Book Reviews

TRANSPACIFIQUES: Observations et considerations diverses sur les Terres et Archipels du Grand Ocean By Jean Chesneaux; Editions la Decouverte, 1 Place Paul-Painleve, 75005 Paris.

Reviewed by Helen Hill WHAT does the average French citizen think and believe about the South Pacific? Are French images, dreams and beliefs about the South Seas based on a solid foundation of infor mation, or on myth, prejudice or decep tion? It is rare that we have the opportunity of looking into the minds of the French.

This book, unfortunately, will not help us. It has a different purpose, different audience, and is written in French a language most of us don’t read. Neverthe less, it has an extremely important pur pose, and one for which Pacific people (including Australians and New Zealand ers) should be thankful to Jean Ches neaux. It’s his belief that despite our time’s “fetishism of communication”, an “abyss of non-communication” separates public opinion in the countries of the Pacific from that in France. This book, clearly aimed at the casual reader rather than the spe cialist, has as its task the bridging of that abyss from the French side.

English-speaking readers will be some what surprised to find a book on the Pa cific for French readers beginning with a description of Canberra, complete with the “kitsch colonnades” of Civic and the fine wines of the Australian National Univer sity Staff Club. Those who know Can berra might be even more surprised to find it described as an early stronghold of the New Left! The portrait is here, however, because Canberra is where Chesneax’s own voyage of discovery of the South Pa cific started. Had he not come to the ANU in 1970 as a visiting Professor in Chinese and Vietnamese history, and become in volved with Australian academics op posed to the Vietnam war, he might have emerged with quite a different view of the Pacific region.

Indeed, by comparing his own intellec tual voyage (following contacts given to him in Canberra and New Zealand) with the journeys of Bougainville or Jules Veme, Chesneaux seems to be stressing the dif ficulties, for a Frenchman, of coming to a view of the Pacific that is not determined by the vast amount of cultural and politi cal preconceptions that cloud French of ficial thinking.

Yet it is these “cultural dreams” penned

by Verne, Melville and Stevenson and il lustrated by Gauguin, that are seen as pro viding some of the undesirable cultural baggage that ensures many French view the Pacific as an exotic place of pleasure, of unknowable mystery and significantly, of freedom from responsibility. The four chapters on “Cultural Dreams” covering the mutiny on the Bounty , the writings of Jules Verne and other novelists, and the role of anthropologists in the South Pa cific might seem a little out of place, in a book such as this, particularly as each topic is covered in a distinctly sketchy fashion.

However, Chesneaux’s technique appears to be to create some accord in the minds of his French readers by making connec tions with their existing images of the Pa cific before moving on to the more political and hard-hitting stuff, which will ques tion a great deal of their beliefs about France in the region.

Thus it is not until Chapter 17 that we begin to see some of the “state taboos” of France’s presence in the Pacific discussed.

According to Chesneaux, two logics com bine, both of which are officially regarded as essential for the interests of France. The first is the necessity of the “independent nuclear deterrent”; the other is France’s need to be regarded as a world power of medium size. These two have combined to produce the policy of nuclear testing on Mururoa a policy which, Chesneaux claims, continues due to bureaucratic and financial interests, mythology, and civil and military careerism rather than out of necessity for the defence of France.

He points out that it has never been demonstrated that Mururoa, chosen for its isolation when nuclear tests were carried out in the atmosphere, was indispensable for underground nuclear testing. But in the nine years between the geographical transfer of testing from the Sahara to Po lynesia, and the technological transfer from atmospheric to underground testing, so much was invested in the Centre de I’Ex perimentation du Pacifique (CEP) and associated commercial and military es tablishments, that its use has had to be jus tified regardless of whether it really is necessary.

Second, the policy of deterrence envis ages preventing war, not winning it. This is the basis on which the force de frappe is sold to the French people; a policy, how ever, that is inconsistent with continuous testing to perfect a weapon such as the neutron bomb. Third, Chesneaux asks, have there been any circumstances when France’s possession of the force de frappe

has made France any more independent or more powerful internationally? He can think of none.

Last, he points out that the CEP is lo calised in the Pacific region, yet its aim is to be part of a “global” strategy of which the priority areas are on the other side of the planet. How useful would they be in the event of an attack by the Soviet Union on France?

How does the French State react to these “taboo” questions being raised? We are not told in detail, but some interesting quotes from reconstructed ’6os radical Regis Debray, adviser to President Mit terrand on the South Pacific, are pro vided. When confronted with the question of almost complete unanimity in the Pa cific, including Australia and New Zea land, on the question of nuclear testing and France’s continued presence in new Ca ledonia, Debray talks of “a conspiracy be tween the customary law of islanders and the biblical morals of the missionaries from London”. Nineteenth century dis putes and prejudices are still alive and well.

Chesneaux comes down clearly on the side of the Pacific islanders and the Forum consensus, which have renewed opposi tion to the nuclear tests and supported the case of the Kanaks in the United Nations though he also points out many ex amples of Pacific prejudice and ignorance about France.

It’s a pity the author didn’t have the op portunity to visit more of the independent countries of Polynesia and Melanesia, to give French readers more insight into how small island states can survive independ ence and to break down prejudices that apply to countries such as Papua New Guinea and Vanuatu. His description of the Nuclear Free and Independent Pacific Movement, while highly flattering to its participants, seems to overestimate its size and level of regional co-ordination.

Chesneax’s position is, unfortunately, a minority one within France, but the people of the Pacific should be glad to have such an eloquent advocate within the French academic establishment who can put their case forward. His reputation as a scholar on Vietnam and China should en sure his book is read in France, despite the challenge it provides to the so-called “na tional consensus”. His next task is to try to bridge the abyss of non-communication between France and the Pacific from the other side by producing, not a translation of Transpacifiques but a book, in English, that will explain the French view of the Pacific to English-speaking readers.