has traditionally adopted and, as late as this week, announced through its Secretary of

State for External Affairs, Mr Baylet, that the tests were “completely innocuous” and that it had no intention of stopping them in the immediate future. Mr Baylet made the statement in Papeete on the completion of a five-nation South Pacific tour to explain French policies in the region. He was not the only lobbyist to do the rounds. The independence movement in New Caledonia has had two representatives in New Zealand this month; Mr Yann-Celene Uregel of the F.L.N.K.S. party and the president of the Kanak Socialist National Liberation Front, Mr Jean-Marie Tjibaiou. Between them, they urged the New Zealand Government to support two initiatives—an F.L.N.K.S. application for observer status at the forum talks and the reinscription of New Caledonia on the United Nations list of non-self-governing countries. The first is a largely procedural matter but would carry considerable political significance should the forum grant it. This is because, in the ordinary way of things, the F.L.N.K.S. does not qualify for observer status in that it does not exercise sufficient control over New Caledonian affairs to be able to implement forum decisions. The second is more overtly controversial because France may interpret it as a slap in the face. France has proposed already, under the Fabian Plan, to hold regional assembly elections this year with Kanak participation and to organise an “act of self-deter-mination” before the end of 1987— an advance of two years on its earlier timetable which put the referendum at 1989. Fr Lini has told the F.L.N.K.S.

that he will push for reinscription and is thought to have support from the Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea. Australia, however, is concerned the move will backfire. Its Foreign Minister, Mr Bill Hayden, has said that France could call up “quite a lot of 1.0.U.5” in the United Nations, perhaps enough to defeat the New Caledonian application, and that the effect of such a failure would be to damage seriously the liberation front’s cause. He has said also that Australia is “not without sympathy” for the French Government’s predicament in handling the issue—not only because the New Caledonian conflict could blow up at any time, but also because there is some opposition in France to independence and the French administration has an election to fight next year. New Zealand’s position falls somewhere between that of Vanuatu and Australia. While it is impressed by the steps the French are taking toward decolonisation, it is also aware of the importance the F.L.N.K.S. place on United Nations involvement as a means of holding France to the course it has indicated. This duality is reflected in the position New Zealand will take at the forum as outlined by the Prime Minister, Mr Lange, before he left for Western Samoa on his way to Rarotonga. He said the reason New Zealand had last year opposed reinscription—that it would have had “a negative and spoiling effect on the relationship seen to be developing between Noumea and Paris”—had lost its force. A reference to the United Nations would not now carry the same risk. It would irritate France but not, Mr Lange thought, to the extent of jeopardising the planned

devolution of power in New Caledonia. He would therefore listen to the arguments presented at the forum with an open mind but would not propose any initiatives. The Prime Minister of the Cook Islands, Sir Thomas Davis, has predicted that the bid for reinscription will fail. Mr Lange did not venture an opinion. Neither would he guess the fate of the draft South Pacific nuclear free zone treaty which will be submitted to the forum for adoption. It would prohib the signatories from acquiring, storing, deploying, or testing nuclear weaponry but would respect international law regarding the high seas and would leave each country to determine its own ports policy. For this reason, Mr Lange cannot see why the document should not win favour as it is neither radical nor conservative but instead aims for a broad acceptability. He indicated, however, that there might be some opposition and, in doing, so, attempted to suggest that it had been provoked by over-zealous lobbying on the part of the peace movement. “I can understand some who might have been irritated by strident representations,” he said and referred to strong and sometimes aggressive messages that lobbyists had sent to Pacific leaders requiring them to subscribe. “That tends to be counter-pro-ductive,” he said. Mr Lange was perhaps defining in advance the arguments he will use should the forum fail to adopt the treaty because, if this was the outcome, it is inevitable that some of the responsibility will be sheeted home to New Zealand. This is because some of the smaller Pacific states—notably the Cook Islands, Western Samoa, and

the Solomons—have become anxious about their security in the fallout from the A.N.Z.U.S. row. As recently as this week. Sir Thomas Davis said he had “a natural worry” which he felt many other island nations shared—that they no longer had a defence umbrella. “There is no A.N.Z.U.S., whatever Australia and New Zealand say,” he said. He also said he felt “very let down” as he had always strongly supported A.N.Z.U.S. Mr Lange dismissed these remarks as “extraordinary” and said they would influence him no more than they would influence other forum members but the fact is that the undermining of A.N.Z.U.S. has injected more uncertainty into the nuclear free zone campaign. New Zealand, Vanuatu, and Australia are solid in their support and under this sort of leadership there is a good chance that the treaty will be adopted. Attached to it are a series of protocols which relevant countries outside the region will be asked to sign. One asks metropolitan nations to apply the basic prohibitions to their territories in the South Pacific; the United Kingdom to Pitciarn Island; the United States to American Samoa, and France to French Polynesia, New Caledonia, Wallis and Fortuna. Another invites the five big nuclear powers—the United States, Britain, France, Russia and China—to give an undertaking that they will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against any of the signatories. It is expected that this process will not be addressed at the forum but at some later date. It is also expected that France will not come to the party until it is ready to stop testing at Mururoa, but that the treaty may exert some extra pressure for having the tests stopped.