Positive and negative points of Bougival-Elysée-Oudinot

Hello everyone,

The APROFED association is reaching out to you again this week during this crucial period regarding the approval or rejection of the Bougival-Elysée-Oudinot (BEO) draft agreement , validated by the Senate and to be studied at the end of March by the Assembly.

In this regard, the association has decided to summarize here the main positive and negative points in its view of this draft agreement after the 2024 uprising and 2 years of discussions between the State and local actors in the territory.

The positive points:

1°) the creation of a Caledonian state.

As the foundation of the Kanak claim, it also constitutes for the association the logical continuation of the Matignon-Oudinot and Nouméa agreements.

2°) A Caledonian nationality

Although based on French nationality, the latter is a logical continuation of the previous point in order to meet the qualification of nation-state and recognize the presence of a people living on this territory.

3°) The drafting of a fundamental law

Going hand in hand with the birth of a new state, the drafting of a fundamental law (or Constitution) is therefore planned.

4°) the sharing of a sovereign power

Although already present in the Nouméa Accord, the sharing of external relations (or diplomacy) is thus reinforced by the possibility for New Caledonia to discuss directly with other sovereign states on subjects relating to its competences.

In view of these few points, one might be led to think of the continuation of the federal process initiated by the Matignon-Oudinot and Nouméa agreements , via the creation of a Caledonian federated state within France, however, certain aspects considered ambiguous not to say negative cited below suggest something else taking the territory in a completely different direction than its population desires.

The negative points:

1) Legal ambiguity

Essentially political, the BEO draft agreement is indeed rather lacking in precise legal provisions, a requirement of the many local stakeholders involved in the project, particularly those on the pro-independence side. The fear is the application of meaningless concepts and notions, perhaps even intentionally so, by the Constitutional Council, which will certainly have to rule on the matter after Parliament, potentially declaring the future State of New Caledonia unconstitutional or, in reality, having no legal value , as was the case for the “Overseas Country” designation.

2°) Omnipresent and exacerbated state control

The drafting of a special organic law to define all relations between France and the future state of New Caledonia, as well as the functioning of said future state, in place of the fundamental law (Constitution) intended for this purpose, reveals the hyper-centralizing nature of the French state, which seeks to control everything. Besides the fact that the future fundamental law is not mandatory , the draft agreement limits it almost entirely to defining the last two identifying symbols: the flag and the name of the future Caledonian state, which are not supported by consensus among local stakeholders.

The case of sovereign powers remains another example of the difficulty of the State in sharing its sovereignty over areas that can be managed locally such as justice with local courts, internal security with the national or municipal police, … Justice and security being moreover 2 of the powers generally delegated to a federated State.

3°) A deceptive advance

While the proposed BEO agreement may seem to offer some progress, the reality is quite different. For example, while the establishment of a nationality would complement the citizenship implemented by the Nouméa Accord, in practice, it has little impact and does not benefit the population. The law on local employment, which neither benefits nor protects local residents, is a perfect example of this.

The sharing of diplomatic competence provided for in the agreement is also another example, insofar as any agreement made between New Caledonia and another third State must be submitted to France for approval, even if it relates to areas of competence specific to New Caledonia.

It would therefore seem that the BEO draft agreement is not in reality, as was the case for those of Matignon-Oudinot and Nouméa, to allow the unfreezing of the electoral body and thus allow the incorporation into the electoral body of people who have recently arrived in the territory, or even new arrivals, under the pretext of a lack of qualified labor, contrary to international law on non-self-governing territories.

Thus, in view of all these aspects, it appears, as already mentioned several times by the association, that we are heading more towards a regional state type, like Spain’s, rather than a federated one, with unfortunately limited autonomy , contrary to what the Caledonian population wants, wishing to regain its autonomy under the protection of France.

However, France ‘s actions demonstrate that it is no longer protective and its unhealthy desire to control everything absolutely is causing its own population to distance itself from it, while intermediate solutions exist, as highlighted once again by university research within the framework of the “Inclusive Peace” project (see Beyond “yes” and “no”: a university survey reveals “common ground” in Caledonian society  ; Research: what if New Caledonia was less binary than we think? | Les Nouvelles Calédoniennes ), which confirms the existence of a third ^way among the population, contrary to the statements of the current president of the Caledonian government in 2024 (see The third way is not set aside – APROFED ).

The APROFED association is part of this approach through its project.

Hoping to be heard and that the actors of the BEO project do not lead us back to a situation similar to 2024.

The APROFED association