GUIA DE ESTUDOS / STUDY GUIDE / GUIA DE ESTUDIOS - Faap

The removal of the agents from Hao atoll and their return
to France was clearly, a violation of the 1986 agreement.
New Zealand’s “silent war of independence”, a more independent
foreign policy line, was emerged because of
this incident, since it had to “go it alone” because of the
failure of traditional allies such as the USA and Britain to
condemn this act. 21 New Zealand hoped that its allies
would help her with the boycott of New Zealand’s exports,
however, they “sat on their hands” and did nothing.
After this incident, New Zealand’s nationalism grew a
lot. Hence, New Zealand started to support a more independent
foreign policy line.
AS TO THE RAINBOW WARRIOR CASE
Firstly, many French agents were in disguise. Making
the crew of the Rainbow Warrior trust them. This disguising
made an issue come up: if France can infiltrate
their agents in other countries as spies. Until nowadays,
this has been subject of an unfinished debate:
some people think is unreasonable to infiltrate people
of the secret service of a country on a foreign country,
and some think it is not.
Secondly, the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior was
caused by an explosion and this explosion occurred
because of two bombs planted by two agents of the
secret service of France, Mr. Dominique Prieur and Mr.
Alain Mafart.
Thirdly, France assumed its fault when The Prime Minister,
Mr. Laurent Fabius, assumed the responsibility of
the crime and said that the agents of the DGSE (Secret
Service) sank the Rainbow Warrior because they were
ordered to do so. 22
France should be punished for all damages caused by
the sinking of the Rainbow Warrior because this explosion
only happened as the ship was the main one and
leader of the navy for large non-nuclear tests movement
against France and its nuclear tests in French
Polynesia made by Greenpeace.
Finally, France has never been punished for the incident
and none of the agents involved in the sinking
82
VIII Fórum FAAP de Discussão Estudantil – 2012
were ever taken into custody. Most of them are protected
until present days by France.
The Allegations of France
AS TO THE NUCLEAR TESTS
There are three things that France alleged about the
nuclear tests. The first one is that France does not considers
the Test Ban Treaty as a nearly universal treaty
because the majority of nations that signed or ratified
(182 signatories and 155 ratifies) 23 this treaty have
signed it because of political issues, thus, they have not
properly evaluated their own security requirements.
The second one is that France did those nuclear tests
because it could have been involved as a North Atlantic
Treaty Organization (NATO) ally in the war between
the United States and the Soviet Union (such as the Cuban
missile crisis, in 1962).
Therefore France felt obligated to withdraw from the
NATO nuclear defense system and establish a nuclear
deterrent of her own. An independent nuclear deterrent
was necessary for the restoration of French prestige
by the time these tests occurred. (D’AMATO, 1967)
The third and last one is that France’s department of defense
has proposed to the French parliament a project
in which all victims of the nuclear tests would be indemnified.
The government previews an amount of about 10
million Euros to do that. The minister of defense, Hervé
Morin, has gone further and said that more money
could be used to this indemnity, if needed. Hence, an
independent commission, formed by doctors and one
judge will analyze applications for this indemnity. This
commission will have as its base the list of illnesses established
by a scientific committee of the UN about the
effects of the radiation. 24 This project was approved by
French parliament on December, 22 nd of 2009. 25