THE French Government has produced an impressive list of explanations for the 'irrational' resistance to its 'irrevocable' resumption of nuclear testing at Mururoa atoll. Philippe Seguin, President of the French Parliament, sees in it an 'Anglo-Saxon' plot to weaken Europe's defence capability (Le Figaro, August 3).
The Foreign Minister, Herve de Charette, says that 'this is more a question of dispelling misunderstandings than of solving genuine disagreements' (South China Morning Post, July 29), then goes on to explain that Mr Jacques Chirac and his allies understand, and everyone who disagrees with them misunderstands. As for the 60 per cent of French voters who hope that Mr Chirac will revoke the tests (according to a poll published in Le Parisien), the Government has not accused them of having been brainwashed into this misunderstanding by the British and Americans. Not yet, at least.
Perhaps, though, a few more misunderstandings need clearing up. The first is that objection to the testing is a protest against France or the French. Clearly not, when the great majority of French voters object as well. But by portraying it as the world vs. France (or in the latest twist, the Anglo-Saxons vs. continental security) Mr Chirac can present himself as the defender of a strong France, defiant in the face of global disapproval. Nothing, alas, would appear to confirm these claims so well as a boycott of French goods (shades of Saddam Hussein). What is more, the boycott would harm those 60 per cent of French voters far more than the politicians, who at worst would be sent into comfortable retirement in 2002.
But Mr Chirac does not understand just how heavy a price France may eventually pay. The nuclear tests will shape perceptions of France and Europe here for a generation - a time in which this region is poised to become economically dominant in the world.
Europe will be hard-pressed to prosper without the region's co-operation; the boycott which France faces in the short term will be trivial by comparison. This does not mean one side buying the other's inexpensive goods or supplying the other's cheap labour. It must be the co-operation, not of superior with inferior nations, but of intellectual and moral equals, each committed to helping the other prosper at what it is best equipped to do. If such long-term partnership is impeded, the consequences could be catastrophic and far-reaching.
One of the most disturbing aspects of this whole episode has been just to reveal that Mr Chirac and his allies (but not most French or European people) clearly do not view the residents of the 'Antipodes' in this way. Mr Seguin's conspiracy theory would deny that they are even capable of mounting a protest without prompting from American and British interests. Mr de Charette's explanation for why Mururoa should be used for the tests, rather than a site within France proper, is incomplete, to say the least. He explains that in the days of above-ground testing a site as 'remote' as Mururoa atoll was necessary and unavailable on French soil, and that now the site continues to be used because its underground geology suits the purposes. He neglects to say whether any structurally suitable underground site within the vast area of the Massif Central, the Alps or the Jura, or off France's own extensive coastlines, has been considered.