THE PRESS FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1985. Getting French attention

Press, 20 September 1985, Page 16

THE PRESS FRIDAY, SEPTEMBER 20, 1985. Getting French attention

The reports over the last few days have changed the complexion of the Rainbow Warrior affair. The most significant single development has been the investigation and views published in the authoritative French newspaper, “Le Monde.” They have done what assertions made in New Zealand by the police, and by the Government could not do: they have created a debate about the affair within France. One of the striking aspects of the bombing of the Rainbow Warrior was that, even after the public scepticism about the Tricot report, the French generally seemed inclined to accept that the French secret service had carried out the bombing and to accept the notion with next to no expression of indignation. The Opposition in France seemed more inclined to make sure that a Socialist President upheld the honour of France than to get at the truth of what happened. The kernel of the allegations made by “Le Monde” is that the French secret service, the D.G.S.E., indeed sank the Rainbow Warrior by bombing, that more D.G.S.E. people were involved than hitherto had been disclosed publicly, and that the bombing was authorised by the Minister of Defence, Mr Charles Hernu. The New Zealand police have commented that some of the information published by “Le Monde” fits in with their own discoveries and adds to them. It is certainly useful to have the careful investigations carried out by “Le Monde” adding to the sum of information in the New Zealand inquiry. Reporters from “Le Monde” have access to Government and other sources in France to which the New Zealand police do not have access. The New Zealand police were particularly interested in the reports of other French agents in New Zealand at the time. The Prime Minister, Mr Lange, has pointedly and properly refrained from making any comments about any involvement by the French Defence Minister and about the central element of the bombing itself. The trial of Dominique Prieur and Alain Mafart will be tricky enough as it is without anyone being able to make accusations that Prime Ministerial comments have already gone some distance in determining their guilt or innocence.

What has really stirred French interest in the case seems to be that there may have been a cover-up and that Mr Hernu and President Mitterrand might be involved in this. From a New Zealand perspective, and from the perspective of quite a few democratic societies, the real principle at stake is whether the French secret service would come to Auckland Harbour and sink a ship tied up there. At the very least this would be a gross violation of New Zealand laws. It is the sort of action which might be expected in extreme circumstances from a sworn enemy or terrorist. It is not the sort of action which is tolerated, or should be tolerated, between sovereign and friendly civilised countries. This does not appear to be the principle that has caught French attention and has caused the French public and Opposition parties to show a -belated real interest in the incident. They are viewing it more as a matter of internal French politics and raising questions about Mr Hernu and even President Mitterrand. The French Parliamentary elections early next year rather than the sovereignty of another nation appear to be dominating French thinking.

The real debate in France has been started by a French newspaper, and the French can be left to look after their own debate. The danger for New Zealand, in this time of heated French politics, is that someone, not necessarily President Mitterrand or Mr Hernu, might be able to swing the focus of anger against New Zealand. Both Mr Hernu and President Mitterrand are fighting for their political lives and the Opposition parties in France have started attacking them. In these circumstances, New Zealand could provide a suitable object of anger or scorn. New Zealanders have enough faith in their own police and judicial system to believe that Dominique Prieur and Alain Mafart will be given a fair trial. But the very system of justice practised in New Zealand is not the same as that practised in France and it would be easy for New Zealand actions to be misrepresented there. Enormous care will need to be taken by the New Zealand Government over the next few weeks to ensure that a situation, already complex, does not lead to a deterioration in relations with France from which it would be very difficult to recover.