No Open Arms In Paris For

Tahiti's Autonomists

A four-man delegation from French Polynesia’s 30-member Territorial Assembly (parliament) flew to Paris at the end of March to discuss the question of internal self-government with the French Government. However, the delegates did not get much of a hearing.

The delegates are Messrs. Francis Sanford (French Polynesia’s repre sentative in France’s Chamber of Deputies), John Teariki (a former deputy), Jean Millaud, and Henri Bouvier.

All belong to the Territorial Assembly’s two majority parties which campaigned vigorously on the self government issue at the Assembly elections last September {PIM, Oct., 1967, p. 25).

The majority parties hold 16 of the 30 Assembly seats and have the support of one independent. The other 13 Assembly members are strongly opposed to any weakening of the links between French Poly nesia and France.

Enlivened

The trip of the four-man delega tion to Paris was the latest in a series of moves on self-government which have enlivened and embittered Tahitian politics since the September elections.

Earlier moves were: • A decision by the Territorial Assembly last November by 17 votes to 10, with three abstentions, that a constitutional commission should study the question of internal self government and submit a plan for constitutional reform to the French Government (PIM, Dec., 1967, p. 17). • The resignation of Mr. Sanford from President De Gaulle’s Indepen dent Republication Party in January because, he said, the President had failed to take heed of the people’s wish for internal self-government in French Polynesia. Mr. Sanford’s resignation deprived President de Gaulle’s party of its absolute major ity in the French Parliament (PIM, Feb., p. 23). • Unofficial discussion in Papeete early in February between members of the majority parties and the Assistant Secretary-General of the United Nations, Mr. Djermakoye, about ways of approaching the UN

on the self-government issue ( PIM, March, p. 117).

So far the French Government’s only concesssion to the autonomistes is its decision to allow French Poly nesia to again have a ministerial form of government—as it did until October, 1958, when political dis turbances involving the now-exiled radical leader, Pouvanna a Oopa brought an end to it.

The French Premier, Mr. Pompi dou, told a questioner flatly in the French Parliament on February 17 that French Polynesia would not be granted self-government.

Said Mr, Pompidou: “The desire expressed by a group of territorial councillors, who represent only a fraction of the electorate and who do not have the right to speak for the whole territory, does not justify the changing of a constitution accepted with acclaim less than 10 years ago . . . and which has been of evident profit to French Poly nesia and its inhabitants.”

"Evident profit"

Mr. Pompidou detailed the “evi dent profit” that the Tahitians had derived from their present constitu tion by saying that: • Between 1959 and 1966, the number of people drawing govern ment salaries had doubled. This had given the territory full employment. • The annual value of salaries paid to government employees had quadrupled from 1,000 million French Pacific francs (SAIO million) in 1959 to 4,500 million francs in 1966. • The standard of living had more than doubled.

Mr. Pompidou’s statement failed to mention that the huge increase in government salaries in French Poly nesia in recent years was largely due to the nuclear testing project at Mururoa Atoll, which is bitterly opposed by members of the majority parties. Thus it neither satisfied nor intimidated them.

At a meeting of the Territoria Assembly’s permanent commission oi March 21, at which it was decidet to send the four-man delegation t Paris, members agreed that; • The Assembly’s resolution tha its constitutional commission shouh submit a plan for constitutional re form to the French Government ha< “not had the reception it merited” • The majority parties had beei wrongly accused of wishing to brea] away from France, whereas all the; wanted was to be able to run thei own affairs. • The French Governmen seemed to believe that the demani for self-government would loosei the links between French Polynesii and France, whereas the intentioi was to make them stronger by mak ing them “more just and valid”.

The members of the permanen commission also agreed that thi health of the exiled Pouvanaa i Oopa, who was banished fron French Polynesia until 1973, mad( it essential that he should be allowei to return from France as a matte of urgency.

The four-man delegation arrivei in Paris via Noumea on March 3( accompanied by a delegation fron New Caledonia which also wante< to discuss self-government with th< French authorities. (See story op' posite).

The delegation from Tahiti ha< only been in Paris a few days whei the French Minister for Oversea Territories, General Billotte, con firmed Mr. Pompidou’s statemen that the French Government had n< intention of granting internal self government to French Polynesia. H( also refused to see the delegation an< referred it to the director of hi department.

Papeete’s anti-autonomist Pres hailed this setback for the delegatioi with banner headlines. But in mid April the delegation was still ii Paris trying to make some headway On April 11, Mr. Sanford was re ported to have said that he woulc ask for the lifting of the residence restriction on Pouvanaa a Oopa in i written question to the government.

“It is astonishing that Pouvanas should be treated as a common lav criminal when he is, in fact, i political prisoner,” Mr. Sanford wa: reported to have added.