Threatening remarks from the leader of Guadeloupe’s LKP towards local Medef officials, violent clashes between radical strikers and law enforcement in Martinique, a collective’s call for an ongoing general strike in La Réunion starting March 10—these are all signs that hint at a spillover of the Guadeloupean crisis to other overseas territories and departments. This situation has interconnected impacts and prompts three sets of remarks.
Firstly, this purely French crisis emerges within the context of a global financial crisis to the extent that it distorts the immediate issues and exacerbates potential effects. Clearly, viewed from mainland France, a prevailing sentiment emerges today: the wage issue that the government believed it had hastily resolved was merely the manifestation of a movement with sharper motivations and more destabilizing mechanisms. A flaming tree obscuring a forest fire. This conflict indeed arises at the worst possible time for the President, whose main asset remains his commitment to a controlled timeline of a reform process for the entity “France”—a process that, at first glance, seems inexplicably exclusive of the DOM TOMs. Yet, the crisis also abruptly and suddenly brings the fate of these regions to the forefront of the media stage. This leads to an inevitable psychological consequence: depending on the successful or tragic outcomes of the negotiations initiated—the forthcoming general states of the overseas territories—they could symbolize the entire range of changes desired by the Elysée. To the point of serving—as unfairly for Nicolas Sarkozy—as a benchmark for the success or failure of his entire effort.
The wage claims—justified in some cases—additionally take on a troubling, not to say insurrectionary, dimension. The attitude and statements of LKP’s main leader are concerning on multiple levels: far from being satisfied with a deal on wages, Elie Domota made it clear that this agreement was only a “first step,” implying that the ultimate goal of his action was not what the government had in mind when it quickly yielded to his demands. The threatening, even hateful tone towards local business leaders, who should “pay or leave the island”—for which he could be prosecuted—speaks volumes about the stakes and nature of this crisis, reminiscent of the darkest memories of 1962. The conditions under which an agreement was signed in Pointe-à-Pitre, under duress, indicate anything but an endgame. They foster a climate of hostilities likely leading to a more painful outcome. And while political leaders to media figures are careful not to utter the word, it hovers on everyone’s lips: independence. The “one and indivisible” Republic may not emerge unscathed.
The third remark concerns the reaction of mainland French citizens toward their distant compatriots. In this regard, a quite embarrassing survey from February 26, 2009, by OpinionWay-Le Figaro was quickly buried, which showed that 51% of French people would be “in favor of the independence of Guadeloupe” while 80% of Guadeloupeans declared themselves “very attached to France.” Interestingly, this survey has since mysteriously disappeared from the Internet archives of Le Figaro! Therefore, a paradoxical calculation is being performed by trade union leaders of these islands in the Caribbean and the Indian Ocean, ultra-peripheral for Europe: if today it earns them the euphoric esteem of local populations, their obstinance in this time of crisis—when every metropolitan is prepared to make necessary adjustments—might largely be perceived as opportunistic overbidding all the more unacceptable as they mask other interests reluctant to reveal themselves. Pulling too hard on the rope, it eventually breaks.
