The risky gamble of PALIKA, UPM and the French State

Hello everyone,

The APROFED association is contacting you again at the beginning of this week following the announcement of the definitive withdrawal by PALIKA and UPM from the FLNKS (see Palika announces its “definitive withdrawal from the FLNKS” and New Caledonia: UPM leaves the FLNKS and supports the Bougival agreement for a clarified sovereignty ).

While the UC-FLNKS maintains its position regarding the rejection of the Bougival agreement signed in July of this year with the State and the other non-independence formations of the territory, PALIKA and UPM, component of UNI, wished to maintain the thread of dialogue with the State , hoping that the Bougival text could be improved (cf. Naïma Moutchou in Caledonia. Different expectations for independence supporters in bilateral meetings ).

If the association continues to demand that the State share with New Caledonia the 2 sovereign powers of Justice and internal security (police), it is highly likely that our request, like that of Palika and UPM, will not be heard by the State , which has learned nothing from its history, particularly its colonial history.

Indeed, with the announcement by the new Minister for Overseas Territories that the draft Bougival Agreement—or rather, the Bougival draft— will be submitted to the people of New Caledonia via referendum before any constitutional reform, some believe this strategy aims to circumvent, if not exclude, the FLNKS from the continuation of the negotiation process on the future of New Caledonia . In doing so, the State is replicating the same approach used in Algeria, Vietnam, and Vanuatu: divide and rule . It is worth noting that all of these territories were former French colonies and are now independent, demonstrating the limited effectiveness of this strategy , which the State is nevertheless once again employing in the case of New Caledonia.

This risky choice by the State, as headlined in the newspaper “Le Monde” (see New Caledonia: The State makes the risky choice of an “early citizen consultation” ) , aims primarily to shift the role of arbiter onto the population, rather than the UN ; a population that, until now, has had very little say in the debate. Political representatives are anxious to maintain control over decisions in order to justify their “usefulness” and their privileges. If the State truly cared about the Caledonian population, it could very well have, instead of Bougival, organised a pet project of Macron’s, namely a citizens’ convention so that the solution would come from the population itself and not from its extremist representatives, some of whom are subservient to the State, serving as a smokescreen, not to say a lightning rod, which allows it not to negotiate directly with the separatists , at the risk of seeing the UN or a regional actor (Australia, FIP, …) suddenly appear in what France considers to be an internal problem .

This desire to hold a citizen consultation unfortunately indicates to PALIKA and UPM that the State does not intend, at least until February, the date of the consultation, to amend the Bougival text , seven months after its drafting. However, as with the third consultation on New Caledonia’s self-determination, the association expects at least a high abstention rate, if not a boycott by pro-independence supporters.

It is worth recalling that the events at the Ouvéa cave in the 1980s took place in April and May.

It is also worth mentioning that after this consultation will come the municipal elections which, if the State forces its way through with the February consultation, could cost Palika and UPM dearly, as they currently only have 5 to 6 municipalities and the presidency of the assembly of the North Province only belongs to them out of respect for its current leader who was one of the signatories of the Matignon and Nouméa agreements and the originator of the mining giant KNS which receives little support from the State.

In view of all these elements, if no other sovereign competence were to be added to the Bougival text before the February consultation, the association would have no other choice but to call on its readers and supporters to abstain.

The objective of a citizen consultation (referendum) should have been for the association to submit to the population a proposed status for New Caledonia as a state, complete with a corresponding Constitution (fundamental law) . The French state’s separation of these two concepts suggests, beyond a certain amateurishness on its part, a deliberate intention to prevent these two concepts from ever coming into being. Blockage by the National Assembly or even the Constitutional Council cannot be ruled out.

If a new state-sanctioned intervention were to take place, leading to further unrest, it would formally demonstrate that the French state cares little not only for its own law enforcement forces, as in the 1980s, who continue to be injured in New Caledonia, but also for non-independence civilians who again risk losing their property, their assets, their businesses, their life savings, to satisfy a posture of prestige and superiority both nationally and internationally, of a France from another era, which the French themselves no longer want.

Wishing you a pleasant read and reminding you that federalism is the only solution to reconcile unity in diversity.

The APROFED association