New Caledonia is a collection of islands in the Southwest Pacific, due east of Australia. For over 160 years, New Caledonia has been a territory of France, initially annexed as a penal colony in 1853 under the orders of Emperor Napoleon III. Today it exists as one of the geopolitical oddities of the world, a remnant of a previous age, with its role in the modern age uncertain.
The demographics of the territory suggest significant tension and future difficulties. For one, the population is more or less evenly split between native Kanaks and those of European descent. Furthermore, 40 percent of the population is below the age of 20, and although this figure has been dropping in recent years, it still suggests an ominous economic future for the upcoming generation in New Caledonia.
Tensions in New Caledonia culminated in 1988 with a confrontation between the French military and pro-independence guerrillas. The aftermath of this battle, in which 25 people died, was the signing of the Matignon Agreements, ensuring a decade of stability and peace. Then, in 1998, the Noumea Accord envisioned a 20-year path to independence, stipulating that a referendum be held in 2018 at the latest.
With the end of the Noumea Accords in sight, tensions have returned to the idyllic islands. On Thursday, leaders of New Caledonia and France met in Paris to sort out the logistics of the referendum which has been in the works for 20 years. The main topic of debate was that of enrollment and who would be allowed to vote. Currently, all Kanaks are allowed to vote, but under this rule, those who moved to the islands after 1994 would not be. The Kanaks, who are generally pro-independence, would then have a sizeable majority over the non-Kanaks, who tend to be anti-independence.
Unlike the Catalan referendum, the pending New Caledonia referendum has both French and United Nations approval. However, the aftermath of the vote may prove to be no less calamitous. French President Emmanuel Macron expressed his desire for New Caledonia to remain a part of France, saying that “the French presence is necessary to guarantee peace and development.” He cited rising unemployment, educational failure, alcoholism and youth crime rates as indications of New Caledonia not being ready for independence. Indeed, those in favor of staying with France cite the case of Vanuatu, a fellow South Pacific island nation and the last territory to split from France in 1980, as evidence of a tumultuous future they might face should New Caledonia become independent.
Should New Caledonia vote in favor of independence, the strenuous relationship between Kanaks and ethnic Europeans may bubble over into outright civil war. There are several factors that indicate future conflict. For one, the ethnic European population is staunchly nationalistic and pro-France, as they showed in the French election last year when nearly 30 percent of this demographic voted for far-right candidate Marine Le Pen (as opposed to just 13 percent for the eventual victor Macron) in the first round of the election.
Another troubling component of the situation is the number of guns in the territory. Following an extensive liberalization of the gun laws in 2011, gun ownership skyrocketed in New Caledonia to the point that if it were independent, the nation would have the second highest number of guns per capita in the world (second only to yours truly, the United States). While these purchases are ostensibly for hunting purposes, many gun owners have confessed that at least part of their rationale behind buying guns was to have protection in case another conflagration begins following the referendum.
Thus, in New Caledonia we have an extremely tense situation where either result — independence or staying with France — could have potentially dramatic consequences. The tragedy of the situation is that nearly all of the once-colonized world has already gone through these initial post-independence troubles. Of course, many of these new nations still have issues rooted in their colonial pasts, but they’ve had, on average, 60 years to create a national identity and achieve stability. New Caledonia has not yet been given this opportunity, and the longer it waits to begin the process, the more divisive and tumultuous its society will become.
Or perhaps this is too negative a perspective to take. All these concerns lie on the understandable assumption that a bicultural nation cannot succeed on its own, a nation split between Kanaks and ethnic Europeans will never be able to achieve a consensus on any one issue without the guiding hand of the French more than 10,000 miles away. After all, nearly all of the nations born in the ashes of colonialism in the 20th century struggled with cultural strife, and even genocide in some cases. Yet one might counter this accurate observation by arguing that the previous colonial masters did not provide enough guidance for their former imperial holdings.
Today we live in an age of knowledge, not just of science and technology, but of history. France knows too well the consequences of inconsideration for previous colonies — one might say that the instability of much of Northern and Sub-Saharan Africa is a direct result of France’s incompetence. With the power of foresight, should New Caledonia vote to obtain independence in 2018, the world should expect Macron to redeem his nation and make sure the transition to independence in New Caledonia is as smooth and peaceful as possible.
Interesting perspective with, perhaps, a few important omissions. Firstly, the European population is as large as it is because of a concerted policy of settler colonialism over time. This has rendered the indigenous peoples (Kanaks) at a distinct economic, demographic and political disadvantage. The issue of voter eligibility is related to the insistenceby the settlers that they should participate in the self-determination referendum.
Secondly, the overt expression of the French Government in favour of the colony remaining with France is a blatant interference in the referendum process. Since the French control the electoral system, voter registration, et al, the legitimacy of the process has been compromised. It would have been better that the United Nations (U.N.) conduct the referendum where such external interference would be minimized. As it stands, the U.N. is a mere observer, issuing reports on the weakness of the process to which the French Government is not obliged to respond. In the end, it is the French responsibility under international law to prepare the people of the colony for full self-government. Remaining as a colony is not an option since it is not full self-government. Colonialism by consent is colonialism nevertheless.