On January 12, another country could appear on the world map - New Caledonia. This piece of the French and not decolonized territory, located 16 and a half thousand kilometers from the mainland, had every chance of gaining independence in a referendum in accordance with democratic norms, principles and with the consent of Paris. But ... in order to explain why this did not happen, and to predict the development of an explosive situation, you need to step back a little into history.
These islands in the Pacific Ocean have lived peacefully for 3 thousand years, not knowing the troubles and Europeans. They were discovered by the British navigator James Cook. The name is also his - in honor of his beloved Scotland, which in ancient times was called Caledonia. Traders and missionaries reached there, smallpox and measles were brought along with them, from which thousands of aborigines died, the territory was declared a French colony in 1853, the locals were herded into a reservation and began to exile criminals from the mainland (about 22 thousand souls) to the archipelago. Nickel has been found there since the beginning of the 20th century, which has caused a new wave of labor migration. And now he feeds these islands: New Caledonia is the third largest exporter of this mineral in the world and the fourth in terms of reserves.
But even though the incomes of residents are on average higher than around in Polynesia, they are unevenly distributed.
The same original population - the Kanaks - live in poverty and more often in isolation.
It is even possible to roughly draw a line of demarcation across the islands: the upper half are the Kanaks, the lower, including the capital, are the descendants of immigrants.
The indigenous population has rebelled against the colonial authorities more than once.
And during the Third Republic, when a large-scale partisan war was led by one of their leaders, Atai (after a series of victories over the French, they sent a traitor from the Kanaks to him to shoot him).
They also rebelled after the discovery of nickel, in 1917.
Finally, there was the 1984-1988 war against Paris, which is modestly called "events" in French history.
The result was the conclusion of the very agreement that made it possible to hold the current referendum.
The bottom line was that starting from 1998 and ten years ahead there will be a transitional period, after which three plebiscites on secession can be held.
In the first, 56.4% were against independence, in the second, there were fewer of them - 53.26%.
The dynamics showed that by the third, the chances of both sides are practically equal.
And then the covid intervened, who played into the hands of President Macron.
Everything in order.
It was to the advantage of the supporters of independence to postpone the third and final referendum as late as possible.
On the one hand, you can campaign for longer, on the other, the indigenous population is growing, and the number of adults who can vote is also growing.
And the percentage of Europeans, on the contrary, is declining.
Macron needed to close the issue before the presidential elections next April - and close it in favor of Paris.
New Caledonia for France is not just an overseas territory, it is Paris' geostrategic exit to the Pacific region. If these islands were not there, Macron would still be crying quietly into his pillow after France was ugly thrown by Great Britain, the United States and Australia, having created their tactical alliance in the region and tore apart Paris' own "contract of the century" for the sale of diesel submarines Canberra. Now France is rumpled, but still a player in this arena, since on the Australian left hand she still has a piece of French land, moreover, rich in minerals.
Macron, in his manner, tried to defiantly flirt with the Kanak.
I arrived there in person in the midst of preparations for the second referendum in 2018 and presented the government with the symbol of colonial rule: the acts of taking possession of the territory from 1853, signed by Emperor Napoleon III.
The gesture meant that the time of ownership had passed, the time had come for collective decisions.
The secession supporters were not convinced by this - they then closed the gap in a referendum.
Not everything is going smoothly in their ranks either: by this year they had time to quarrel among themselves, and as a result, only a part of the parties fighting for the independence of New Caledonia went to negotiations in Paris in the summer.
And there, within a week, they agreed on all the details of what would happen if people voted for or against.
We chose a date that suited Paris and departed to prepare.
And further on, a covid epidemic broke out on the islands with renewed vigor, life almost stopped: lockdowns, restrictions, and most importantly, people were dying, more often Kanaks.
In their culture and traditions (naturally different from those in Paris), mourning is sacred.
They wear it for a long time, in large quantities, but they were forbidden to do so.
They also could not campaign before the decisive vote.
Then they began to ask to postpone the referendum - again a refusal.
After that, all supporters of independence, in protest, called for a boycott of the referendum.
The result is a low turnout (43.88%, before that it was under 90%) and a victory for the loyalists (96.49%).
Macron hastened to acknowledge and cement everything.
Like, New Caledonia has made its choice.
Everything, she is French, live with it further.
And this very "further" can be very different.
The Kanaki did not accept the results.
The first option, favored by moderate supporters of independence, is negotiation. They plan to wait for the presidential elections (now on the mainland everyone has no time for New Caledonia) and then raise their issue with the new or the previous head of state. If the right is at the helm, the Kanaks will have a very difficult time, but Macron, whatever he may be, is still not a fool, he looks at the matter geopolitically soberly and will not let them go anywhere from France.
Radically-minded Kanaks are calling for an armed uprising - they know how to fight, and historical parallels suggest themselves. On April 22, 1988, two days before the first round of the presidential elections in France, about 60 people attacked the gendarmerie, four were killed, the fifth was seriously wounded and 26 police officers were taken hostage. They were divided into two groups, the first released three days after the intervention of the elders. The second - 15 people - was taken to a cave, it was taken by storm by the best elite French troops a couple of weeks later, on May 5. After such a bloody culmination of "events", the parties sat down at the negotiating table and signed a historic agreement to hold three referendums. In general, if they want, the Kanaks can. Time also works in their favor: the indigenous population of the islands is growing. At some point, their numerical advantage,and at the same time, the desire to gain independence will already be difficult to ignore, if the next universal cataclysm does not happen.
Regional powers are ready to support this very independence, looking with appetite at this resource-rich piece of land in the ocean. And not so much because of minerals, although China itself buys 90% of all nickel mined there. All other islands of Polynesia are already under Chinese influence in one way or another due to injections in infrastructure and investments, New Caledonia remains the only pearl that Beijing lacks to collect its entire Pacific puzzle and weaken the American containment strategy in the region. There is no doubt which side Australia and New Zealand are on in this matter: both countries, together with Canada and Great Britain, are in the American military-political intelligence alliance "Five Eyes". The French archipelago is in the midst of this battle of the world's giants.
So the story of the possible loss of New Caledonia for Paris, even after the last weekend referendum, does not end.
The land is split too deeply, and the stakes are too high for everyone, both in and around the islands.
The position of the French authorities is difficult.
In any case, they will have to look for compromise options, sacrifice something and offer something in order to keep this territory within the French republic.
The point of view of the author may not coincide with the position of the editorial board.