Major test for Matignon Accord

New Caledonia

By Karen Mangnall

T HE legacy of two years of land manipulations by a clique of New Caledonian loyalists may turn out to pose the greatest threat to Michel Rocard s Matignon Accords. Such a warning is implicit in the report from French auditor-general Francois Asse lineau on the activities of New Caledo nia s Land and Rural Development Agency (Adraf) under the Chirac Gov eminent (see box, p!8).

The report reveals how a clique of RPCR members who took over Adraf from 1986 to 1988, systematically ignored existing Kanak customary and legal claims to ancestral lands and de liberately redistributed those lands to Europeans and other immigrants. Flanks and Union Caledonienne leader Fran coie Burck labelled Adrafs manipula tions as a clandestine attempt by the RPCR to recolonise New Caledonia by giving Kanak land to a new wave of

European and immigrant settlers.

At the October monitoring committee meeting in Paris, the FLNKS (Kanak

Socialist National Liberation Front) forced Jacques Lafleur to give the RPCR’s approval to an amnesty for 40

mainly Kanak prisoners being tried for

politically-related crimes of violence and murder. This deal, which Lafleur re-

portedly accepted only under duress,

was in return for an amnesty from prosecution for the three senior RPCR members of Adraf condemned in Asselineau’s report. Burck says the FLNKS put the Rocard Government on stern notice that the test of its determination to decolonise New Caledonia by the 1998 referendum, is going to be restoring justice to Kanak land claims.

“The main claim of Kanak people for independence is the earth,” says Burck.

“It’s a claim of dignity for the Kanak people.” Asselineau himself warns the Chirac Adraf has stored up a legacy of racial conflict by a combination of refusing to recognise Kanak customary claims and insisting on transferring land into

private ownership. Instead of balancing

economic development and allocating

land among all the ethnic groups, Adraf went to the extreme of considering land

redistribution solely from an economic point of view.

“In the overwhelming majority of cases, Adrafs aim was to give private property to individuals ... in order to bring Kanaks round to the Western view of land ownership and the increased profit which it was supposed to gener ate,” Asselineau said. This, he added, was obvious even from the second alloca tion Adraf ever considered, with the then French High Commissioner Jean

Montpezat leading the opposition to

Kana customary claims. Adraf rarely agreed to allocate land collectively to a Kanak dan. Out of 420 allocations there were only two exceptions to the rule: collectives run by the Kamboa-Outcho clan at Paita, and by the Gama clan at Bourail.

He criticises the Adraf executive for failing on every occasion to notify the board of concurrent Kanak customary claims. Of the 126 allocations carried over from the previous Land Reform Board, 71 or more than half were actioned by Adraf in direct contradiction with decisions and promises already

given to Kanak clans. Asselineau warns: “Two of these allocations pose major problems of public order but there’s the threat that a greater number, if not all 69 other allocations, will cause conflict in future.” Already one of these cases is threatening to escalate into a head-on confrontation between the European owner and several Kanak tribes. The tribe at Oundjo had a verbal contract from the Land Reform Board for redis tribution of prime riverside grazing land.

The former owner had agreed to sell the land and in return the tribe leased it back to him to run his cattle. Adraf re fused to recognise the claim and evicted the tenant, selling the land to a Euro pean reported to have had land troubles elsewhere. Oundjo has written to the new Adraf threatening a mass land occupation unless the land’s returned.

It’s already begun seeking support from other Kanak tribes.

Burck says the Rocard Government has agreed to overturn at least 60 alloca tions made from 1986 to 1988. “In the Oundjo case the Qovernment is embar rassed because the land has been allo cated under French law and it’s difficult today to go back on this decision,” he said. But Asselineau says the potential for future conflict between European and Kanaks is also illustrated by the rate at which recipients have subsequently given up their entitlement. Of 317 perti nent allocations, so far only 49 have been carried right through. Although re cipients blamed Kanak legal claims for

their decisions to give up the land, Asse lineau speculates this may only mask a more real fear land occupations.

The auditor-general also accuses the Adraf clique of deliberately stirring up trouble among Kanaks. He says analysis of certain cases indicated Adraf set out to incite conflicts between individual Kanaks and Kanak clans as well as be tween Kanak clans and European set tlers.

By ignoring the existence of customary claims, Adraf in most cases redistributed land to Kanaks who had no customary right to it. In addition, those Kanaks who were allocated land whether or not they were members of the traditional landowning clan didn’t get permission to claim ownership from the relevant council of elders. “In many cases, it’s in cited often strident opposition from the customary owners,” says Asselineau.

An example of inflamed tempers came in Canala, an area ordinarily at flash point anyway, where a Kanak man was allocated nearly 47 hectares by Adraf de spite one of the board’s Kanak members

pointing out quite forcefully that the

land was already claimed by the Nechero clan. Trouble ensued and eventually De nis Millard, Adrafs director, visited the property with two colleagues. They were attacked and had to seek police protec tion. An axe was smashed into the roof of Millard’s car and all three were

threatened physically.

Such confrontations exposed the in adequacy of criteria from successive

High Commissioners under which land should be allocated to the various ethnic communities, Asselineau says, “because the allocation of land to a Kanak isn’t in any way an act of appeasement, quite the contrary in fact when that Kanak can claim no customary rights.”

Adraf took this attitude to the extreme when it allocated land to a Kanak at La Foa without recognising it encompassed sacred burial sites of the Chome clan, to which the recipient did not belong. The Chome clan also complained other tombs were located in a grotto on nearby land allocated to two Kanak brothers.

Finally, Asselineau describes some

allocations as “very inopportune” given

recent events in New Caledonia, and

cites just one example.

Adraf allocated just over two hectares at Mont-Dore to a certain Maurice Mit ride whose Hienghene property was bought for 42 per cent more than the Crown Lands valuation. His Mont-Dore allocation was at a substantial discount and based upon what Asselineau de scribes as an “imaginery” development project. Mitride was one of the self confessed killers of 10 Kanaks, (includ ing two brothers of the late FLNKS lead er Jean-Marie Tjibaou), at the Hien ghene massacre on December 5, 1984.

Along with his co-accused, Mitride was acquitted in 1987 on the grounds of

“legitimate defence”.

Asselineau comments tersely that such an allocation didn’t clamour for priority under the circumstances. □