November 24, 2006

Interview of ex-President Rene by the "Indian Ocean Newsletter" in 1986

WE PUBLISH BELOW AN EXCLUSlVE INTERVIEW WHICH FORMER PRESIDENT FRANCE ALBERT RENE GAVE TO THE FRENCH SPECIALIST NEWSPAPER THE ‘INDIAN OCEAN NEWSLETTER IN SEPTEMBER 1986

"The opposition’s activities do not worry us. But, sometimes, we are worried by the activities of the people who back the opposition."

During the working visit which he recently made to France, President France ALbert Rene gave an exclusive interview on August 28 to THE INDIAN OCEAN NEWSLETTER. The interview is of exceptional interest. During the 100-minute interview the Seychelles’ Head of State for the first time publicly answered the questions which have been intriguing and sometimes troubling diplomatic circles and the press for more than a year. Next week we shall publish the second part of this interview which shall focus in particular on the resignation of the foreign minister  Maxime Ferrari in 1984, on the role that Italian businessman Mario Ricci is playing in the Seychelles and on the killing in London last year of opposition Leader Gerard Hoareau.

THE INDIAN OCEAN NEWSLETTER: During a major advertising campaign that appeared in the magazine Le Nouvel Observateur early this year, the French public was presented with the Seychelles--generally viewed as a socialist country as “one of the most attractive tax havens in the world.” How do you reconcile the socialism that you practice on the home front with the large tax benefits which you offer to foreign capitalists?

FRANCE ALBERT RENE: Our socialism is based on the will to give our people equal chance for all. I do not see what that has to do with being a tax haven. If being a tax haven can help achieve this goal, by drawing money into the country, then why not?

I.O.N.: Can you comment on the success of the Seychelles’ status as a tax haven, after its decree in 1978?

F.A.R.: It did not work, to start with. It was an idea put forward by an Italian businessman based in the Seychelles, Mario Ricci. He wanted to set up a company with the government that would “sell” the Seychelles’ status as a tax haven. This company was to enjoy a monopoly for one or two years, provided it signed up a given number of companies. It did not succeed, and so its monopoly status lapsed. The deal is now dormant. There are about 30 companies registered in the Seychelles, I think. Recently, other companies -- including local firms --have shown interest in promoting this policy.

I.O.N.: But is it morally justifiable for a country which claims to be socialist to allow itself to be used as a tax haven by big international capitalists?

F.A.R.: We do not see that there is any moral dilemma. It is simply the reality of the world today.  The capitalist system is immoral, and we live within this system. There are people working in the Seychelles who invest their money in Jersey, because there they get 14 per cent interest. So why, in that case, can’t British companies register in the Seychelles? On the other hand, we have never sought to set up a flag of convenience, because to do so would allow shipping companies to employ people at very low wages.

I.O.N.: Does the scheme provide much money for the state?

F.A.R.: No, it brings in very little --almost nothing.

I.O.N.: You recently renewed your agreement with the United States for the lease of a satellite tracking station on the Seychelles. Are you satisfied with the financial terms of the deal?

F.A.R: We have never been satisfied... We still want to have more. But we had a good increase, compared with the nineteen seventies. We now get 2.5 million dollars -- not twelve million dollars, as a newspaper reported. The lease, technically, was not renewed, it was extended until 1990, with changes to a number of conditions.

I.O.N.: It has been reported that this satellite tracking station is now a part of the American Strategic Defence Initiative, or “Star Wars” programme.

F.A.R.: That would not surprise me. But we are not aware of it. What we were told, and what we are able to confirm, is that it is a communications base. But the use to which it is being put is a United States secret. We are not privy to the secrets of the gods...

I.O.N.: We have the impression that you have been adopting a more textured stance on foreign policy in recent years. For instance, you no longer make any great “anti-imperialist” statements.

F.A.R.: We have realised that in this world, no one acknowledges that you can be a non-aligned country, least of all the media, which is perpetually asking us whether we are on one side or the other. So we have learnt to keep silent, in certain circumstances, in order to avoid these interpretations. But that does not mean that we have changed.

I.O.N.: On the political front, do you see developments in the Seychelles’ institutions after what will soon be 10 years in government?

F.A.R.: If you don’t progress, you die. As far as the party is concerned, to start with, the chairmen of the local branches were elected. We then noticed that the persons who were not up to the task, had been elected because they had been around for a long time. We wanted to break with that, so that new officials would impart a new impulse to the party. So we decided to appoint them for several years at a time. That is what we did. We have now reached the point where we have to return to democracy. The people can choose once more, as of this year, or next year.

I.O.N.: This is being done on the basis of the Seychelles’ sole party. But will voters be able to choose between different parties?

F.A.R.: We have made a choice. It will not be reviewed, at this point. As far as I am concerned, the ideal thing in a small country like the Seychelles would be not have any party. But in a one-party system, we no longer have the disputes that there were before.

I.O.N.: Are you worried by the activities of the opposition?

F.A.R.: The opposition’s activities do not worry us. But, sometimes, we are worried by the activities of the people who back the opposition. When you see what foreign Report wrote two weeks ago on the Seychelles, on the sole basis of information given to it by Paul Chow (one of the opposition leaders) in London, it is a joke. It is the press that talks of the “the Marxist government” in the Seychelles. You also have the group the Heritage Foundation in the United States. They invite Mr. Chow, Edmond Camille, who spout whatever they like. The newspapers print the articles. But whenever we say something, they do not believe us. That’s what bothers us.

I.O.N.- You have still not explained some of the political developments in the Seychelles. For instance, you have never made public the reasons behind the resignation of Foreign Minister Maxime Ferrari in June 1984.

F.A.R.:- I shall give the reason for this resignation. It is a very simple story. Maxime Ferrari and Jacques Hodoul were both members of the government. They were better friends among themselves than I was with either of them. At one point, however, this was no longer the case, and for a very personal reason. Jacques Hodoul became engaged to Maxime’s daughter. The two men broke off their friendship. A number of people used this to fabricate a split in which “Jacques Hodoul was a Marxist and Maxime Ferrari was pro-Western.” This is what the British did, the Americans, the Russians, everyone. The problem arose when Maxime Ferrari was no longer Minister of National Development. There had been an internal reshuffle. It was to do with a Food and Agriculture Organisation conference which was to be chaired by the Seychelles. Maxime Ferrari came to see me and said: “I want to go to the FAO conference.” I told him that he was no longer the Minister in charge of this sector, and that under normal protocol, Jacques Hodoul was the one who would be going. Maxime then decided to resign.

I.O.N.- But it is a political loss for you.

F.A.R.- It is a political loss. But it is not as dramatic as people have been making out.

I.O.N:- The press--including THE INDIAN OCEAN NEWSLETTER --has printed a lot in recent months about this Italian businessman, Mario Ricci. On several occasions, he has been portrayed as the government’s “eminence grise.”

F.A.R.- You know, Mario Ricci was in the Seychelles way before June 1977. He had bought a hotel there, property... He is a capitalist who invested money in the Seychelles, like other people. It’s true that Mario Ricci sometimes helped the government when it needed to finance something for which we didn’t immediately have the money. That’s all. They said he was a member of the Mafia. We checked with the Italian police. They told us that they had nothing on him.

I.O.N.:- But there is still a question that is on everyone’s lips. Why is he ambassador of a fake Order of Malta in the Seychelles?

F.A.R.:- It is a question that you perhaps should put to Maxime Ferrari, as he was the Foreign Minister when Mario Ricci was accredited as ambassador. He was the one who advised me. For me, it was the genuine Order of Malta. Frankly, I was not aware that there were two or three different Orders of Malta. When Mario Ricci became ambassador, what could we do? He was the biggest investor in the Seychelles. Could we tell him: “We are throwing you out?” Now, after reflecting on this, I think we should not recognised any Order of Malta. But it is difficult to undo something that has already been done.

I.O.N.:- But Mario Ricci is not just a businessman in the Seychelles. He himself has said this. He has helped you to keep the opposition under surveillance, organise telephone monitoring.

F.A.R.:-That’s true.

I.O.N.- So Mario Ricci has a political role?

F.A.R.:- He himself will tell you: “My business is in the Seychelles. It is my duty to defend my interests, and it’s my duty to defend this government. If I have contacts which can help the government to be informed of what is going on I will do so.” And he has done this. He has helped us.

I.O.N.:- In your opinion, it is proper that a private individual, a foreigner, perform secret police work?

F.A.R.:- He is not the one who does it. But he puts us in contact with people who can do it.

I.O.N.:- Is it correct that the British private detective, Ian Withers, has take refuge in the Seychelles although British police want to question him in connection with the killing of Gerard Hoareau, the leader of the Seychellois National Movement, in London in November 1985?

F.A.R.:-I asked Ian Withers why he did not go to England to answer the police He prefers to stay in the Seychelles. He is someone who has helped us. We cannot ask him to leave the country.

I.O.N.:-   But why doesn’t he answer police summons if he was not involved in the killing of Gerard Hoareau?

F.A.R.-   I personally know that he was not involved. He was responsible for telephone bugging, that is true, and they know this in Britain. The day after Gerard Hoareau was assassinated, he went to the British embassy and volunteered to provide all the necessary information, on condition that the police go to the Seychelles to question him. They did not do so. Personally, I do not blame him for not going to Britain. Would you go? The two persons who placed the bug in Gerard Hoareau’s home are both in prison.

I.O.N.-It’s a reprehensible act...

F.A.R.- We asked Britain to keep the opposition under surveillance. They did not do this, even though the opposition openly says that it is prepared to overthrow the government by violence. So we did what was necessary in order to find out what was going on.

I.O.N.- All the same, it is troubling to note that Gerard Hoareau was killed in London while his telephone was being bugged by your agents.

F.A.R.- Yes, it is troubling. But there is no link. If we had wanted to assassinate Gerard Hoareau, don’t you think that we would have removed the bug before doing so? The two people who were caught by the police were arrested when they went to his home to remove the bugs two days after his death. I myself have listened to the last cassette that was recorded, including the telephone call from the owner of Gerard Hoareau’s home, when he phone the police to say that gunshot had just been fired. What I can tell you is that recording Gerard Hoareau’s telephone calls would not have been enough to monitor his moves and so help in preparing for an assassination.

I.O.N.- Do you know who killed Gerard Hoareau?

F.A.R.- You know, Gerard Hoareau had contacts with loads of people, with mercenaries to whom he owed money. He embezzled funds. It’s difficult to know for sure. In any case, it was a professional who carried out the killing. I am absolutely sure that it was not Ian Withers. He was paid only to monitor telephone conversations.

I.O.N.- You have also monitored conversations in France. It’s illegal...

F.A.R.- I first wrote to President Mitterrand to alert him to the activities of the opposition in France, but the French police warned Jacques Chevalereau (a French policemen working in the Seychelles who was expelled for alleged conspiracy in 1979) and he warned Gerard Hoareau. The Americans and the Russians monitor phone calls throughout the world.  Why shouldn’t we too have the right to do so? We shall continue the monitoring.

Copyright 2006: Seychelles Weekly, Victoria, Mahe, Seychelles