No knowledge

Much Ado In Tahiti Over

That Letter To Pim

From our Tahiti correspondent Members of French Polynesia’s 30-man Territorial Assembly agreed unanimously in February to write to PIM requesting a photo copy of a letter which PIM published in January (p. 14) on affairs in Tahiti.

The letter, which was received signed, was published anonymously at the writer’s request. The writer claimed to be a member of the Terri torial Assembly, and the editor had no reason for doubting this.

The letter advocated that other Pacific territories should boycott the PATA workshop conference due to be held in Tahiti later this year, and also the South Pacific Games due to be held on the island next year.

The boycotts were suggested as a means of protesting against the French Government’s plans to ex plode more atomic bombs in French Polynesia and against France’s “military occupation” of Tahiti.

The Territorial Assembly discussed the letter on February 12 following; • The publication in the local Press in late January of a word-for word translation of the relevant section of PlM’s “Up Front with the Editor” column, where the letter appeared, together with a photo graphic reproduction of the column itself.

No knowledge

• Statements to the Press by spokesmen for the radical majority parties in the Assembly that they had no knowledge of the letter before it was published, • Speculation by the Press that the letter was the work of a mysterious Tahitian committee, which, in September, 1968, dis seminated leaflets in Papeete advocat ing independence and “No to the bomb”. • A formal motion by a con servative Assemblyman, Mr. Gaston Flosse, asking the Assembly presi dent, Mr. John Teariki, to take action to oblige PIM to reveal the identity of its correspondent. • The dispatch of a letter from the territory’s Governor, Mr. Pierre Angeli, to the Assembly president in which he said he could not believe that an Assembly member had written the letter to PIM, but asking the

president to establish that no mem ber had “committed such an act against the interests of the territory”.

In reading his motion to the Assembly on February 12, Mr. Flosse claimed that the letter to PIM was an attempt to sabotage the territory’s economy and tourist trade.

However, members of the radical majority coalition, which holds 18 of the Assembly’s 30 seats, did not take the same serious line in the debate that followed.

Mr. Daniel Millaud (radical) claimed that both the Governor and the Assembly were attaching too much importance to the whole affair.

“We should treat it with the scorn it deserves”, he said.

Mr. Henri Bouvier (radical) said Mr. Flosse’s motion was a manoeuvre “designed to torpedo one of us”. He suggested that PIM had received a letter containing the forged signature of an Assemblyman, and that the whole thing was “the beginning of a new Pouvanaa affair”. [Pouvanaa a Oopa, a former political leader in Tahiti, was con victed in 1959 of various alleged crimes and sentenced to 15 years exile and eight years imprisonment in France. Many Tahitians believe he was framed. He was released in 1968.]

'Not our job'

The radical leader, Mr, Francis Sanford, who is French Polynesia’s deputy in the French Parliament, suggested that it was not for the Assembly to find out who had written to PIM.

“We have plenty of intelligence organisations here,” he said. “Let them get evidence.” Alternatively, Mr. Sanford suggested that the French Embassy in Australia should take the matter in hand.

Another leading member of the majority coalition, Mr. Jean Millaud, wondered whether Tahiti’s police would be capable of conducting an inquiry. He added: “We have five police forces in Tahiti, without count

ing the secret police one trips over at cocktail parties”.

Mr. Frantz Vanizette (conserva tive) said that all members of the Assembly were on trial as a result of the letter, and they should react by demanding an inquiry. However, he seriously doubted whether PIM would reveal the identity of its correspondent.

“To say the least, the magazine is anti-French,” he said. “It interprets, it twists, it slants its articles, and everything about it is suspect. . . .”

A genuine plot

Mr. Bouvier, who had more to say on the subject than anyone else, insisted that it was necessary to get to the bottom of what seemed to him like a plot.

He proposed that the Assembly should write a joint letter to PIM demanding a photocopy of the anonymous letter. This would be signed by all members.

“The editor of PIM will inevitably accept the Assembly’s request,” he said. “The false signature on the first letter requesting anonymity will be found on our letter requesting the photocopy.

“As requested by the Governor, this procedure would oblige all of our colleagues to express themselves on this affair. And according to the value of the document received, we will see what to do next.”

Mr. Bouvier’s proposal was adopted unanimously, and the Assembly presi dent was given the job of preparing a letter to send to PIM. The text was agreed to at a meeting of the Assembly on February 19 and signed by all members. (At the time of going to press on February 27 no letter had been received.—Ed. “PIM”).