The France-Caledonia relationship: a forced marriage for which the State does not wish to divorce

The APROFED association is coming back to you this week on an aspect already addressed in a previous article in February of this year (see What tools for mediation to get out of the crisis? – APROFED ) concerning the situation in New Caledonia.

As a reminder, in this article we describe the situation in the country as that of a divorce . Papa TEIN (the independence supporters) no longer wishes to live with Mama MARIANNE (the French State).  The Matignon-Oudinot and Noumea agreements are equivalent, for those who have already experienced this type of procedure, to non-conciliation orders .  To summarize, a non-conciliation order is simply a legal act issued by the family court judge by which the latter notes that the spouses have not managed to reconcile and wish to divorce. They also set out the provisional measures until the divorce is pronounced, namely the separate residence of the spouses and, if necessary, the amount of alimony.

In the case in point, the first concern is that Mama Marianne also happens to be the family court judge . The State is thus both judge and party . Faced with this bias, Papa Tein could refer the matter to the High Council of the Judiciary, which is the equivalent of the UN. The problem here is that Mama Marianne happens to be one of the permanent members of its security council.

Faced with this situation and as most psychologists suggest when faced with a conflict situation, if dialogue is no longer possible and no mediation via a third party is also impossible, then the only option left is to leave . It is therefore not surprising to have heard and seen slogans during the May 2024 insurrection demanding the departure of the French State from New Caledonia.

However, the French State does not wish to separate from New Caledonia, thus forcing the Kanaks to remain in joint ownership, which is against the law. Indeed, in the context of a separation, four options can be adopted by the parties: joint ownership, separation by mutual consent, which is what the separatists want, or separation for fault in the event of the failure of the former, or the non-procedural option that unfortunately occurs all too often in the case of divorce, namely the act of violence. The insurrection of May 13, 2024 being of this order. The question is whether it will be repeated.

It should also be remembered, as mentioned in our article of August 15, 2024 (see Map of peoples at the world level – APROFED ), that if the State has indeed allowed development in New Caledonia, this took place on land that did not belong to it.

It is therefore not surprising that theft, rape and squatting are so poorly repressed in France, given that at an institutional level, the French state did the same thing during colonization and continues to perpetuate it outside of all the international rules it has itself signed.

It is appropriate to conclude that neither party wishing to divorce can force the other to remain married under the joint ownership regime. Since the Bougival draft mutual consent agreement was rejected and since France considers the Caledonian situation as an internal problem, thus refusing any external mediation from the UN or the FIP, the association fears that we are heading towards a dramatic act again soon, as happened forty years ago in Ouvéa. France is apparently ready to sacrifice more of these compatriots, civilians and/or gendarmes, to maintain control at all costs over a territory it acquired illegally 172 years ago.

It should also be noted that even if they obtain divorce (independence), the Kanak risk suffering post-separation violence from France , such as manipulation, surveillance, economic violence and voluntary impoverishment, … as was the case for the former colonies, particularly in Africa, with the famous ‘Françafrique’ . This is also why the association proposes, through its solution No. 2, its integration into the United States of Oceania, with all the countries of the Pacific zone.

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