The loyalists’ “territorial federation” project is not federalism

Hello everyone,

The APROFED association is getting back to you this week following the announcement made last week by the loyalists of a  project for a “territorial federation” ¹  intended to be inspired by the notion of federalism.

The association warns its readers and supporters:  This project has nothing to do with federalism.

Because if the term “federate” also means to join forces,  it is difficult to see how the independence camp could join this approach since none of these arguments are taken into account.

With their project of “territorial federation” or “internal federalism”, the  loyalists do not want to move forward but on the contrary to go back 40 years, to 1988, returning to the principles of the Matignon Oudinot agreements, which would suit the State in passing,  thus avoiding the establishment of a true federalism in New Caledonia which would not fail to also be requested by the rest of the overseas territories (which are already asking to review their relations with the State with the call of Fort de France) and even the regions of mainland France themselves. Recalling that the latter are born from federalist thought.

As a reminder,  the “internal federalism” proposed by the loyalists  consists, as P. Bretegnier describes in one of his works ²  , of a return to the sharing of power provided for by the Matignon agreements.  The North and Islands provinces, which are predominantly Kanak, are to be governed by the independentists and the South province by the loyalists ,  a common assembly ensuring the coherence of the whole and regulating the powers that cannot be provincialized. Each being  master in his own house under the arbitration of the State.  This  project, led by P. Frogier and S. Backès, is close to the federal model of Belgium, according to him, where each community (Walloon and Flemish) governs where it is in the majority, or to the Afrikaners,  as highlighted in an Australian article reprinted in Mediapart ³ . 

As P. Bretegnier points out, this  project was quickly accused of partition, which is particularly the case for A. Christnacht , former High Commissioner in New Caledonia,  for whom  the risk of this project is that it exasperates divisions ⁴ .  He even mentioned that  this proposal  even includes the possibility for the provinces to access independence, individually  – which  the Nouméa Accord prohibited.  Moreover, according to him,  the independence supporters could hardly consider an “every man for himself” approach that would send them back to their provinces  as progress  . This project and those of the same inspiration risk being perceived as a step backwards compared to the current situation .

This project , for some independence supporters, is not that of the Loi a liste but rather that of the State ⁵ which, let us recall, is accustomed to preserving certain parts of these former colonies during the decolonization.  

It should be recalled that JM Tjibaou in 1988 had already declared himself absolutely opposed to any partition project  aimed at establishing  a country for whites and a country for blacks ⁶ . 

While the loyalists nevertheless advocate maintaining territorial unity, the very definition of the term federation in their “territorial federation” project clearly reveals their intentions. Indeed,  a federation, at the institutional level, is  a union of several states into a federal state.  While the federal state for the loyalists is New Caledonia, the other states are de facto provinces.  The association believes that the  term federation is also inappropriate because it is similar to that of the Russian Federation , an authoritarian country that is only superficially federal.

It should also be remembered that the Matignon Accords brought about  direct administration by the State ⁷ .  As the text of the accords itself underlines, the executive of the Congress is entrusted to the representative of the State who directs the territorial administration .  Thus in the Loyalists’ project, Mr Louis Le Franc, sorry, Mr High Commissioner, would be at the head not only of the Congress but also of the government, if these two institutions remain, which is less certain. If in 1988, Paris initially ensured the establishment and transition of the system, no transition is mentioned in the  Loyalists’ project of “territorial federation”, demonstrating that they want not only greater involvement of the State but an integration of New Caledonia into France.  Their incessant demands for the trusteeship of New Caledonia by France, not to say of all the communities managed by the independentists, clearly demonstrate the mentality of the latter and their projects. 

The association would rather be in favor of the president of the government of New Caledonia becoming the representative of the State, wearing both hats, that of both guarantor and representative of the territory, following the example of the Moroccan project for Western Sahara that President E. Macron welcomed.

To summarize, only the dual external and internal federalism as promoted by the association would constitute a true federal project for New Caledonia  with:

–  externally the establishment of a new relationship with the State  which would only manage sovereign powers such as defense, diplomacy, currency, nationality, with the advice of the Caledonian authorities,

– and  internally, full sovereignty over the territorial powers already acquired  with the removal of the legality control by the State over the acts and deliberations of local authorities as well as the control by the Council of State and the Constitutional Council over the laws of the country issued by Congress.  As well as the transfer of the competence of Article 27 and even of the two sovereign powers of justice and police  so that New Caledonia can be classified as a State.

This dual federalism could thus constitute the “shared sovereignty”  advocated by the presidents of the Senate and the National Assembly visiting New Caledonia in November.

It would be interesting if, in addition to the internal federalism proposed by the loyalists, external federalism were the subject of more information among the population and not dismissed out of hand by the press as during the radio program “political club” on RRB ⁸  on November 22, 2024, under the pretext that it was not the subject.

As Pierre Bretegnier recalls,  the internal federalism of the Matignon Accords was therefore succeeded by the external federalism of the Noumea Accord, with “shared sovereignty” with a central State and the self-organization of a territory (in this case through transfers of powers decided by Congress) being the criteria for defining federal regimes. ⁹

While the project of  territorial federation or internal federalism proposed by the loyalists  is the subject of much comment and requires debate,  the association reiterates that it is in no way in favor of an “Irish-style project” or a Belgian-style project . In the latter case, it should be noted that the inhabitants of Wallonia, who speak French, are demanding their independence and some have even wished to be attached to France.

The association thus says it is opposed to a generalization of the case of the commune of Poya, where the non-independence Caledonian MP is from, to the entire territory.  Let us recall that this commune was cut in two, straddling two provinces (departments), on the will of the European populations not wishing to be attached to the Northern Province managed by separatists. It should also be noted that the May 2024 insurrection revisited the provincial boundary somewhat, bringing it closer to those of the electoral constituencies of the legislative elections with a limit no longer at creek amick but rather at the level of the Uaré cove or even the Grande Rade in Nouméa. So  be careful that the Southern Province of the new “territorial federation” of the loyalists is not limited to Nouméa or even to some of its districts only.

The association is close to the analysis of Calédonie Ensemble,  for whom the  consensus to be built must lead us to reconcile the aspirations for the external sovereignty of the country – expressed by the independentists – without calling into question the link with France, and the ambition for a more affirmed internal sovereignty – expressed by some at the provincial level – without undermining the unity of the country. »  ¹⁰

1 The “territorial federation” project, supported by the Loyalists: the legacy of Dick Ukeiwë

10 The “territorial federation” project, supported by the Loyalists: the legacy of Dick Ukeiwë

We wish you a good read and remind you that federalism is the only solution to reconcile unity in diversity.

The APROFED association