Persuading the French into court

Press, 3 October 1985, Page 20

Persuading the French into court

From ‘The Economist,’ London

By its blundering violence in New Zealand, France’s secret service has damaged both the political standing of its President and the good name of its country. The hit-persons from Corsica who did the murder on the Rainbow Warrior put France in the same sqaulid category as Libya, Bulgaria, and the Arabs who killed the yachtspeople in Larnaca last week. Can more reasonable Frenchmen do anything to put their country back where it belongs, among the democracies whose armed agents are under due discipline? At home President Francois Mitterrand, and his unfortunate Prime Minister Mr Laurent Fabius, are doing what they can to keep the debris off their own heads — pinning the blame on the Defence Minister, starting to talk of compensation, professing dismay at what is called excess of zeal. Their political problem is that the French people rather admire tales of derringdo, even, though a harmless photographer died. Abroad they face the opposite problem. Everybody thinks they are villains. A grievous wrong has been committed, and belatedly admitted, by agents of the French State, acting upon what they thought were instructions from the top. The anti-nuclear Greenpeace organisation openly planned to make a nuisance of itself over French nuclear weapons tests, but had so far, this time, done nothing against anybody’s laws. It, too, is therefore entitled to compensation. Greenpeaces’s cause, reputation and even funds can only benefit from publicity. It cannot be expected to accept a hush-hush payment; any French offer of money would have to come with a big slice of humble pie. A generous arrangement can and should be made for the dependants of the dead photographer. But private individuals and organisations stand little chance of redress in any court against a French Government that can certify any information that has not already been destroyed to be subject in France to State secrecy, abroad to sovereign immunity. The Auckland bombing involved States as well as private persons. The Government of New Zealand is seeking redress, and a proper apology, for an official crime done on its territory. Portugal was the

country of birth of the murdered man, The Netherlands the country of his citizenship. Britain, under whose Red Ensign the Rainbow Warrior sailed, owned its crew protection. But no court can hear their grievances unless France agrees. Only 44 Governments voluntarily accept that any valid case may be brought against them in the International Court of Justice at The Hague (and even they may try to pick and choose: the Americans are just now boycotting the court’s hearing of a Nicaraguan claim for damages). The eight countries that accept the Hague court’s jurisdiction only by prior agreement in specific cases include Russia and France — which restricted the court’s authority after, in 1973, the Australians and New Zealanders had tried to get an injunction to stop French nuclear tests in the atmosphere. Lawyers thrive on such confusion. The one good result of the Rainbow Warrior mess would be the strengthening of international law and the authority of the Hague court. France could bring it about by agreeing to accept the court’s jurisdiction in a case to be presented by New Zealand. That would be a humiliation for France, an admission that it needs help to sort out this miserable story. But the French Government might find such outside help useful in dealing both with the claims of New Zealand and with the plight of the two French officers now remanded in custody there on charges ranging from murder downwards. Even if they were put before an unprejudiced New Zealand jury, and found guilty, their own Prime Minister says they are not the pricipal culprits. Keeping junior officers in New Zealand jail would not help France 'to behave better next time. Nor would it do much good to New Zealand, which already has reason to fear French lobbying against its exports of good, cheap butter and lamb. Punishing guilty individuals is, in this affair of State, less important than seeing that justice is done to the victims of State terrorism, by the State that perpetrated it. Bringing the matter before the international court would not merely be the best way of assigning responsibility and assessing

damages. It would also offer an example. Others may be ignorant, or contemptuous, of justice and the

rule of law. The French are not. That is why their action was so shocking, and why they need to offer exemplary redress by sub-

mitting to international judgment from the best tribunal the world has. Copyright — The Economist.