
Points of agreement and disagreement between the French state and the independence movement
Hello everyone,
The association is getting back to you this weekend to provide you, before the Overseas Minister’s visit to the territory, with the IA’s response to the question we asked it, namely: what are the main points of agreement and disagreement between the French State and the Kanak independence activists with a view to reaching an agreement?
Below is the AI’s response in italics, supplemented by our comments:
Discussions between the French state and the Kanak independence movement in New Caledonia are marked by significant points of agreement and disagreement.
Points of agreement:
-
- Recognition of the need for dialogue: Both parties agree on the importance of an inclusive dialogue to determine the institutional future of New Caledonia. This approach aims to reconcile the conflicting aspirations of independence and remaining within the French Republic. lemonde.fr
-
- Commitment to peace and stability: Following the violence that occurred in May 2024, all parties recognized the need to restore peace and prevent further unrest. Parliamentary missions were deployed to rebuild trust and propose appropriate political solutions. lemonde.fr
Points of disagreement:
-
- Political Status and Independence: Kanak separatists aspire to full sovereignty, believing that the decolonization process must continue. However, the French government and loyalist parties favor keeping New Caledonia within the French Republic. lemonde.fr
As mentioned in the association’s project and in the opinion of other legal and institutional experts already mentioned several times by the association, the implementation of a Caledonian federated state would allow these two points of view to be reconciled for a certain period of time within the framework of a new status that could again be considered transitional, ultimately leading to full and complete sovereignty desired via a new self-determination referendum. The status of a federated state could be based on the French Constitution in order to avoid having to modify it in depth. The state could also retain the sui generis status currently applied to the territory, thus avoiding the use of the term federalism while applying it, in order to continue the federal process initiated by the Matignon-Oudinot and Nouméa agreements.
-
- Institutional and electoral reforms: The French government’s proposals, including the “modernization of institutions” and the thawing of the electoral freeze, are seen by pro-independence supporters as a step backward, compromising the gains made since the Matignon and Nouméa Accords. The Caledonian Union has thus suspended its discussions with the government, deeming the draft agreement “inadmissible.” lemonde.fr
Concerning the electoral body, the association says it is in favour of an electoral body where people wishing to gain access to Caledonian citizenship and therefore the possibility of voting in local elections must satisfy the following conditions , namely:
– be born in the territory, to a parent and a grandparent who were themselves born in the territory (i.e. 3 generations) or who have the qualification of permanent resident. This category of individuals can be described as “native” ;
– or provide proof of permanent residence of at least 30 years . This category of people can be described as “Caledonians at heart”.
Therefore, both the right of the soil and the right of blood would apply. As a reminder, in France, in the Middle Ages, it was generally required that a knight could prove that he belonged to a noble family for at least three generations . Closer to us, to become an Australian citizen, a child born in Australia must prove that one parent was also an Australian citizen or permanent resident. To become an Australian citizen, an adult must complete a citizenship test proving their good moral character and knowledge of the country. In the United Arab Emirates, a foreigner wishing to obtain citizenship must be able to prove 30 years of residence in the country.
Besides the electoral body, this distinction could also be applied to other areas of citizenship such as local employment, tax contribution, etc.
The 30-year residency period would thus allow all non-native persons already present in New Caledonia in 1998, the date of the electoral freeze, to be able to join it in 2028, i.e. in 3 years.
-
- Self-determination timeline: The French government proposes preserving the right to self-determination without setting a specific date, which, according to Interior Minister Gérald Darmanin, would remove a “sword of Damocles.” Pro-independence activists, for their part, are demanding a clear timeline for achieving full sovereignty. europe1.fr
On this point, the association proposes that a new self-determination referendum be planned in a little less than 30 years, in 2053, the anniversary of the takeover of New Caledonia by France, so that the Caledonian population can decide on its full emancipation or decide to remain within the framework of the federated status established during this transitional period.
It is worth recalling here that originally, since the Deferre framework law, the Kanaks were not pro-independence but pro-autonomism. The recentralization of powers by France and General de Gaulle in the 1960s and then the binary choice proposed by Prime Minister Jacques Chirac in the 1970s, to choose between integration (departmentalization) or independence, thus rejecting the notion of autonomy, led the Kanaks towards this second choice, which today the State does not assume or even refuses, for fear of a domino effect on the rest of the overseas territories and others closer to the continent such as Corsica, or even on French territory itself, as with the Basque country.
These divergences reflect the complexity of the decolonization process and the need for in-depth dialogue to achieve lasting consensus.
We wish you a good read and remind you that federalism is the only solution to reconcile unity in diversity.
The APROFED association