Transcript
Walter Zweifel: Pierre Frogier was one of the politicians attending the Paris meeting of the Noumea Accord signatories two weeks ago, and in his view the gathering showed the ongoing deep divisions which have become entrenched. In a newspaper interview he said there were two Caledonias, with one around Noumea wanting to stay French and the rural Kanak provinces wanting independence. He pointed out that 30 years had lapsed since the first French-sponsored accord and he thought that the referendums emanating from them won't resolve anything.
Don Wiseman: That Paris meeting, why was it called?
WZ: It was a regular follow-up meeting of the Noumea Accord signatories and usually means that practically all decision-makers meet the French prime minister for a day to keep the Accord process going. The key question now was setting a date for the second independence referendum next year. Pierre Frogier pointed out that no exact date could be agreed on and for that, he said, there was no need to fly 30 politicians to Paris.
DW: What was agreed then?
WZ: It was agreed that the next vote will be held on either 30th August or 6 September. There was also the question of revising the restricted roll used for the referendum. This is a vexed topic that has dogged discussions for years. This time the conclusion was not to automatically enrol New Caledonia-born non-Kanaks who had been living there for at least three years.
For him, the French state keeps favouring the pro-independence side. This also reflects a generally made claim by the anti-independence side that the French government keeps siding with the pro-independence side. It's needless to say that this keeps being denied.
DW: Now Mr Frogier says the referendums won't resolve anything. What does he mean?
WZ: He says that 30 years ago, the rival camps were side by side when a solution was sought and found to avert further civil strife. But now he says the camps are facing each other. What he suggests is to revert to a type of structure which preceded the 1998 Noumea Accord, meaning that the provinces have links with Paris and that the idea of a New Caledonian government be abandoned. He says this is to avoid the civil war.
DW: What has the reaction been?
WZ: Other politicians have expressed surprise and dismay. It's been pointed out that Mr Frogier was a signatory to the 1998 Noumea Accord which explicitly excludes the option of a partition of New Caledonia. The very core of the Accord has been to work for unity - the term used is 'common destiny'. There is for example the collegial government made up of parties in proportion to their strength in Congress.
The pro-independence side has rejected any suggestion of splitting up New Caledonia. However, president of the largely pro-French southern province Sonia Backes supports the idea of an internal federalism, saying this is the only way that each other's way of life is respected.
DW: Has this debate any bearing on the referendum process?
WZ: On the surface, no. France is committed to apply the key aspects of the Accord, which means there will be three referendums. The anti-independence side has so far failed to scuttle the process. It had been saying that a 'no' to independence is a foregone conclusion and therefore more votes are unnecessary. The pro-independence side is sticking to the letter of the Accord in the hope it will grow its support to ultimately win. It further argues that the decolonisation process has to lead to the promised emancipation of New Caledonia.
However, crunch time will come when the last of the three votes has been held. The idea of having another accord like the ones of the last three decades has in recent times been ruled out. From the current vantage point, it is impossible to predict what accommodation will be found.
