KEY TAKEAWAYS
- A new amendment effectively expands the voting power of European settlers at the expense of Indigenous Kanaks.
- Pro-independence parties are still seeking a referendum that reflects the will of the people.
- France’s response could determine its regional reputation for years to come.
Violence engulfed New Caledonia last week as the French National Assembly passed a constitutional amendment that will undermine the political representation of the Pacific territory’s Indigenous Kanak people. During days of unrest unprecedented since the 1980s, security forces and protesters clashed across the archipelago, leaving six dead and hundreds injured. Buildings and vehicles were set on fire in the capital, Nouméa, while streets were barricaded throughout the territory, flights were grounded and New Caledonia was placed under a state of emergency.
As the U.S. government reengages in the Pacific Islands, it needs to understand the role of France’s territories in the region. New Caledonia is a full member of the Pacific Islands Forum, a status usually reserved for independent states. Neighboring countries in Melanesia overwhelmingly support its decolonization.
USIP's Camilla Pohle explores how Pacific Island countries’ views of France will be influenced not only by its foreign policy, but by its treatment of its territories — and what lessons the United States can learn as it seeks partnerships with the region.
Why is the constitutional amendment controversial?
Tensions have simmered for decades between New Caledonia’s pro-independence and loyalist factions, which disagree over the territory’s future political status. The new constitutional amendment effectively expands the voting power of the loyalists by revoking the territory’s special electoral roll, which has become a central point of contention in the independence debate in recent years.
The Kanak independence movement gained momentum between the 1960s and the 1980s. After violent clashes between French security forces and pro-independence militias — sometimes compared to a civil war — an agreement was reached in 1988 to provide for an independence referendum within 10 years. In 1998, amid the risk of resurging violence, the Nouméa Accord was signed and approved by 72 percent of voters.
Over a 20-year transition period, the Nouméa Accord was meant to grant New Caledonia greater autonomy, give Kanaks more political power, and allow for three independence referendums. As part of rebalancing colonial inequalities between Kanaks and French settlers, the accord established a special electoral roll, which prevented residents who arrived after 1998 from voting in provincial elections.
Kanaks are overwhelmingly pro-independence, but they only make up 41 percent of New Caledonia’s population. Starting in the 1960s, France encouraged migration to the territory with the specific goal of outnumbering the Indigenous people, making the Kanaks a minority in their own homeland. Without the special electoral roll to level the playing field, votes would automatically skew in favor of the loyalists.
Without the special electoral roll to level the playing field, votes would automatically skew in favor of the loyalists.
The new constitutional amendment, which was passed by the French National Assembly on May 15 but has yet to be passed by a Congress of the French Parliament, will allow 10-year residents to vote in provincial elections. Proponents of the amendment say that the expansion of voting rights is inclusive and democratic. Critics say that it threatens the political representation of the Kanak people, undermines their efforts toward self-determination and represents a reassertion of French control. Some say that talk of democracy has little meaning in New Caledonia as long as it remains a French colony.
Are there other factors behind the violence?
French politicians accused foreign actors of fomenting unrest in New Caledonia last week, but this ignores recent events. The unrest didn’t come from nowhere. In February, hundreds of protesters clashed with police as politicians proposed unfreezing the special electoral roll. In November, nearly a thousand people marched in Nouméa against the proposal. Last year, pro-independence parties considered approving the opening of the rolls to 10-year residents — but only in exchange for an overarching agreement on New Caledonia’s decolonization. No such agreement has been reached.
The unrest was predictable, and New Caledonia’s massive economic and social inequality made it even more so. Outgoing secretary-general of the Pacific Islands Forum Henry Puna said last week that the violence was unfortunate but not surprising, since tensions have been “boiling” for years. The territory is sharply divided along racial and class lines: Europeans own vastly more wealth and property than Kanaks, have better access to education and make up a smaller percentage of the incarcerated population.
The economic outlook is also contributing to instability. A crisis in the nickel industry, which employs a quarter of New Caledonia’s workforce, is putting thousands of jobs at risk. Nickel — a lucrative industry that originally drew many French settlers to the archipelago — makes up around 90 percent of New Caledonia’s exports. Mining has long been a political flashpoint, with pro-independence parties seeing an inextricable link between controlling the territory’s wealth and controlling its sovereignty.
Meanwhile, residents of New Caledonia are increasingly concerned about geopolitics. The territory hosts five French military bases and has become a crucial component of Macron’s strategy to project power in the region. In December, 1,500 protesters marched in Nouméa against France’s “remilitarization” of New Caledonia, which they say could make it a target in a future conflict.
How do the independence referendums relate to the unrest?
The same political polarization can be seen in New Caledonia’s recent independence referendums, which took place in 2018, 2020 and 2021. French loyalists tried to prevent the first referendum from taking place at all.
The narrow vote in 2018 resulted in 43 percent in favor of independence and 56 percent against, with 81 percent turnout. The even-narrower vote in 2020 resulted in 46 percent in favor of independence and 53 percent against, with 85 percent turnout. Although the votes maintained the status quo, pro-independence parties considered the results encouraging.
The final referendum was scheduled for December 2021. Pro-independence parties wanted it postponed to mid-2022 because of the COVID pandemic, which surged in New Caledonia in September 2021 and disproportionately affected the Kanak community. Leaders said the timing did not allow Kanak voters to engage in traditional mourning customs, and so they abstained. As a result, the 2021 referendum had only 44 percent turnout, with 3 percent in favor of independence and 96 percent in favor of remaining part of France.
Pro-independence parties are still seeking an independence referendum that they consider to be an accurate expression of the will of the people.
Despite the low turnout, French President Emmanuel Macron said the 2021 vote reflected the will of the people. In contrast, pro-independence parties see it as invalid, and many regional observers agree with them. Pro-independence parties are still seeking an independence referendum that they consider to be an accurate expression of the will of the people. The revocation of the special electoral roll all but guarantees that any independence referendum from now on — if it’s possible to hold one at all — will likely maintain the status quo.
How does the region see France and New Caledonia?
In 2021, the Pacific Elders’ Voice, a group of former presidents and prime ministers, urged Macron to delay the referendum and “to respect the wishes of Indigenous leaders.” In 2022, the Pacific Islands Forum released a report stating that New Caledonia’s third referendum result was “an inaccurate representation of the will of registered voters” and demonstrated “deep-seated ethnic division” exacerbated by France’s refusal to postpone it.
In the wake of last week’s violence, regional leaders have called for peace and expressed solidary with the Kanak people. Outgoing chair of the Pacific Islands Forum and Cook Islands Prime Minister Mark Brown said that he supports “greater autonomy and greater independence” for New Caledonia, noting that many forum members are former colonies and value their sovereignty. Vanuatu Prime Minister Charlot Salwai, chair of the Melanesian Spearhead Group, reaffirmed the organization’s support for maintaining the 1998 electoral roll. Meanwhile, an alliance of over a dozen Pacific NGOs denounced France’s “betrayal” of the Kanak population.
Pacific Island countries have historically viewed France as a “disruptive regional influence” because it tried to suppress independence movements in its territories and tested nuclear weapons in French Polynesia beginning in 1966. France refused to allow discussion of these policies in the South Pacific Commission, causing regional leaders to establish the South Pacific Forum — now the Pacific Islands Forum — in 1971.
The United States has no diplomatic footprint in France’s territories and has in the past failed to recognize New Caledonia’s place within the regional community. When the White House convened a U.S.-Pacific Islands Summit in 2022, New Caledonia was originally not invited, but other leaders pushed for its inclusion. It is important for the U.S. government to be aware of past and present dynamics in the French territories as the United States increases its engagement with the region and with the Pacific Islands Forum, where it is a dialogue partner.
Macron made a surprise trip to New Caledonia this week to encourage dialogue, but such efforts are unlikely to address Kanak grievances. Kanak leaders will continue to seek independence, and Pacific Island countries will watch developments in New Caledonia closely. France’s handling of the current crisis could determine its regional reputation for years, if not decades, to come. This may also provide a valuable lesson for the United States. It is a reminder that Pacific Island countries will view Washington, like Paris, not only through the lens of its foreign policy, but through the lens of its relationships with its own Pacific territories.