Giscard and Bokassa's diamonds
Sam White
Paris Diamonds may be a girl's best friend, but they are at the moment a cause of great embarrassment to President Giscard. It is now clear — indeed he has made an oblique confession on this point — that Giscard accepted a gift of diamonds from Bokassa, the recently deposed ruler of the Central African Republic, when he was Minister of Finance in 1973. It was of course to be expected that, when the French finally got round to deposing their former protege, there would be a number of scandals connected with their past close association with him.The association had been too intimate, too personal and had involved too many cover-ups for Bokassa's appalling deeds over too long a period — 13 years— for there not to be. This was why the Socialists, in shrewd anticipation, had put down a motion for a parliamentary commission to inquire into the relationships formed between successive French governments and Bokassa shortly after the former 'emperor' went into exile.
Nobody, however, expected that the first scandal to break would take so crude a form as this. Giscard, after all, is no vulgar careerist but an aristocrat, and immensely wealthy at that, and one would have thought that, in. this case, whatever lesser mortals might do, the gift would have been either instantly returned or equally swiftly contributed to a favourite charity. This was certainly the feeling in the National Assembly on the two days following the revelations in Canard Enchatne, and it inhibited the reactions of Politicians of all parties. They were wary of the possibility — indeed, in their view, the likelihood — that Giscard, having allowed the storm to rise, would then majestically dispel it by producing a document proving that he had disposed of the diamonds in either of the two above-mentioned manners.
Instead of which there was silence, followed by an ambiguous statement which amounted to a confession. The statement was brief but not to the point. It merely said that the exchange of diplomatic gifts When members of the government visit , foreign countries 'never have the character nor the value of those mentioned in the press in connection with the Central African Republic.' One could only gather from this that the value of the 30 carat diamonds mentioned in the Canard was Considerably less than 100,000 dollars at Which it valued them. What the communique did not mention was that when such gifts are exchanged in the course of foreign visits they are donated publicly . Giscard's gift, however, was not made in the course of g visit, nor was it given in the course of a public occasion. It was sent to him in Paris by order of Bokassa, and it is his letter ordering their delivery which the Canard reproduced last week. It was a private gift, and what was particularly unseemly about it was that it was given to a minister who was virtually Bokassa's paymaster. For who decided the size of French subsidies to Bokassa's budget, who paid his school-teachers, his army and his civil service? None other than the French Minister of Finance — in this case Giscard himself.
But there is also the matter of the three members of Giscard's family who have strong financial interests in the Central African Republic — Giscard's cousins Francois, and Jacques, and his brother Olivier. All three, as well as two members of the government, have been accused by the Canard of accepting gifts from Bokassa. The politicians have remained silent, but the three Giscards have vehemently denied the allegations. There is no reason to disbelieve them, if only because no one knows what other documents the Canard has up its sleeve. It promises further revelations in its next issue, which is causing understandable apprehension in some circles and keen anticipation in the rest of the nation. For, side by side with the story of the diamonds, goes the story of the removal by French agents and French troops of Bokassa's archives from his palace to the French embassy in Bangui. Every French correspondent on the spot testifies to having witnessed these removals, and it was no doubt some stray breeze which has blown a document or two the Canard's way. The Minister of Foreign Affairs, M. Francois Poncet, has solemnly denied that the Quai D'Orsay or any of its agents was engaged in any such task. There is no reason to disbelieve him, just as there is no reason to disbelieve the eyewitness accounts. The fact is that the °nal is often deliberately kept in ignorance of what the government is doing in its former black African colonies. This has been the case ever since de Gaulle set up a special department, quite separate from the Quai and often in rivalry with it, to deal with African matters. The result has been an endless stream of complaints from French ambassadors in these countries that not only are their reports ignored, but that often they are unaware of developements planned in Paris and not commurn cated to them.
The present head of this special African section, M. Journiac, reports like his gredecessors directly to the Elyse and ignores the Quai. In those circumstances, it is easy for M. Francois Poncet to deny what is in fact undeniable. He has not been officially informed of the removal of the archives; therefore, in his eyes, they have not been removed. What has been especially interesting to watch in this case, however, has been the behaviour of the media. Although all newspapers receive copies of the Canard 24 hours before it goes on sale, the Hersant press (comprising Le Figaro, France-Soir and L'Aurore) ignored it, as did television and radio. What gave the story its real impact was the treatment given to it in Le Monde on the afternoon of its appearance in the Canard. With what at first appeared to be the wildest recklessness, Le Monde splashed it on the front page, followed by two pages on the inside, and the whole capped by a front-page leader signed by the editor himself, Jacques Fauvet. It has since become clear, of course, that there was collusion on the story between the two publications, with Le Monde knowing well beforehand exactly what cards the Canard held. It is doubtful if Le Monde will ever be forgiven, while Giscard is president, for its alacrity in jumping on the Canard bandwagon, and there will be a renewed outcry in establishment circles for Fauvet's head. He is in for a rough ride during the two years of his editorship which remain before he has to retire.
There are two other pieces of evidence which deserve to be included here. First there is that of M. Francois Giscard D'Estaing, Giscard's cousin, who in an interview with the weekly Le Point says: 'It is possible that at some time diamonds figured among official presents. I seem to recall the president saying to me one day: "I am very embarrassed by such gifts. I must sell them and give the proceeds to charity." ' The other comes from Bokassa's former French secretary, Mme Dmitri, to whom he wrote the note reproduced in the Canard, giving instructions for the diamonds to be sent to Giscard. She does not question the authenticity of the letter, but is quite definite that she never received instructions to send presents to Giscard's relatives. She says it was normal to offer diamonds to people of importance, since they were one of the few articles of value produced in the Central African Republic. She adds that the diamonds usually given were of modest value, and that the estimate given by the Canard of the value of Giscard's gift 'bears absolutely no relation to reality.' It may well be, therefore, that Giscard, having been given an estimate indicating that they were not of great value, and while still intending to sell them, simply put them away in a drawer and under pressure of work forgot about them. But if that is what happened, then why, in heaven's name, not say so?
Previous page
