Bomblasts And Fall-Outs

Between Pacific Friends

Pressures, by boycott and court action, to persuade the French to abandon their nuclear tests are being exerted from all over the Pacific. Below Jim Boyack, author of PlM's regular Tahiti Letter, reports on atti tudes from inside French Polynesia.

As likely as not. Premier of the Cook Islands, Albert Henry, will stop the shipment of manure to Tahiti.

He has already disallowed the arrival of Tahitian rugby players in the Cook Islands. The Cook Islands Premier, through the good offices of has departmental secretary, gained for himself the privilege of being the first to punish the French Polynesians for the nuclear tests expected to take place in their backyard soon.

Two mid-May air charters from Tahiti to the Cooks at the last minute were denied permission to land, in the words of a Cook Island govern ment telegram, “pending outcome of international activities concerning nuclear protests”.

It must be assumed that the inter island schooner “Manutea”, the mari time link between these nearby ter ritories of Anglo-Saxon and French Polynesian cousins, will have its Tahiti run cancelled for the same reason. Tahiti will thus be denied its regular shipment of natural fertiliser, just as it is no longer receiving Aus tralian meat, rice, milk, butter, flower, sugar and animal foods, etc (thanks to the Australian dock workers’ nuclear boycott).

Most Tahitians don’t understand why. Those who represent more than 80 per cent of the unionised work force here have expressed their dis satisfaction by organising a counter boycott which, at the moment of this writing, has affected only Qantas Airlines. The 51 sections of the French Polynesian Trade Union Federation voted 50-1 (only the teacher’s union dissented) to strike back in kind (blow for blow) at boycotting countries, wherever in the world they may be.

For the moment, only Australia among the major powers is boycotting France. The result is that UTA-French Airlines planes are by-passing Sydney, while the Qantas flight between Mexico and Australia, which usually refuels in Tahiti, is getting back and forth via Fiji and Honolulu.

New Zealand and Fiji seem to be waiting for the International Court at the Hague to rule on the French tests before they fall into the boycott

parade. (Their boycott should be effective before this is printed). Anti test industrial action in either of these countries would result in UTA’s over flying them.

It would also bite into the $7 mil lion export trade (1972) from New Zealand to Tahiti, and force Air New Zealand to fly from Auckland to Los Angeles on a route other than that which leads to a counter-boycotting Tahiti.

The local union action is not unanimous.

Several unaffiliated unions, in ad dition to the teachers, have expressed dissatisfaction with the federation’s counter-boycott. Those who oppose it include the piece work dock workers. They are linked by contract to the two largest French unions which have come out in support of the Australian anti-test action. Two taxi unions also condemned the federation stand.

Interestingly, unlike the French unions, the dissenting groups here did not express opposition to the tests themselves. They left that end of the disaccord to French Poly

nesia’s National Assembly Deputy Francis Sanford. In Paris, Sanford on several occasions in recent weeks, loudly protested the Polynesian fire works. He asked Prime Minister Pierre Messmer in writing whether or not the tests would be halted, saying “they endanger life and com promise France’s position in this part of the world”.

Following up the French theme that the tests are innocuous, he re quested the French government leader to transfer the nuclear programme to the metropolitan part of the republic.

A few days later the Paris National Assembly debated the whole subject of atomic dissuasion as it related to France. This debate allowed the State Secretary for Defence to make the first official confirmation that France was going ahead with its Pacific ex periments.

Sanford jumped in at the end of the argument to express fears on behalf of the populations which live within a 230-mile radius of the point of explosion, notably the Gambiers.

Senator Pouvanaa A Oopa joined his

legislative colleague later in May by writing an open letter to the French people. The letter repeated Sanford’s idea, expressed to the Prime Minister the week before, of a national referendum on whether the French people were agreeable to nuclear tests in their own country.

In this context of French Poly nesian protestation (Sanford tech nically represents 54 per cent of the local population, if the results of the election three months ago in which he was re-elected are a barometer), President Charles Taufa’s union federation took its very firm stand against all boycott of French goods, communications, etc.

But it took the federation two lengthy communiques (separated by several days of pro and con news paper debate), a radio statement by Taufa in Tahitian and French, and a television discussion in which Taufa occupied centre stage, to clarify the federation’s exact reasons for the counter-action.

In a further explanation for my thick head, Taufa said, “Their [the Australians] boycott only affects the Polynesian and Caledonian popula tions. It doss not hit the French state directly. This is the only reason for our counter-boycott.

“If the Australian unions cannot understand our position and do not cease their action against us, then we must conclude that they have motives other than French nuclear tests; that their motives are more political than environmental; that the tests are only an excuse.”

Then he weighed in with the cruncher that finally aroused me from my naivete: “And if this is the case, then they are provoking a second Pritchard affair.”

George Pritchard was a local mis sionary turned British Consul who did his best for several years until 1842 to stop France from establishing a protectorate over Tahiti. This foreign affairs hassle incredibly quickened the fall of King Louis Philippe and with him the end of French monarchy. The French even tually arrested this first Anglo-Saxon to oppose their Pacific presence.

Delicately-diplomatic French being a problem for me, I did not under stand the counter-boycott announce ment communique paragraph which said, La Federation des Syndicates de Polynesie Francaise believes that the attacks of which France is currently the butt on this point (the tests) hide, in fact, a deliberate desire to hinder the economic development of French Polynesia.

It should have occurred to me that who says “economic” means “political” in a place like Tahiti, (Continued next page.)

without natural resources or one substantial industry.

The CEP is French Polynesia’s eco nomy. It pays salaries to about 2,500 people, supports another 500 through contracts with private companies and is eventually the basis for almost every exchange of lucre on the island.

The “Pritchard” clarification came as a verbal footnote to the federa tion’s second communique. It some what contradicted Taufa’s earlier statement to me that the counter measures were motivated not by politics, but because of economic hardships which the Australian and a possible New Zealand boycott would impose on the Tahitian worker.

I say “somewhat contradicted” because Taufa did make it clear that his unions’ action must not be con structed as a political position in favour of the tests. “We’re neither for nor against the bomb,” Taufa said.

“We only want to defend the interests of the French Polynesian worker. He is the only one who will suffer from the boycott of foodstuffs and other necessities.”

He explained that those French military here responsible for the tests are, for the most part, fed for free with stocks directly imported from France. Any food shortages caused by anti-test boycotts would mean higher prices (such as for emergency meat imported from the United States) for the salaried consumer. The merchants are allowed a 25 per cent mark-un no matter what their cost price. The boycott for them would be at most a paper-work inconvenience, even a mini-boom because 25 per cent of a higher price is a larger profit.

Taufa stressed the fact Pacific Experiments Centre (CEP) personnel

would be little affected, and he called on the Australian boycotters to cease actions which affect the Pacific.

“Let them protest wherever and however they want. Let them go to the Hague, sail to Mururoa, take action against Metropolitan France.

But they must face our reality and leave us alone in the Pacific. We do not contest their right to protest in any other way.”

The seven small dissident unions of dock workers and taxi drivers, associated with Francis Sanford’s autonomist movement, took the op posite view of the economic repercus sions of Pacific basin boycotts.

They said in a newspaper release that they were convinced that Aus tralian and New Zealand workers intended “neither to attack the local worker nor to compromise his stan dard of living or his interests”. Such is their economic politics.

There were sidelights to the boycott argument. The local union federation, sensing itself out of step with the world labour movement, sought to communicate its exact position to the Australian confederation. To this end they were preparing a lengthy resume of the position which led them to decide on the counter-boycott. This they were going to mail to Australia, but I had the inadvertent misfortune to mention to the union official who told me this that there were no more mail planes to Sydney. (I did not have the indiscretion to go so far as to say this was in part his federation’s fault.) This surprise revelation led to the alternative decision to telephone the Australian unions. The federation took measures to leam the appropriate Sydney telephone numbers from the horse’s mouth, but thus alerted the

Sydney union horses that a call could be expected from Papeete. At the last minute it was decided that since the Australian unions now knew the Tahiti people wanted to come to end-the-boycott terms, the Australians could damn well telephone Tahiti themselves! After all, it was reasoned, they started the fight!

Another incident concerned the New Zealand Attorney-General, Di Martin Finlay, who spent two hours in Tahiti on his way to the Hague to seek an injunction against the French tests. He arrived here incognito two hours after the Aus tralian boycott, and thus the counter boycott had become effective. Finlay spent a secret two hours at Faas Airport, during which one membe of his party asked for but could no receive an out-of-stock item at th« Duty Free Shop. Owner Madami Pelletier, confirming with an ANi official that the man was a VIP, wa distraught. She decided to give, a free gifts, small silver spoons witl Tahiti inscribed to each member a the party to compensate for the om man’s disappointment. The gifts wer accepted. A witness to this seen swears Madame Pelletier was ir formed only afterwards of th attorney-general’s identity and des tination!

Footnote: Territorial Assembll President Gaston Flosse, in Franc with a Gaullist mission (which e* plained to journalists the simple log:; of why the CEP must stay), cok firmed —the first French official tf do so—that Eiao Island, in th Marquesas, is being prepared fo underground nuclear tests at tli soonest moment. This was fin reported here in this column lac year.