The decision of the Chirac government to resume nuclear testing is now opposed by a substantial majority of French people, according to the latest opinion polls. No small part in this turnaround has been played by the French anti-nuclear movement. PIERRE ROUSSET, a leading anti-nuclear campaigner and editor of Rouge, the weekly paper of the Ligue Communiste Revolutionnaire, spoke to Green Left Weekly.
How much opposition is there in French society to the proposal to resume nuclear testing?
Maybe it's still a bit early to answer, because the situation is still contradictory. For the major parties and official public opinion, there's a consensus in favour of the force de frappe, the French nuclear arm. At the same time, there's a very deep fear about the nuclear threat and a general sentiment that nothing in the present world situation justifies maintaining nuclear weapons, unlike the Cold War period. The main parties of government, including the Socialist Party are opposed to dismantling French nuclear capacity, even though the SP opposes the resumption of testing.
However, the reactions in France to Chirac's decision have been very positive. Within two weeks of the decision, some 80 organisations — political parties, trade unions, environment groups, NGOs — agreed on a common appeal to demand an end to nuclear tests and French signature of the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
Does this contradictory situation favour the building of a campaign?
For the first time in a decade, if not more, the conditions are very favourable. It's a peculiar feature of the French anti-nuclear movement (including the movement against nuclear power) that it has actually suffered serious defeats on a number of occasions. The last time was 10 years ago, at the time of the terrorist bombing of the Rainbow Warrior. The international reaction was very big, with Greenpeace growing in many countries, but Greenpeace (France) was completely broken.
It was a serious defeat for the anti-nuclear movement in France that, at exactly the same time as the French secret services were put on trial for that terrorist operation, Greenpeace here was simply destroyed. There were simply no mass anti-nuclear mobilisations in France at that time, due to the passivity of other components of the traditional anti-nuclear movement. This, combined with some internal weaknesses in Greenpeace, allowed the French secret services to destroy Greenpeace at that time.
But now we see a new beginning. Firstly, there is the immediate dimension — stopping French nuclear tests. That will be extremely difficult to win because Chirac has put all his presidential authority on the line. It was his first decision as president, and when he announced it, it was definitive. No discussion.
So here we have a huge question of democracy: one man can take a decision full of incalculable consequences for the future of humanity. But it will be very difficult to get him to retreat.
Secondly, however, through this issue of French nuclear tests the whole question of whether the 21st century will be nuclear is raised. It was hidden behind the nuclear test moratorium.
We know all the present nuclear powers want to keep nuclear weapons, but the majority of countries (and people) want to see nuclear weapons destroyed. That's why we demand in our appeal an immediate signing of the test ban treaty, without further amendment.
Are there significant differences between France and other European powers on this issue, or are their protests merely formal?
I think the differences are quite real. Sure, if anti-nuclear public opinion and mass movements don't develop, I guess no European government will risk a serious falling out with the French government. However, there is no European state, and all other European governments know that the French and the British are using the fact that they alone have nuclear weapons to strengthen their positions in Europe.
There's no proposal to convert French and British nuclear arms into a European nuclear capacity: London and Paris will maintain their national control on that issue. This introduces a big element of inequality among European governments, akin to the subordinate status of Germany in the United Nations.
So, if and only if mass movements develop, diplomatic isolation of Paris can be very great.
What is the attitude of the ordinary members of the Socialist and Communist Parties towards nuclear testing?
First, the CP has changed. Having once supported the force de frappe, they are now for the destruction of all nuclear weapons. That's an important factor. As for the SP milieu, it's clear that the majority of SP members oppose nuclear weapons and testing, as does the Socialist Youth Movement, which has signed the appeal.
A number of unions that are linked to the SP, like the teachers, have also signed the appeal. But the leadership of the SP has refused. The sentence in the appeal that they didn't want to sign says: "This [Chirac's] decision opens the way to further tests by other powers, putting in question all attempts to limit nuclear testing".
That's very serious, of course. There's no ultimatism in that sentence. It doesn't make France alone responsible for any general resumption of nuclear testing: it just points out the dynamic of one country resuming nuclear tests. It doesn't demand that France be the first to stop nuclear tests. What's behind this, of course, is that, as a potential party of government, they want to keep the nuclear status quo.
How are you organising the campaign?
First, it's a campaign, not just a couple of protest demonstrations, a one-year campaign, let's say, unless we win! We've had demonstrations on June 20 and July 6, not only in Paris but in many provincial cities.
During the summer time we will convert the appeal, which we are sure will attract the support more than 100 organisations, into a mass petition, with each component organisation doing its best to have the appeal signed as widely as possible. This will put us in a position to react massively in September at the time of the first test.
The goal is to do our best to block the French tests. If we don't succeed, we want Chirac's victory to be Pyrrhic: maybe he will get his tests, but at the expense of the revival of the French anti-nuclear movement as a mass force.
Then there is the G-7 meeting in Paris in June 1996. France will be there along with the other three main nuclear powers (and the French tests are supposed to last until May). We will be looking to include an anti-nuclear component in the "counter-summit" that will be held at that time (against unemployment, Third World debt and the destruction of the environment).
That means we will be able to really dramatise the question: "Do you want the 21st century to be nuclear free?"
What message do you have for the protest movement in Australia, New Zealand and the South Pacific?
We, of course, know why the tests are done in the South Pacific. We understand very well the argument that if it were true that these tests are safe, why are they not done in France. It's absolutely clear that if anyone proposed to do these tests in the Massif Central, there'd be a rather large reaction! Non, merci!
Then, our movement isn't just against nuclear weapons: it's also in solidarity with the peoples of the South Pacific, a sentiment which has been very weak up until now.