Pacific Fall-Out: Australian Reactions to Nuclear Testing in French Polynesia

Malcolm Fraser was the Minister for Education and Science for William McMahon’s Liberal government when he gave a broadcasted speech in early July, 1972. Broadcast on radio between 2-6 July, Fraser responded to the concerns of the Australian public regarding the nuclear tests conducted by France in their Pacific territories of French Polynesia, as evidenced by the petition he was handed by high school students when visiting his electorate of Wannon in Victoria.

Fraser applauded their concern for the international issue of nuclear testing in the Pacific, noting that it is also shared by the Australian government, evinced by the diplomatic action that he described as being undertaken. Specifically, France’s nuclear tests between 1962 and 1975 were an important issue for Australians due to the nature of the tests – that is, they were conducted in the atmosphere rather than underground. Radio-active fall-out and its effects – detrimental to health – was therefore a pressing concern for Australia and its neighbours in the Pacific, because it could not be contained and managed in the same way as it could underground.[1] Despite the fact that an international treaty had been established in 1963, banning such atmospheric nuclear testing, France was not one of the signatories and continued to flaunt its existence through the determined endurance of its tests.[2]

The French had been using the islands of Moruroa and Fangataufa in its Pacific colony of French Polynesia to host nuclear experiments since 1962, after the nation’s nuclear program was transferred from its previous site of Algeria.[3] The inhabitants of the islands voiced their dissent and displeasure regarding the planned testing, but in the style of a true colonial power, France sought to reinforce their Western European superiority over the indigenous population through the pursuit of a narrative of technological progress.[4] Other neighbouring Pacific nations were also extremely vocal in their opposition to nuclear activity within the region, being concerned with potential health repercussions from radio-active fall-out.[5] Australia was one of the most outspoken nations, with Fraser declaring the nation to be the first to protest against ‘the current series of tests’ in 1972.[6] Combined action with the government of New Zealand was taken, seeking international aid and redress from the United Nation’s disarmament committee in Geneva. This failed to yield results as, according to Stewart Firth, the protests could only be described as ‘timid and respectful diplomatic notes’ addressed to the French government.[7] As this occurred under the leadership of MacMahon’s Liberal government, it is reasonable to assume that this lack of hard protest by Australia was perhaps the inspiration for the petition mentioned in Fraser’s speech. Despite considerable Pacific protests, for nine years France did not respond to any of Australia’s requests or appeals, only allowing talks to be initiated by the new Prime Minister Gough Whitlam in 1973.[8]

Whitlam’s government saw Australia, together with New Zealand and Fiji, develop a more aggressive stance against nuclear testing in French Polynesia. The three nations pursued the matter within the International Court of Justice, though each nation had different objectives within their applications to the Court. Australia wished for the Court to formally order France to cease any and all further nuclear tests, as “the carrying out of further atmospheric nuclear weapon tests in the South Pacific Ocean is not consistent with applicable rules of international law”.[9] While the International Court of Justice asked for France to halt all tests until they were able to reach a judgement, France responded by exploding a further four bombs between the end of July and August 1973, even after Australia had notified the Court of the French demonstration against international authority.[10]

On 20 December 1974, in the case brought by New Zealand against France, the International Court of Justice produced a ruling that wasn’t quite the hammer of justice the nations of the Pacific were hoping for. Rather than abandoning nuclear testing completely, which had been ‘the original and ultimate objective’ of the applications to the Court, France had instead issued a statement outlining an end to their program of atmospheric tests in favour of a planned conversion to underground testing.[11] Underground testing of nuclear activity was allowed under the 1963 treaty, and, as France had reached this decision of their own accord, the International Court of Justice saw ‘that it [wa]s therefore not called upon to give a decision’ in the matter, dropping the cases altogether.[12]

Several years after Malcolm Fraser delivered his speech, France’s officially relocated their nuclear program underground in 1975, resulting in an immediate reduction in tensions betweeen other Pacific nations.[13] Nevertheless, further international resistance against France’s nuclear activity persisted, and almost two decades later, the nation finally ended its program in 1996.

Fraser’s speech in 1972 was telling of his priorities as a government minister. While France’s nuclear actions in the Pacific may be the initial issue that Fraser focuses on, almost as much time is spent defending the national health scheme of the government (with which he closes). Considerably more detail is given to Fraser’s explanations regarding more precise elements of the health scheme than to the governmental actions against France in the Pacific. Though the MacMahon government fell from power some five months later, this focus on national matters reinforced Fraser’s elevated position within Australian society, and reiterated the document as an important piece of governmental history – especially as Fraser later went on to become Prime Minister in 1975. That the transcription of the speech is preserved within archives – and considering that the high school petition described within is not – reinforces structures of power and concepts regarding what is and isn’t considered ‘worthy’ of being immortalised.[14] Michel Foucault coined the phrase ‘documents of exclusion’ – and certainly the perspective of the petitioners is excluded in favour of the response given by a future Prime Minister.[15] In this respect, the archive is responsible for shaping the initial response of the historian to the document, as well as strengthening perceived ideas about the role that the Australian Liberal government played in bringing an end to French nuclear testing in the atmosphere of the Pacific.

[1] Stewart Firth, Nuclear Playground, Sydney, London and Boston: Allen & Unwin, 1987), 96-97.

[2] Malcolm Fraser, “French nuclear testing in the Pacific, national health scheme” (transcript of speech broadcasted on radio, July 2-6, 1972); Firth, Nuclear Playground, 12, 24.

[3] Denise Fisher, France in the South Pacific: Power and Politics (Canberra: Australian National University E Press, 2013), 49.

[4] Lynn Hunt, “Modernity and History,” in Making History (Central European University Press, 2008), 63, 75-76.

[5] Fisher, France in the South Pacific, 49.

[6] Malcolm Fraser, “French nuclear testing in the Pacific, national health scheme” (transcript of speech broadcasted on radio, July 2-6, 1972).

[7] Firth, Nuclear Playground, 97.

[8] Firth, Nuclear Playground, 97.

[9] Summaries of Judgements, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the International Court of Justice: Judgement of 20 December 1974 (N.Z. v France), I.C.J. 59, p98. https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/59, accessed 19 May, 2019.

[10] Firth, Nuclear Playground, 98-99.

[11] Summaries of Judgements, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the International Court of Justice: Judgement of 20 December 1974 (N.Z. v France), I.C.J. 59, p99. https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/59, accessed 19 May, 2019.

[12] Summaries of Judgements, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the International Court of Justice: Judgement of 20 December 1974 (N.Z. v France), I.C.J. 59, p99. https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/59, accessed 19 May, 2019.

[13] Fisher, France in the South Pacific, 73-74; Summaries of Judgements, Advisory Opinions and Orders of the International Court of Justice: Judgement of 20 December 1974 (N.Z. v France), I.C.J. 59, p97. https://www.icj-cij.org/en/case/59, accessed 19 May, 2019.

[14] Antoinette Burton, “Introduction: Archive Fever, Archive Stories,” in Archive Stories: Facts, Fictions, and the Writing of History, ed. Antoinette Burton (Durham: Duke University Press, 2006), 6.

[15] Burton, “Introduction,” 6.