The conclave proposed by Manuel Valls: act 4 or 5 of the Caledonian tragedy?

Hello everyone,

The APROFED association is getting back to you this week following the announcement by the Minister for Overseas Territories of the start of negotiations with a view to finding an agreement on the situation in the country through a conclave to be held in Deva, in the commune of Bourail (see Manuel Valls in New Caledonia: end of weekend in Maré before undertaking political negotiations in a “conclave” in Deva ).

The Minister of Overseas Territories is thus reproducing the Rocard method , one of his mentors, used during the events of 1984-88, consisting of forcing the parties in conflict to remain in the same place until a solution emerges. This is one of the 5 avenues mentioned by the association in its article : The different possible options for a political agreement – ​​APROFED . In its last article (see AI solutions in case of disagreement – ​​APROFED ), the AI ​​had opted rather for the 2nd solution, specific to the President of the Republic, namely a sort of citizens’ convention. Let us wait and see what will come out of this conclave. Let us remember, however, that the Rocard method had also worked under the threat, as we recall in our article, of placing the territory under guardianship and placing it under martial law. Local representatives thus lost their prerogatives and even their privileges.

The minister’s announcement of a possible civil war in the event of failure of these negotiations seems to go in this direction (see Manuel Valls believes that New Caledonia could be in the grip of a civil war | Epoch Times ) , threatening the local parties with a possible intervention of the State at the very end . Because as General de Gaulle said: reform, yes, chaos, no. Let us remember, however, that the State is not the arbiter in this conflict but as colonizer, it is one of the 2 warring parties and that it is therefore partly up to it to find a solution with the opinion of the loyalists, certainly, but only the opinion. If they were to leave the discussion table, this would have no real impact. The entire international community already knows that New Caledonia is one of the last colonies of the French empire, that the State does not want to separate from it and that it uses the European populations as pawns and firewalls in order to avoid being on the front line against the separatists and thus avoid UN mediation. It should be remembered that the dragging on of the conflict would in no way benefit either the State or its nationals, many of whom still remain in the southern districts of the capital, Noumea.

Furthermore, as the AI ​​points out, the possibility of a civil war in New Caledonia would backfire on the state because it would also run counter to republican principles and France’s international commitments. Here’s why:

1. Human and moral cost

• • A civil war would cause deaths, injuries and population displacement.

• • It would undermine the values ​​of the Republic (liberty, equality, fraternity) and would be seen as a dramatic failure of democratic dialogue.

2. Major political destabilization

• • This would undermine the authority of the State in mainland France and overseas.

• • France’s international image would be deeply tarnished: inability to maintain peace on its own territory.

3. Loss of geostrategic control in the Pacific

• • New Caledonia is a strategically important area in the South Pacific, particularly in the face of China’s growing influence.

• • A civil war could open the door to foreign interference in this region.

4. Economic consequences

• • New Caledonia has significant nickel resources.

• • An armed conflict would permanently compromise their exploitation, harming the local economy and French interests.

5. Failure of the managed decolonization process

• • The Noumea process (1998) was supposed to avoid a violent outcome by providing a framework for progressive emancipation.

• • A civil war would be an admission of a complete failure of this reconciliation process.

In summary:

Allowing a civil war to erupt in New Caledonia would be counterproductive and irresponsible for France. It has every interest in maintaining dialogue, supporting peace, and supporting a political solution—whatever it may be—while respecting the rights of peoples and regional stability.

This would lead France, under international pressure, to submit to international mediation, notably by the UN, which it refuses, and to resume negotiations this time framed with a view to negotiated independence, which it also refuses.

It remains to be seen whether the Deva conclave will constitute act 4 or 5 of the Caledonian tragedy.

For theatre lovers in particular, it is worth remembering that a tragedy is divided into 5 acts, each with a specific function as described by Freytag’s pyramid below:

– Act 1: the exhibition, in which the triggering incident is presented, the origins of the conflict, which here correspond to the State’s desire to unfreeze the electoral body, to put an end to the transitional aspect of the Noumea Agreement with a view to definitively integrating New Caledonia into France, which is formally refused by the first people, the Kanaks.

– Act 2: “The Rising Action,” where the fight begins. Here, in this case, the beginning of the Kanak insurrection against the State’s use of force to impose its will.

– Act 3: The climax, a point of equilibrium in the plot where the forces present have each carried out their respective actions, placing the plot in suspense. To use a meteorological expression, we could say that we are in the eye of the storm.

– Act 4: “The falling action” is the moment when the plot gradually unravels between the protagonists, with one protagonist winning or losing over the other. A final moment of suspense could be added as a final doubt about the outcome of the conflict, or there are still some suggested possibilities for plot development. This is the situation we are in at the moment.

– Act 5: The denouement, ties up loose ends and ends the story. The main character returns to normal, the tension is relieved, and the reader/viewer feels a sense of relief and liberation. The signing of a peace agreement around a middle ground will constitute this final act.

In comedies, the hero and heroine find themselves much better than they were at the beginning of the story, and in tragedies, they become a shadow of their original selves. Let us hope that here too we are witnessing a tragicomedy that will allow everyone to move forward again, as they did after the events of 1984.

While the outcome of a tragedy is usually negative, it can sometimes also be positive. Let’s hope that’s the case here.

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

The APROFED association