In 1853, the French established the Saint-Denis Church of Balade, the first Catholic church in the small archipelago of Kanaky, known more widely today by its colonial name, New Caledonia. Ten years later, France seized control of the land and began to subtly but substantially desecrate the identity of the indigenous Melanesian Kanak people for imperial gain.

On September 10, 2024, more than 160 years later, the Church became the fifth Catholic mission to be burned in response to the ongoing political violence and electoral erasure waged against the Kanak people by the French government.

“Some elements of the Catholic Church are regarded by some younger Kanak militants as being symbolic of French state repression,” said David Robie, a New Zealand author and founder of the Asia Pacific Media Network, in an interview with SAAG. He noted, however, that Protestant Christian denominations in the Pacific have been found to support Kanak freedom.

This repression was never more evident in New Caledonia—so marked in its démodé political approach—than in May 2024, when the French government weakened the pro-Kanaky voter base beyond any point of electoral voice. A proposed constitutional amendment, approved by the French National Assembly that month, sought to alter voting rights in a way many indigenous Kanak people feared would further diminish their political representation. In response, mass demonstrations erupted in frustration and protest. The unrest resulted in a revised death toll of 14, alongside hundreds of injuries. Numerous businesses and vehicles were destroyed, with the looting and damage on May 16 alone amounting to at least 200 million euros.

In response to the escalating violence, France declared a state of emergency in New Caledonia, laying the ground for a brutal deployment of additional police and military forces to restore order. Many movement leaders, including the notable Christian Tien, were extradited to France under charges of “organized crime.”

Ultimately, the French government postponed the provincial elections scheduled for December 2024 to December 2025, aiming to address the underlying issues and restore stability. But this was a clear act of democratic erasure, aimed at further denigrating the humanity of the island’s Kanak people.

“Sadly, three decades of goodwill and apparent goodwill from Paris and all sides have dissipated unjustly,” Robie added, “flaunting the United Nations Decolonization Committee provisions.”

This ideological reversion to the fundamentals of neoliberal democracy has enraged the indigenous Kanak people of New Caledonia. It also raises questions about whether France ever intended to grant them sovereignty. It has further highlighted the historical deception that undergirds the self-sustenance of settler-colonies in the modern world, perpetuating disappearance under the guise of citizenship and electoral democracy.

Kanaky Remains A French Colony

After nearly a century of French colonization, Kanak populations were granted citizenship and the right to vote after 1946. This granting is a turning point in every colonial enterprise’s teleology to clinch onto their sovereignty.

New Caledonia was essentially an autonomously governed territory for a generation after World War II—until another war spotlighted the strategic value of the archipelago’s nickel resources. The Vietnam War, an imperialist venture in its own right, brought the small island back into focus, and Charles De Gaulle decided the nickel profits were too lucrative an exploit to pass up. The Union Calédonienne lost its majority voter base in the years surrounding the Vietnam War, as an influx of mainland French citizens arrived to disenfranchise the Kanak by shifting the weight of the body politic towards mainland sympathy.

In the company of the U.S. Virgin Islands, Western Sahara, Gibraltar, and other de jure-occupied “territories” throughout Oceania, New Caledonia remains one of the last standing administrative colonies in the world. It also shares with states like Algeria a history of exploitation characteristic of French colonial enterprises. The French overseas department-turned-collectivity is now at a political standstill, partially because the indigenous people people placed faith in France’s supposed goodwill efforts in the 1990s to pave the way for Kanak self-determination.

The culmination of those efforts—the Nouméa Accord of 1998—then enshrined into the French constitution a purportedly pragmatic approach to Kanak self-determination and the eventual establishment of New Caledonia as Kanaky. The accord stipulated that after 20 years, the people of New Caledonia would have three opportunities to vote for independence via referendum. David Chappell, a scholar on the modern revolutionary history of the Kanak people and Professor Emeritus at the University of Hawaii, told SAAG that while the Nouméa accord may be viewed as a successful negotiation following a period of intense Kanak rebellion, it was likely only ever an attempt to “delay decolonization.”

In 2018 and 2020, the Kanak population, currently comprising around 40% of New Caledonia, fell just short of their goal. Between the first and the second referendums, their base grew by enough percentage points that movement leaders were optimistic about their imminent third chance at independence.

“It was supposed to be held in 2022, but Macron moved it up [to 2021] at the last minute,” Chappell told SAAG. In response to concerns regarding a COVID-19 outbreak that had struck the island, particularly the Kanak community leading up to the vote, and given the mourning procedures of the Kanak people that often lasted up to a year, movement leaders demanded the referendum be postponed. None of these demands were taken seriously. An active Kanak boycott of the vote in tandem with many abstentions based on COVID-19 cautiousness thus manifested in low voter turnout. The election results, where only 43% of all voting-eligible New Caledonians participated and voted overwhelmingly in favor of staying with France, were immediately—and naturally—called into question.

“The last [two and a half] decades had allowed pacification and progress on the path to decolonization,” French New Caledonian organizer Francis Sitel wrote to SAAG. “This is what was spoiled by the government's power grabs.”

Beyond rejecting calls for a revote on the grounds of unfair voting circumstances, in May 2024, the French government decided the moment was opportune for a constitutional amendment granting voting rights to New Caledonians who arrived in the past two decades—in other words, those with weakest historical claim to the land. This decision, coming on the heels of the boycotted referendum that had already left the Kanak people scorned by France, has triggered a dramatic responsee—protests that have escalated to the brink of insurrection.

This sequence of events has been entirely predictable and preventable,” Robie detailed. “However, the French state (under Macron) is completely tone-deaf and dogmatic in its responses to the indigenous Kanaks’ aspirations for independence.”

New Leader, Same Strategy

Today, New Caledonia remains one of the world’s top five nickel producers. The industry is crucial to the Kanak people’s future self-governance and sustenance, but it is clear that France is unwilling to relinquish control easily.

According to Robie, Macron’s “rescue” initiative for the nickel industry was staunchly contested by the Kanak people, as it “favor[ed] the incumbent industry players and [did little] to spread the economy to support Kanaks.” However, South Africa has shown interest in reviving the nickel industry—what Robie called a “glimmer of hope—while France has seemingly taken the cue to venture for capital elsewhere.

“France is interested in the 200-mile maritime Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ),” Robie explained. An EEZ grants a country exclusive rights to exploit natural resources within 200 miles of its shores. Due to the former empire’s vast ownership of islands territories globally, France possesses the world’s second-largest EEZ.

The same colonial strategy of buying time endures. Former Prime Minister Michel Barnier behaved in the same fashion: on 1 October, he announced that elections in New Caledonia would be postponed for a year while also halting the progression of Macron’s controversial constitutional amendment, which sought to grant voting rights to newly resident French nationals in New Caledonia. Superficial gestures of good faith towards self-determination continue to be paired with the deliberate stalling of liberatory legal processes, inevitably leading to repression and violence.

“France seems to be hellbent on a militarist and repressive response to the unrest in New Caledonia,” Robbie added, “instead of a negotiated, peaceful attempt to build a consensus.” He denounced the French government’s cruelty in deporting and jailing pro-independence leaders accused of incitement, forcing them to await trial in metropolitan France—over 10,000 miles away from the support of their families and communities.

“It is reminiscent of some of the worst excesses of French 19th-century colonialism,” Robbie noted, “and has severely damaged French credibility in the South Pacific region at a time when it is pursuing an Indo-Pacific security strategy.”

Colonial Anachronism

Robie called the state-sponsored violence a “colonial anachronism” of this day and age. Yet this reality persists across countless other regions of the world, where dispossessed peoples must overcome endless obstacles to prove their voices deserve legitimacy in the democratic process—even as they are actively erased from claiming authority over their indigenous identity.

Perhaps most relevantly, Zionism stands as a prime example of a revisionist historical enterprise that simultaneously operates as a democratic ethnostate—one that, through violence and displacement, diminishes an indigenous population to render it democratically negligible. For there to be a Jewish democracy in the land of historic Palestine, the Palestinians there must cease to exist. The initial mechanisms of this disappearance were manifest in the atrocities of the Nakba. But later, throughout the 1950s and 1960s, a heavier emphasis was placed on the suppression of Palestinian political and social organizing. For example, Al-Ard, the first Palestinian party to attempt participation in the Israeli parliament (Knesset), was outlawed within years on fabricated and unfounded grounds. There could never be a fair playing field if democratically warranted self-determination is what one was after.

It is even harder to accuse a state of engaging in the logic of elimination endemic to settler colonialism when it simply appears as though there are not enough indigenous people on this island in the Pacific—seldom making international headlines—for it to be a worthwhile pursuit. But proximity to the metropole should not be the criterion for concern over an indigenous group’s right to self-determination, or the pressure placed on the neocolonial state to secure that right—especially when it was, in effect, promised mere decades ago.

The logic of democracy—”one person, one vote”—negates the inviolable right of the colonized indigenous Kanak people to self-determination. Robie elaborates, “It merely ensures that the 'tyranny of the majority'—mostly imported French settlers—imposes its will over the Indigenous Kanak minority. French colonial policy has deliberately encouraged settlers from the metropole to migrate to New Caledonia to ensure the electoral disenfranchisement of the Kanaks.”

Interestingly, but perhaps unsurprisingly, when it comes time to imagine solutions, few arise that are not at the behest of international institutions that have, in the context of the Kanaks, the Palestinians, and indigenous people around the world, fallen short in their ability to enforce international law or solidify paths towards self-determination. In Chappell’s words, “The UN Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People gave them more ideas, but it allows only autonomy over resources and cultural rights for indigenous minorities—not independence from the territorial state.”

Robie anticipated progress from a more localized approach of institutional action within the Pacific Island region. “The Pacific Islands Forum, Melanesian Spearhead Group, and the United Nations need to step up diplomatic and political pressure on France to change its course of action,” he said. "It is imperative," he argued, "for Paris to step back from its militarist approach and make a commitment to seeking a pathway for the Kanak self-determination aspirations.” The question remains: how much longer can France suppress Kanak self-determination before the façade of democracy collapses entirely?∎