In defence of nuclear testing

By David Robie

FRANCE'S envoy in New Zea land warned at last month's Asia-Pacific security conference that any major reduction in military or nuclear-research activities in French Polynesia would provoke a severe financial crisis for the territory but he was strongly challenged by indigenous Pacific participants.^ Defending the French nuclear deter rent as still vital lor global security in spite of the end of the Cold War, Ambassador Gabriel de Bellescize also said the French-ruled Pacific territories '\‘ere becoming more involved in the South Pacific region, including security.

“Our military forces arc . . increas ingly involved in activities related to the hell-being of the people of the South Pacific region,” said de Bellescize. 'This means that f rench and European pres ence in the Pacific is already contributing [o the security and the well-being of the legion. In (lie future, (his European Contribution will increase and will re gain a stable lealtire of the Asia-Pacific

lecurily situation."

He added that British and French niclear deterrents were adding to the lobal deterrence of the Atlantic Al iance.

“Such has been the mainstay of our lefcnce policy since 1 9GG. The continuity

in our position has been remarkable. In recent years, there has been practically no debate in I*ranee about our defence policy because the consensus about it is so strong and encompassing all forces of the political spectrum. There has been from time to time criticism of certain aspects of our defence policy. I think it is fair to say that this criticism has not been understood in France because we have this absolute conviction that ... we have been lighting to maintain peace in the world.”

His statement provoked an angry response from several indigenous partici pants and peace researchers at the conference who challenged his views, labelling France’s deterrent policy as a colonial anachronism.

Pauline Tangiora, a respected kuia (elder) ol Te Whanau Rongomaiwahine and president of the Women’s Interna tional League for Peace and Freedom Aotearoa, declared that she spoke for many of the Pacific people not just Maori. Pointing out that the ambassador had said that he had known what it was like to be invaded, she replied: “Why do you remain in the indigenous lands of the Pacific? Why do you invade our land and suppress our people?”

She rejected the envoy s claim that nuclear testing was safe in the Pacific.

“Nuclear tests arc a crime against the people of the Pacific. When "I sec my cousins Irom Tahiti coming to New

Zealand for treatment for cancer, when I see them going to France for treatment, then I see your country’s military mind doesn’t care for the soul of our people . . . my family, my people. You are trespassing on our land.”

Tangiora was also scathing about French aid in the region. “What is a billion dollars? One dollar doesn’t allow France the right to colonise the people of Polynesia.”

A Solomon Islands participant, Tarcisius Kabutaulaka, condemned French policy in New Caledonia and asked about Moruroa Atoll: “What are you hiding? If you believe it is safe to test in the Pacific then why aren’t you testing nuclear weapons in France?”

Stephanie Mills, Greenpeace’s anti

nuclear campaigner, told the conference France could be “dragged kicking and screaming” into the post-deterrence era, or it could take a leadership role in shaping a new international security vision, “Before Moruroa becomes the Eur opean test site, before Europe accepts the anachronistic concept of nuclear deter rence as the basis for its future* security framework, it is vital that we... the public, the non-government organis ations, those involved in the elite debate challenge the assumptions that have underlaid security arrangements in Eur ope since world War Two.” Mills said.

“• • : key global security problems, including the environmental crisis facing us, cannot be solved by nuclear weapons.

A moratorium would drive an initial nail into the coffin of nuclear testing. □”