28 SEPTEMBER 1985, Page 5

THE SPECTATOR

L'AFFAIRE GREENPEACE

Is there any single part of l'affaire Green- peace which would have happened the same way in Britain? Clearly the secret services of most states use some dirty tricks, but we cannot recall or imagine a case where our secret services would resort to the methods of terrorism simply to prevent an environmental group disturbing our nuclear defence programme. It is unlikely that our socialist party would have any desire to defend our nuclear defence programme in the first place. Moreover, if anything like this had occurred, the main political parties, the media and public opinion would never have rallied round the government, in effect participating in a national cover-up for almost two months, as has happened in France. In a way, we can but envy such an extraordinary consen- sus on the imperative need for national security: if every West European country had a similar instinct, the Western Alliance would be in much healthier shape. But the end did not justify the means employed against the Rainbow Warrior. In the event, France's national cover-up was ended by one newspaper, Le Monde, which is now comparing its role, with squawks of under- standable self-congratulation, to that of the Washington Post in the Watergate affair. (However, it denies that there is a high- ranking French `deep throat', or gorge profonde.) Following the hapless M. Tricot (a comic character of the stature of M. Hulot), the Prime Minister M. Fabius has now declared that the agents who actually blew up the Greenpeace ship will not be prosecuted because they were `only obeying orders'. With this sop to the military lobby M. Fabius not only reneges on his own earlier promise that anyone who committed a criminal offence would be brought to justice. He also shifts the spotlight from the frogmen and their milit- ary commanders to the politicians. After the Le Monde revelations President Mit- terrand passed the burning buck to M. Fabius who sent it straight down to M. Hernu, the Defence Minister. Now the buck is coming back up the line. M. Fabius's own position looks very vulner- able; and behind him there is only the President. It is officially admitted that the President's top military counsellor, General Saulnier, personally authorised the ex- penditure — reportedly several hundred thousand pounds — on the operation to observe and `anticipate' the Greenpeace action. As Sam White argues in this issue, the prima facie case for the President having been involved in the cover-up from an early stage — like Nixon — is very strong. Most serious observers would insist that it is `premature' to speculate about the possibility of the presidential head rolling. But, like Messrs Steel and Owen's specula- tion about the constitutional proprieties in a hung parliament, this may at least be entertaining. So let us be premature. Rather surprisingly, there turns out to be a constitutional provision for the impeach- ment of a French President. The body empowered to try him is a High Court of Treason. It would be ironical indeed if France's first socialist President were to be tried for the `treason' of allowing her military to get away with blowing up ecological internationalists. If Mitterrand were to be thus forced out of office, the man who would take his place, until another presidential election could be arranged, is the President of the Senate. The President of the Senate is currently a member of one of the right-wing opposi- tion parties. If the Right also wins next year's parliamentary elections, as ex- pected, then the agents who placed those limpet bombs on the Rainbow Warrior will have succeeded in blowing up the whole Mitterrand administration. So perhaps the new government, instead of putting them on trial, my award them the Legion d'Honneur.