A question of attitude

Pim Opinion

The difference between British and French colonial ism, it has been said, is one of attitude. Diplomats (British) are occasionally fond of retailing the old saw thus: The French approach: First find your savage. Teach him the French language. Help him to work for the greater glory of France.

The British approach: First find your savage. Clothe him decently. Tell him about the queen and the great British Empire. Give him independence when he becom es a nuisance.

It’s usually but not always said tongue in cheek.

Nevertheless, there’s a grain, if only that, of truth in all that. For while the British have largely departed the colonial scene (not always gracefully) France remains.

That’s in keeping with the attitude differences quoted above.

And that’s where the problems begin. As nearly all the former colonies in the Pacific moved towards independ ence, those still under French rule have looked on with equal degrees of confusion, envy and hope.

There is, particularly in New Caledonia, extremism now on both sides. The settlers, by and large, intend to keep what they hold. The Melanesians want their land back.

And it is easy to forget, in the heated arguments that accompany what passes for debate, France’s contribu tion to the region’s development.

Only the extremists want France out. The more moderate view is that France should encourage progress towards a form of independence that would retain vital aid, trade and cultural links with Paris.

And that, sadly, is where the debate breaks down. The French government appears to regard the recent structural changes in New Caledonia as an end. Others see them as a beginning and there seems to be no room for compromise. Certainly, for a minority of caldoches, it’s bombs before bargains.

And Mr Tjibaou’s veiled threat of “other means” if the democratic process fails to meet the aspirations of the Kanaks does little to raise the level of debate.

New Caledonia is often painted as an impasse, a dead end, political trench warfare with both sides lobbing insults and worse across a battle scarred no-man’s land.

And that’s partly true too.

Yet it must be said that France would win nothing but friends in the region by softening her stance and seeking a genuine friendship with the Kanak movement. That the attendant political difficulties would be enormous need hardly be stated. The alternative to continue to cling to the last tatters of empire can hardly seem more appealing.

On the principle that more dialogue is never a backward step France’s redoubled efforts to explain her presence and her policy in the South Pacific are most welcome. A greater understanding of these by the Forum countries, the Kanaks and, in particular, the caldoches is now necessary so that action can flow from the words.

Now that the Forum has fully taken on board the issue of New Caledonia, might it not be time for greater contact with France? Might it not also be time to completely separate that issue from the friction caused by the Moruroa tests?

At the last Forum meeting in Suva, Western Samoa’s Prime Minister Kolone lamented what he saw as the passing of the traditional South Pacific communal approach to problem solving. The current debate on New Caledonia represents an opportunity to revive that spirit. But France’s voice should be among those heard.

There are fears that France would use that voice to confuse and procrastenate, but the independent island countries are no strangers to the diplomacy of delay.

Neither, for that matter, are Australia and New Zealand.

France can still be encouraged to come to the table.

It may well be that the status of the territory is non-negotiable. But only a few years ago the very existence of regional councils in New Caledonia would have been equally unthinkable. Times change. And so do attitudes.