;)
Neither an associated state nor a confederate state, the French state said “no”
Hello everyone,
The APROFED association is getting back to you this week following the intervention in the National Assembly by the Caledonian pro-independence MP who mentioned the term confederate state instead of the associated state (see: Impasse in discussions on New Caledonia: in the National Assembly, the two Caledonian MPs express their concerns ); a term also used in an article in the newspaper Le Monde (see: New Caledonia: the tenuous thread of negotiations ).
For the associated State, mentioned in the title of this article, we refer you to the various articles written by us on this subject, below:
– Difference between associated state and federated state – APROFED
– New Zealand Prime Minister presents a solution for New Caledonia – APROFED
– Definition of a non-sovereign nation-state – APROFED
– The situation in New Caledonia: an isolated case? – APROFED
To summarize:
– the associated State , as highlighted in Léa Havard’s thesis, is a notion created by the former colonial powers in order to maintain their hold over their former colonies,
– this is also why the Kanaks rejected this concept in the 1980s. It is surprising that the independence supporters are in favour of it today.
– especially since many existing associated states are not satisfied with this status and wish to become either federated states or independent states,
– France, having already attempted the approach with Algeria in the 1960s , will not repeat the approach, vaccinated against the humiliation suffered by the Algerians who, once independent, cut all ties of association with the French state.
As for the confederate state, the association was surprised to see this term appear recently to replace that of associated state.
However, if the two notions may seem to be similar, insofar as both the associated State and the confederate State are sovereign States, therefore independent, governed by one or more treaties aiming to define their association, there is a notable difference between them, insofar as in the associated State, the delegating State (NC), although retaining a formal sovereignty, no longer actually manages its sovereign powers, which it will have delegated to the delegating State (potentially France). Whereas in a confederate State, the two States, almost equal in size generally, each retain the said powers and discuss them when necessary (crises) within common institutions. Another notable element in a confederate state is that decision-making must be done unanimously, unlike, for example, a federated state where it is done by majority.
However, the State, within the framework of discussions and negotiations, has never yet made public its desire to create common institutions to discuss defense and diplomacy with the Kanak separatists, where the latter, at the head of a country of less than 300,000 inhabitants, would have a say in the management of the French army and discuss as equals with a country of 68 million inhabitants. This is already not the case between European countries within the European confederation.
This is why the association is surprised to see the appearance of the term confederate state, denoting the ignorance of our political representatives, particularly local ones, regarding the definition of certain terms.
The association also points out in one of its articles dated May 9 (see The True Face of the French State – APROFED ) that, following the Deva conclave, the French State actually rejected all the solutions proposed by local partners, whether independence, the associated State or federalism. The Deva conclave turned out to be nothing more than a fool’s game.
If some pro-independence parties think they can take the State at its own game , by asking it to organize a new referendum on the choice between an associated State and a loyalist federated State (partition) and believe that it will do so, they are being very naive . We are not going to teach the old monkey to pull a face.
For if the State was able to make the proposal of an associated State, it was only to see it scuttled by its faithful and gullible loyalists. This was once again nothing more than a decoy.
However, as already mentioned on our site several times, there have only been two ways in history for colonized peoples to regain their freedoms . Either the colonizer decides to leave of his own accord due to lack of interest (little wealth, too many constraints), leaving certain difficulties for the future independent nation, or by force of arms.
This is why, as mentioned in a previous article (see Towards a unilateral declaration of independence? – APROFED ), we estimate a high probability that the independentists will soon choose the option of a unilateral declaration of independence as in the 1980s , consisting of a peaceful revolution initially, aiming at a change of regime via the implementation of civil disobedience with a view to a transition towards de facto independence.
The creation in the years of a provisional Kanak government, a Kanak flag, the Liberation Front (FLNKS), the regular referral to the UN, a Constitution of Kanaky, were the beginnings. The insurrection of May 13, 2024 with the massive mobilization of the first people, the sabotage of the economy, the blocking of roads, transport infrastructure was the sequel. And this could continue in 2025, 2026, until 2027 (date of the French presidential election) if no agreement were to be reached or if a status quo aimed at the deterioration of the situation were to be chosen, by other actions such as :
– the organized boycott of French institutions : elections, court summonses (refusing to recognize their legitimacy), refusal to pay certain taxes,
– the refusal of certain Kanak elected officials or civil servants to cooperate with State directives ,
– the launch of a call for a general or rolling strike of Kanak workers in administrations and non-essential sectors,
– the symbolic occupation of the headquarters of loyalist or metropolitan companies ,
– the official withdrawal of the French flag from public spaces (municipalities, schools, tribes),
– the blocking of local institutions controlled by loyalists or considered as relays of the French State (e.g.: congresses, town halls, non-independence provinces),
– the symbolic or real withdrawal of common institutions (e.g.: collective resignation of Kanak elected officials in certain bodies ),
– the exclusive use of the vernacular language ,
– the organization of gatherings without legal authorization ,
– the light and targeted degradation of symbols of power ( graffiti, stickers, posters ),
– symbolic power cuts or non-destructive computer hacks,
– etc.
On the subject of confederate states, it should be noted that there are few true confederations to date ; they usually break up quickly, with member states regaining all their sovereignty . For example, the United Arab Republic (UAR), created in 1958 by the union of Egypt and Syria, disappeared in 1961, although Egypt continued to use this name until 1971. In other cases, confederations die because, intended to be provisional, they transform into federations; this is the case when states cede a significant part of their sovereignty to the central government. The United States was briefly a confederation (1777 to 1789) before becoming a federation. The same is true of Switzerland, which is a federation despite the term “Swiss Confederation.” This should normally also be the case for the European Union if France, like the Caledonian issue, does not ruin everything out of selfishness in order to preserve its own interests, its particularity.
We wish you a pleasant read and remind you that federalism is the only solution to reconcile unity in diversity.
The APROFED association