“Kanaky is a microcosm of the broader security contest in the Pacific, where external forces are undermining Pacific self-determination and our priorities, causing political and social instability.” — Dr Marco de Jong. (Photo: AFP)
The political crisis in Kanaky (New Caledonia) is a significant issue for the Pacific region — and it’s expected to be a major focus for Pacific Islands Forum leaders at their annual summit in Tonga this week. Here’s Pacific historian Dr Marco de Jong, speaking to Teuila Fuatai.
In Kanaky right now, we’re seeing the regional contest between colonial control and Pacific self-determination play out in real, stark terms.
Just this week, four United Nations human rights experts condemned France for failing to respect the fundamental rights of Indigenous peoples in Kanaky. They criticised France’s efforts to undermine a rightful decolonisation process by holding an undemocratic self-determination referendum and advancing controversial citizenship reforms.
The UN experts also raised concerns about the French government’s “excessive use of force” in responding to the ensuing civil unrest, which has led to Kanak deaths, injuries and thousands of arrests, as well as “more than 500 victims of enforced disappearance”.
The political crisis has escalated into a social and economic catastrophe. An overnight curfew has been in place for months. Shops and workplaces have been set alight, thousands have lost jobs, food insecurity is increasing, and key economic sectors, including the nickel and tourism industries, are teetering on collapse.
France’s actions have backfired disastrously, and concern is growing ahead of this week’s Pacific Islands Forum leaders meeting, where finding a regional solution to the crisis is expected to be a major focus.
Kanaky, or New Caledonia, has been a member of the Pacific Islands Forum since 2016, as a non-self-governing territory of France. Its government is currently led by the pro-independence leader Louis Mapou.
Mapou asked the Forum to send a delegation to Kanaky in July, after nearly three months of civil unrest in his homeland.
The mission was supposed to report back its findings to the Forum, to inform its discussion and any subsequent outcomes. But, after months of planning and discussions, Mapou’s government called the visit off at the last minute, concerned that France would stage-manage the mission and influence its findings.
As Roch Wamytan, the president of the New Caledonia Congress told Radio New Zealand: “The French state decided to control, alone, the subject and object of the mission, as well as its future conclusion. We consider this as an unacceptable form of humiliation. Clearly, this mode of operation is an anachronistic neo-colonial practice.”
The cancellation of the mission is likely to further damage France’s standing among Pacific Islands Forum members. The Melanesian bloc, in particular, has concerns about France’s heavy-handed military approach and its ongoing failure to decolonise Kanaky and Ma’ohi Nui, which remain inscribed on the list of 17 non-self-governing territories under the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonisation.
France has reacted negatively to the New Caledonia government’s outreach efforts and broader calls for the region to play a more proactive role in addressing the crisis in Kanaky. The French government believes that the domestic politics of the island are strictly a French internal matter, with disobedience requiring the restoration of “l’ordre républicain” (republic order).
This colonial mindset disregards New Caledonia’s identity as home to the Indigenous Kanak people, and its broader place within the Pacific family. It has also proven counterproductive, with tone-deaf comments by French diplomats fixing international attention on their mishandling of the crisis.
Understanding these dynamics is crucial here in Aotearoa, as Kanaky is a microcosm of the broader security contest in the Pacific, where external forces are undermining Pacific self-determination and our priorities, causing political and social instability.
Most concerning, in the context of heightened geopolitical tensions, is how that’s being undertaken through a series of initiatives that have developed with the ostensible purpose of assisting the region with its security needs.
Such initiatives are often set up outside the Forum-led regional architecture, and in some cases duplicate the work of Forum agencies.
New Zealand cooperates with France in several such groupings, including FRANZ, a disaster relief response arrangement between France, Australia and New Zealand.
There’s also the Pacific Quadrilateral Defence Coordination Group (P-QUADs), which includes Australia, France, New Zealand, and the US, and the yearly South Pacific Defence Ministers Meeting (SPDMM), which brings together the heads of Pacific militaries from Tonga, Fiji and Papua New Guinea with New Zealand, France, Chile, and Australia, to facilitate interoperation. Last year’s SPDMM was held in Noumea and saw demonstrations against the militarisation of Kanaky, as well as a proposal by France to set up a “regional training centre” for Pacific officers.
On the agenda of this year’s Pacific Islands Forum meeting is another such initiative being promoted by Australia: the Pacific Policing Initiative (PPI), run out of a “Centre of Excellence” in Brisbane. Led by the Australian federal police, the PPI aims to train 200 police officers from Pacific countries, who can be deployed to regional hotspots when required. Australian federal police also want to set up policing “skill centres” in different Pacific countries as part of the initiative.
The programme has been developed over two years, entirely without endorsement from the Pacific Islands Forum. Nevertheless, Australian rhetoric has emphasised the “Pacific benefit” of such unsolicited initiatives, even claiming they’ll be “Pacific-led”. Reports suggest Australia wanted to secure that endorsement at this week’s summit but may have cooled on the idea after the Solomon Islands accused certain nations of “steamrolling” any opposition to it.
It’s important to understand that this kind of initiative isn’t about genuine Pacific development or assistance. It’s about controlling the region’s peacekeeping in an era of “polycrisis”.
While new security groupings and associated agreements may appear well-intentioned and include Pacific countries as members, a closer examination reveals a troubling lack of genuine Pacific leadership. Beyond the rhetoric of “partnership” and addressing legitimate Pacific issues — such as illegal, unreported and unregulated fishing, humanitarian assistance and disaster relief, and drug trafficking, for example — there is a covert effort by larger powers to circumvent decision-making under the Pacific Islands Forum.
In essence, these initiatives seek to impose a securitised regional architecture that overrides existing processes and priorities, aligning the region with broader geostrategic objectives.
New Zealand needs to understand our role and responsibilities within that dynamic.
Right now, we’re seeing decades of discussion about the political orientation of the region come to a head. We’re being pushed to balance competing superpower interests with our own security priorities.
The ongoing conflict in Kanaky is part of the same equation. There are those who believe that independence in Kanaky will “open the door” to China, as if that excuses a colonial crackdown.
This week’s summit will be the first time that prime minister Christopher Luxon will meet all the region’s leaders. Up till now, it’s been foreign affairs minister Winston Peters who has led engagement with Pacific leaders. He’s carried out a very visible and active diplomacy, visiting 14 of the 17 Forum nations already. For many regional leaders, Luxon is a complete unknown.
We know Australia’s priority is to align the Pacific with US strategy for the region, which is to deter China and deny it influence. Luxon has publicly supported diplomatic manoeuvres toward military deterrence by both Australia and the US.
But New Zealand, in the words of government officials, has a “non-discretionary interest” in Pacific security. They understand that we’re part of the region and are directly affected by what happens in it.
Official government briefings regarding our Pacific engagement continually state that we should emphasise Forum centrality in our strategic actions. Under the previous government, they went so far as to say our foreign policy should be “Pacific-led”.
I believe New Zealand must back this rhetoric and thinking with action, beginning with a clear position on Kanaky.
Kanaky is our closest neighbour, just two hours by plane. It’s also a member of our Pacific family and its Indigenous people have an inalienable right to self-determination. That right is currently being denied by France.
New Zealand must examine its own relationship with France. The New Zealand Defence Force performs military exercises with the Forces Armées de Nouvelle-Calédonie (FANC) through arrangements under FRANZ, the Pacific Quadrilateral Defence Coordination Group, and the South Pacific Defence Ministers Meeting.
This activity is underpinned by a Status of Forces Agreement signed in 2014. Declassified documents from defence minister Judith Collins’ meeting with FANC in February this year state that “France is an important defence partner and New Zealand values our close defence cooperation, particularly in the Pacific region.”
I believe New Zealand should suspend its military cooperation with France until a just resolution to the Kanaky crisis is found. Talk of an “ocean of peace” or a “family first” approach to regional security issues is meaningless if it involves propping up a colonial presence through force.
More than that, New Zealand should reflect on how its role in initiatives that deliberately operate outside the Forum-led architecture undermines the work and unity of the region and its ability to act on genuine security priorities.
The central and ongoing theme is that the region and its peoples have had enough of others’ insecurity.
We’ve already seen a war play out in the Pacific. Our people travelled long distances to fight in two world wars. Our islands have been colonised and stripped of resources.
The Pacific is not seeking to invade anywhere. Pacific self-determination is not a destabilising force. The message from the region is clear: Do not bring your weapons, and your wars into our ocean. Let us work together on climate, development and oceans, to common advantage. For a nuclear-free and independent Pacific and a true ocean of peace. For the Pacific future that is necessary, for all of us.
In the words of Jean-Marie Tjibaou, spoken as the vice-president of the New Caledonian Territorial Assembly in 1982, and as true then as now:
“The masses of water, the great ocean that surrounds us, ceaselessly moving, carries the seeds of life. We have the heavy responsibility and must ensure it does not become the bearer of the seeds of death. These matters are our responsibility, and we must face them, to survive and protect our lives.”
Free Kanaky.
Dr Marco de Jong is a Pacific historian at the Auckland University of Technology. He is also a co-director of Te Kuaka, an independent group promoting a progressive role for Aotearoa in the world.
As told to Teuila Fuatai. Made Possible by the Public Interest Journalism Fund.
Thank you for reading E-Tangata. If you like our focus on Māori and Pasifika stories, interviews, and commentary, we need your help. Our content takes skill, long hours and hard work. But we're a small team and not-for-profit, so we need the support of our readers to keep going.
If you support our kaupapa and want to see us continue, please consider making a one-off donation or contributing $5 or $10 a month.
