Pride And Prejudice

France must learn that Pacific responsibilities go hand in hand with privileges.

AUSTRALIA hosted visits by two symbols of France’s puissance in the South Pacific during March: the helicopter carrier Jeanne d’Arc and Mr Andre Giraud, the French Defence Minister. Both were symbols of France’s intention of signalling to the region that she has a strong and a legitimate presence here. As such, both visitors served only to exacerbate the war of words that is being fought over sovereignty and self determination in Oceania.

The Jeanne d’Arc was an immediate and obvious tar get for protests against France’s intransigence with regard to nuclear testing; in fact, those with a Francophobe axe to grind could find in the vessel’s visit justification for almost all their prejudices.

France’s position was not helped, however, by Mr Gi raud’s own intransigent response to questioning by Aus tralian reporters. Admittedly, he must have found many of their questions annoying but he cannot claim to be used to a pliable Press back in Paris. It is difficult to be lieve that he was not thoroughly briefed on Australian prejudices as far as France is concerned, which raises the disturbing possibility that he knew very well what to ex pect ... and was prepared to push through his statements without regard to the consequences. Mr Giraud’s attitude to the Australian Press was not an isolated response, how ever: in talks with senior politicians including the Prime Minister, Mr Hawke, and Defence Minister Kim Beazley, his disdain for Australia’s regional role earned him little approval or likelihood of a sympathetic response to France’s claims of Pacific representation.

Pacific Islands Monthly has been accused of “France bashing” in its reports on New Caledonia and French Po lynesia, but critics should note that all three of these places are to be found on the map of the South Pacific. For that reason alone, this and other interested publications have the right and the responsibility of assessing the impact of any nation’s actions in the Pacific on every inhabitant of that vast region quite apart from a journalistic respon sibility to report events in the Pacific from a Pacific per spective. What France (or any nation) may intend from the distance and comfort of its capital has a significance to all the peoples of Oceania.

The fact that both France and Australia seem woefully ignorant of each other’s priorities and philosophies, es pecially as they concern relations between the two na tions, is cause for real concern. Australia’s retreat on its position of support for New Caledonian independence has shocked and disappointed many people in the region: the change from “independence” to “self-determination” represents a new mood of self-interest and isolationism that is morally no different from France’s own highly sim plistic approach to international relations.

In plain language, France has reaffirmed its intention of going its own way with or without the approval of, and in defiance of the disapproval of, its allies. There are no surprises in this, but Australia has suddenly and unex

pectedly adopted an attitude of compliance with the French attitude: the era of Australia being the advocate of Pacific dignity has ended with a barely audible whimper.

But Mr Giraud and his colleagues should not take too much comfort from the new Australian position, for they must sooner or later realise that a continued and active French presence in the Pacific brings with it not only priv ileges but responsibilities.

French Polynesia and New Caledonia cannot be played as pawns in the NATO game. If, indeed, France is the globally significant nation she claims to be, her respon sibilities are to the globe. For the sake of her shining past and her potentially bright future, France should remem ber that Oceania consists of small areas of land united by not separated by a vast area of water. The Pacific community has need of good neighbours. □