Letters

New Caledonia

Who’s behind

the Gomen

board?

Your correspondent’s comment on the threat by the New Caledonian Rightwing to use armed helicopters against the Melanesians (PIM Sep p 14) warrants some explanation.

The threat was actually made by the then Secretary of State Paul Dijoud four years ago, and repeated by him to the Melanesian Deputy to the French Parliament, Roch The threat also em jraced a possible resort to nercenaries.

At the time, it seemed like ather idle talk, although there vere some mutterings in France imong would-be soldiers of ortune that there were jobs to »e had in New Caledonia if one yere ready to respond to the all when needed The events in Vanuatu began □ give some credibility to the dea. If the secessionist move icnt had been successful I'hich it couldn’t have been, ince it was based on imaginary ssumptions there would ave been a piece of territory, ot under the responsibility of le French State, where a small rmed force, based on the use of rmed helicopters, could have een organised. Such a force Duld have been used to terror e the Melanesians of New aledonia. The British author ies, seeing a succession of very übious American characters )ming one by one to Vanuatu nder the guise of working for mmy Stevens, managed to ;port them in time.

One of the ideas behind the cessionist movement was to parate New Caledonia proper om the Loyalty Islands, which ere to join with the Vemarana - that is, the part of Vanuatu at would have broken away.

In this way, the Rightwing Europeans of Noumea, who were partly master-minding the movement in Santo, thought they would find themselves at last in the majority in New Caledonia, and would thus be able to keep the Melanesians in their place.

To achieve this goal, they planned an armed movement of settlers in New Caledonia, and arms had been introduced into the island on a large scale.

Politically incapable of moving against its own supporters, the French Government of the time was in a quandary, trying to sail a middle course which would have changed the policies of the central government of Vanuatu, but would have brought the secessionists back into the fold through negotiations. This un spoken policy didn’t work, each French civil servant in the condominium having his own ideas of what should be done, and his own interpretation of the muddled official policy and acting accordingly. As a result, some truly extraordinary individual actions were under taken.

It should be said that the French high commissioner in Noumea gave the necessary orders to prevent any flow of arms out of New Caledonia.

What he could not prevent was the introduction of arms into New Caledonia, brought in aboard Japanese ore carriers, paid for by the principal European mine owners and graziers, and subsequently partly distributed into various European hands in Noumea and the inland.

The murder of a gendarme in Gomen some months ago seems to have been linked with this arms traffic. The murdered man, killed in his own house at night as he watched TV by an assailant armed with a high powered modern rifle fitted with a silencer, had some days before confided to a person with Melanesian connections that he was ‘on to a big thing’, but still needed to check a couple more points before reporting to his superiors.

The same day, a red 404 Peugeot car, previously un known in the locality, had been reported as having come from, then returned to, Ouaco, a few kilometres away. It has also been reported that at the time

of the Santo secession Philippe de St Quentin, murderer of a Melanesian in Gomen in the first half of 1981 (PIM Aug p 6) had, with his private boat, been mixed up in a series of sus picious journeys with other par ties from Ouaco, said to be working for the Jacques Lafleur concern, up the coast to the uninhabited Surprise Islands in the north of New Caledonia.

At the end of August 1981, a wooden notice board was placed in the paddock of a second generation Gomen settler called Caron. The board carried a carefully hand-written text, claiming to be signed by a Melanesian person called Felix Belouma, and announcing that all cattle on the property would be killed, and that the last bullet would be reserved for the settler.

Unhappily for the European author of the notice, no Felix Belouma exists in the area, and the Belouma lineage is an inland one, stemming from the mountain-dwelling Pabwa tribes in the Diahot valley, who cannot have any claim to land along the west coast. The land in question, at a location known as Babinema, belongs to the lineages which constitute the Tegon coastal village.

The only reason for the use of the name Belouma is that Gaston Belouma, who lives in Noumea, is a delegate of the pro-independence Palika politi cal group, and goes up the coast from time to time.

The mistake in the given name on the board was prob ably designed to minimise the significance of the ‘prank’ in the eyes of the courts if the author were ever found out after all. he had used a non-existent name . . .

But the Noumea daily Les Nouvelles Caledoniennes tried on this basis to whip up passions against the general and peace ful Melanesian movement for the recovery of land.

The writer of the notice was not a settler from Gomen he would not have made the mis take about the lineage name but a European settler from nearby. This person unknown knew how to come by night without being noticed curiously, along the escape route most likely to have been used by the gendarme’s mur derer.

He could be sought in Ouaco, where the former grounds of the Australian Company, so long represented locally by Colonel Dix, are being sub-divided and sold by Jacques Lafleur In the process, a concentration is be ing formed around Ouaco of the stupidest and most racist set tiers in New Caledonia, always agitating for police protection against the Melanesians, and constantly threatening the lat ter with the wide range of weapons they keep at home most of which they have ob tained quite illegally.

Ouaco was long a favoured hunting venue for governors and ministers of the former government touring New Cale donia. It has now become a symbol of entrenched and rabid colonialism colonialism of the type so well represented by Mr Lafleur himself.

(Professor)

Jean Guiart

Noumea New Caledonia Another look at

the SPC

With many years of experience in the region, serving a terri torial administration, an independant Island govern ment, and, more recently, a regional organisation, there can be no doubt that Don Stewart knows the South Pacific and its people. His article on the South Pacific Commission (SPC) and its conference (PIM Oct pi 7) is therefore an important contri bution and comes across as one of the most balanced analyses to appear in recent years. In fact in my view there are only two areas of his treatment of the subject that might be ques tioned.

The first of these is the impression left that it is the fault of the Island governments that the SPC’s budget remains strapped. This seems a very superficial view, and it is disap pointing that no attempt was made to explore the underlying causes of the present diffi culties.

In theory, whilst the metro politan countries provide the bulk of the finance, the Islands decide how it should be spent.

At first glance this seems a very generous arrangement, and most metropolitan governments are at great pains to emphasise the role of the Islands in the

control of the work programme.

The reality is somewhat differ ent. By placing their people in certain strategic positions within the organisation, some metropolitan governments, often working together, can exercise a degree of control which goes well beyond the appearances.

This situation has been ag gravated in recent times by a tendency on the part of ‘Young Turks’ in Canberra’s Depart ment of Foreign Affairs to ignore polite intimations from Island representatives that they are not happy with the present set-up, and to press on regard less. This lack of sensitivity would seem particularly unfor tunate from Australia’s long term viewpoint, since the heavy pressures brought to bear in certain areas have only served to increase the suspicion that the organisation remains at heart essentially colonial, and dedicated to serving that inter est.

It may well be argued of course that since Australia con tributes the lion’s share of the budget, it should have a major say in the running of the organisation. But it may equally well be argued that Island governments have become in creasingly aware of the social and economic changes which are occurring, and of the in creasing interest which major powers on the rim of the Pacific Basin are taking in the region.

In these circumstances it is not unreasonable for Island govern ments to be vitally concerned at what happens in an organisation with direct access to their own

backyards.

In fact there is evidence that Islands control over many as pects of the SPC’s activities has tended to decline in recent years, as an increasing pro portion of total revenue has come from outside the regular budget. These funds, originat ing from diverse sources such as national governments outside the region, United Nations agencies, and non-governmental arganisations, are not governed by quite the same regulations as those on the regular budget.

And, in fact, taking this money nto account, it is questionable lust how strapped the SPC ■eally is this may in part

explain the tendency of the secretariat to adopt a more independent line.

The second aspect of Don Stewart’s assessment which is open to question is what can only be described as his knee jerk reflex on the subject of administrative services within the organisation. Recent devel opments indicate that an in creasing proportion of external funds are being used to increase secretarial services signifi cantly, and there is no evidence of their influence diminishing.

Similarly, the need to have two persons employed fulltime in making travel arrangements is questionable when, in view of the sums of money involved, most travel agents would give their right arm for a chance to gain the resulting commissions from airlines and hotels.

These criticisms aside, the article does represent a very useful attempt to line up the questions facing the SPC in the 1980 s.

Observer

(Name and address supplied.)

The SPC and its

rival bodies

Your Noumea Special Corre spondent’s report on the ‘SPC’s “P & E” Meeting’ (PIM Jul p2l) was quite interesting, and, above all, timely.

Since the South Pacific Com mission’s establishment in 1947, it has done a tremendous job in the Pacific. It is a pity that some of the governments that directly support SPC are also initiating new, partially parallel, organisations within the SPC region. There may be a real need to take care of the programmes that necessitated the founding of the South Pacific Bureau of Economic Cooperation (SPEC), and the Pacific Islands Development Commission (PIDC), and other similar organisations that are in the planning stages. I hope the participating governments of SPC meet and review its mission and goals to prevent duplication and unnecessary competition and expenditure.

SPC’s dedicated staff, people of the stamp of Michel Lam bert, tropical agriculturist, have done an excellent service to the Pacific Islands in disseminating

scientific information, conduct ing workshops, seminars, co ordinating studies and provid ing other needed services. On the other hand, some SPC staff members have never even made an attempt to visit all the territories and countries in the SPC region, at least to get to know the problems and re sources available in these areas.

It is high time that the SPC mission, goals, programmes and personnel were reviewed so as to render it more effective in meeting the needs of the Pacific, to prevent proliferation of duplicate organisations, and the eventual death of the SPC.

R. Muniappan

Address omitted from original

‘Man Brown’

replies

I refer to the Postmark Papeete column of Marie-Therese and Bengt Damelsson, ‘Seminar on a Circular Track’ (PIM Sep pp2o-21).

For many years, the South Pacific Commission has re ceived valuable contributions from external organisations.

Contributions have been in cash and kind in kind by con sultancies, volunteers, equip ment and the provision of ser vices. In recognising the value of these contributions, the South Pacific Conference in 1974 commended the secretary general for the support obtained and requested him to endeavour to increase extra-budgetary support in order to expand the assistance provided to the re gion. Your correspondents in saying that such outside fund ing is ‘unexpected generosity’, are far from correct: it is sought, it is recognised, it is very much appreciated and it is a vital component of the work programme.

While there have been in recent years a number of women’s conferences (it is, after all, the UN Decade for Women), only two the 1980 ESCAP-sponsored Suva meet ing and the 1981 SPC Papeete seminar have been for women of the SPC area.

The 1980 South Pacific Con ference, aware of the forth coming Suva meeting, foresaw the need for concerted action. It

therefore added to the SPC’s 1981 work programme a Sem inar of South Pacific Women.

This seminar, it directed, should be hosted by French Polynesia as proposed, and should ‘ develop concrete pro gramme proposals for sub mission to the 21st South Pacific Conference’. The con ference directed the secretariat of the SPC to seek external funding for the seminar; the secretariat responded to that directive, and the seminar was arranged with the invaluable financial support of a number of organisations: the Australian Freedom from Hunger Cam paign; the Netherlands Minis try for Development Co operation; the Swedish Inter national Development Auth ority; the International Labour Office; the Australian Develop ment Assistance Bureau; the Commonwealth Foundation; and the United Church Action Group of America. The seminar was preceded by a number of satellite meetings arranged by the participants as a prelimi nary to the seminar. To suggest that a satellite hookup would be a cheaper and more effective method to develop programme proposals, i.e. a meeting of delegations with free exchange and discussion, after-hours dis cussion, and the final develop ment of project proposals and resolutions, indicates a lack of familiarity with the limitations of the satellite system.

Your correspondents’ report appears to have had specific objectives, probably only in directly connected with the role of women in development. A number of misconceptions should therefore be corrected: the official representatives on the podium in the auditorium of the assembly (not ‘lecture room’) were there for approxi mately 30 minutes for the opening ceremony. Two were members of the government council Vice-President Fran cis Sanford not in a suit but in a floral shirt and resplendent in leis, and Councillor Maco Tevane —while Mr Taufa rep resented the president of the assembly. These are three Tahitians well-known to the Pacific, and none very solemn.

The government representative was the high commissioner. All

were there for an express pur pose, to honour their Pacific guests at the opening of the seminar, and their absence would certainly have been of note. Official guests were again on the podium for the closing ceremony, again not in a ‘lec ture room’, but in the chamber where the assembly sits, the chamber of the assembly which was made available to the women of the Pacific for their seminar. After the closing cere mony, Vice-President Sanford, Councillor Tevane, the Mayor of Papeete, Mr Juventin, and the high commissioner all dressed casually Pacific-style shared with the participants the moving songs of farewell.

In conferences around the world the host country usually, and for obvious cost-connected reasons, fields a larger del egation than do the visitors.

French Polynesia fielded two delegates and 13 observers.

There would have been 14 if Mrs Danielsson’s request, dated July 17, 1981, had been ac cepted. Five countries had ob servers as well as their del egations. Despite the cost to themselves, the Federated States of Micronesia had one observer; Fiji had one observer; the Marshall Islands had one observer; Papua New Guinea had two observers, and the Republic of Belau had three.

These and other delegations expressed regret that they had not been able to bring more.

Observers were not supposed to take part in debate, but one did so without objection. Observers played a role in the full working groups which met separately to consider the projects in health, employment and unemploy ment, and family/community/ culture. It may never have been done before, but the women decided to meet in private without the public, without men, without the press and it miffed the press.

The meeting was directed by the SPC’s Health Education Officer, Marie-Claude Teissier, herself a Tahitian, and was chaired by Beatrice Vernaudon, a Tahitian, with Marie Maddison (Marshalls) relieving the chair from her position as vice-chairwoman. Meg Taylor (Papua New Guinea) co ordinated the working groups’

deliberations and recommen dations. These facts were omit ted somehow from the report in

Pim

The ‘man Brown’ did com ment on the nuclear issue as being political but he did not say that it was not a health problem. He has some firm private views on this. He did say that he thought the nuclear health issue fell outside the subject of the seminar: ‘to develop concrete programme proposals for submission to the 21st South Pacific Conference’.

The women disagreed, ap plauded their decision to dis agree, and discussed the issue in their working groups.

The ESCAP report ‘for par ticipants only’ of the Suva meeting was not a working paper for the seminar, either in English or in French, but the

'Far from staying on a circular track, the seminar struck out in new directions. As one delegate has stated: ". . . The Pacific wide representation was the best yet in any regional women’s meeting .. . There were definite themes for discussion, employment, the family and community, health and culture. ” ’

appropriate sections were ex tracted by the co-ordinator, reproduced and used.

One delegation, believing that the presentation of country papers was a waste of time, proposed only to circulate their paper. The meeting firmly asked that the paper be pres ented. Your correspondents’ suggestion that the Pacific Islands Year Book could have been distributed instead ignores both the objectives of positional papers and the coverage of the Year Book. Papers addressed themselves specifically to the requirements of the seminar, i.e., what women have achieved and desire to achieve, a topic that could be presented only by the women concerned.

As to the success of the seminar, surely the participants are a better judge of this than are your correspondents, who seem to denigrate the partici pants’ ability to handle a meet ing and to reach their objec tives. In the very limited time they achieved their objectives, preparing seven project pro posals for the 21st South Pacific Conference, plus a number of resolutions not covered by the Suva meeting.

Far from staying on a ‘circu

lar track’ the seminar struck out in new directions. As one del egate has stated: ‘For some it was an opportunity to renew old acquaintances, for others it was an opportunity to participate in Pacific regional women's activi ties for the first time . . . The Pacific-wide representation was the best yet in any regional women’s meeting .. . For the first time also, there were definite themes for discussion; employment; the family and community; health and culture.

Another first at this seminar was the use of consultants who were all Pacific Island women; Kila Amini, of the PNG High Commission in Wellington; Viopapa Annandale, acting chief of the Public Health Department of Western Samoa; Claire Slatter. women’s pro gramme officer of the Univer-

sity of the South Pacific; Mere Kite, of USP’s Institute of Pacific Studies; Flora Devatine of French Polynesia. Each con sultant presented a discussion paper to the seminar in each of the issue areas.' The report and recommen dations have already been cir culated to governments. These recommendations for positive and early action were set to be considered and this is another ‘first’ by high-level delegations in consultation at the 21st South Pacific Confer ence.

W. T. Brown

Noumea New Caledonia (Mr Brown is director of programmes in the South Pacific Commission.) Oz uranium and French N-tests Nuclear testing and dumping of nuclear waste in the Pacific was recently strongly condemned by the 12th South Pacific Forum during its sitting in Port-Vila, Vanuatu.

Nqw, since the Pacific’s biggest neighbour, Australia, is exporting its uranium to France, and France is continu

ing to test its nuclear devices in the Pacific, I asked the spokes man of the forum, former Solomons Prime Minister, Peter Kenilorea, what he thought of this.

My answer did not come from him but from a gentleman by the name of McDonald from the Australian Government. ‘Not one piece of Australian uranium is being used on Moruroa,' he told me. He stressed that his country’s uranium is being used solely for ‘peaceful purposes’.

We all know about Iraq’s nuclear reactor scandal, don’t we? It was all the same.

America sold its F-16 bomber aircraft to Israel on condition that they be used only for ‘peaceful purposes’. What hap pened? Israel used those very planes to blast Iraq’s nuclear reactor sky-high!

In Vanuatu we are trying our very best to trust France. Our prime minister and France’s deputy ambassador to Vanuatu signed the 1981 French aid agreement with Vanuatu a year ago and up to now not a single cent has been given to Vanuatu.

Don’t preach to me about politi cal implications, a promise is a promise!

Now does Mr McDonald see what I mean? Sorry sir, the next thing you know, France will be using your own uranium to make and test its nuclear de vices at your very door.

Len Garae

Port-Vila Vanuatu

• Because of pressures of space, PIM has had to hold over several letters which will now be published in the December issue. The letters are from Joseph Theroux (the 1787 massacre of members of the La Perouse expedition), Nonie Sharp (further comments on John Singe’s book The Torres Strait: People and History), N.

J. Bullock (in defence of New Zealand police). Kevin B.

Judkins (nationalised shipping in the Pacific), Susan P.

Montague (conditions in the Trobriand Islands), John Milne (memories of Harry Jay Moors and Robert Louis Stevenson) and J. Huon de Navrancourt (aspects of decolonisation).