French diver who planted bombs reveals why – Rainbow Warrior: A Forgotten History
Former DGSE (Directorate-General for External Security) combat diver Jean-Luc Kister, who planted the bombs on the Rainbow Warrior, told the podcast the preparations were rushed because the decision was made only in March.
'We had no opportunity to test the effect of the bombs on a real boat, and because, in fact, this created a big hole, the sinking was very rapid,' the military veteran told producer John Daniell in his home in Metz in northern France.
The series gives new insight into the last-minute nature of the operation, complicated by in-fighting at the highest levels of the French state. Kister maintains he and his team were betrayed by their political masters.
'Certainly at the highest level, they wanted to send a message to Greenpeace.'
French agent Jean-Luc Kister. Photo / TVNZ
French officials had been confident the bombing, codenamed Operation Satanique, would succeed because in 1980 the DGSE had successfully attacked the flagship of Colonel Muammar Gaddafi's Libyan Navy, the cruiser Dat Assawari, while it was having a refit in the Italian port of Genoa.
Two divers blew up the propeller shaft, damaging the ship so badly it couldn't put to sea for the next three years. There were no casualties that time and for decades afterwards most people assumed the Americans or Israelis were responsible.
Kister told Daniell that the DGSE combat dive team used to work closely with a little-known British secret service unit called the Increment, which included specialist divers from the Special Boat Service (SBS) who were trained to work on secret operations for MI6, Britain's external spy agency.
In episode 1 of the podcast, Shadow Warriors, Kister describes the Rainbow Warrior operation in detail and shares a map he prepared showing how the team carried out the attack.
The map (included in the graphic below) features an alternative getaway route for the divers if the bombing team's Zodiac dinghy was unable to pick them up.
The first episode also reveals Daniell's personal link to the New Zealand SIS bugging operation at the motel where the police kept the captured French spies.
Daniell's stepfather was part of that special ops team, which worked on a much smaller budget than the French – 'basically three or four blokes with a toolbox and a van'.
Two of the team – nicknamed 'Concrete and Clay' by their SIS colleagues in a tongue-in-cheek reference to the 1980s TV show Sapphire and Steel – laid the bugs in the Unicorn Motel in Herne Bay.
Actors David McCallum and Joanna Lumley in character on the set of science fiction series Sapphire And Steel, circa 1981. (Photo by TV Times via Getty Images)
Rainbow Warrior: A Forgotten History is a six-episode true crime series. Follow the series on iHeartRadio, Apple Podcasts, Spotify or wherever you get your podcasts. New episodes are released on Thursdays.
The series is hosted and produced by John Daniell and Noelle McCarthy of Bird of Paradise Productions in co-production with the New Zealand Herald.
Rainbow Warrior: A Forgotten History is supported by New Zealand on Air.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Scoop
11 hours ago
- Scoop
Diplomatic Merchandise: Exploiting The Issue Of Palestinian Recognition
They have been the playthings of powers for decades, and there is no promise that this will end soon. Empires and powers seem to come and go, yet the plight of the Palestinians remains more horrific than ever. Now, in the next instalment of the grand morality game, France, the United Kingdom and Canada promise to recognise Palestinian statehood at the September meeting of the 80th session of the United Nations General Assembly. From the perspective of soothing the conscience, this is a mighty thing – for those in Paris, London and Ottawa. It does not save a single life on the ground in Gaza or the West Bank, provide a single meal for a starving family, or rebuild a single destroyed school. But President Emmanuel Macron, and Prime Ministers Sir Keir Starmer and Mark Carney can all commune as a triumvirate of principled statesmen. Macron, the first of the three, had been making signals on the issue earlier in the year. The French leader had hoped that a UN conference sponsored by France and Saudi Arabia would be the venue for joint recognition, but it came to naught with the resumption of hostilities in Gaza and Israel's attacks on Iran's nuclear facilities. In turning to the G7 nations, he hoped to amplify the urgency of recognition. In doing so, the onus was also on the Palestinian Authority to make certain concessions to add momentum. A letter from PA President Mahmoud Abbas sent to Macron duly came, condemning the attacks of October 7, 2023 by Hamas, demanding the immediate release of all hostages and pledged the holding of elections and reforms to governance. Hamas – not that Abbas had any claims on this point – would also 'no longer rule Gaza' and would have to surrender 'weapons and military capabilities to the Palestinian Security Forces, which will oversee their removal outside the occupied Palestinian territory, with Arab and international support'. On July 24, Macron confirmed in a letter to Abbas conveyed via France's Consul General in Jerusalem that recognition of a Palestinian state would follow in September 'in light of the historic commitments that were made' and the threatened two-state solution. On July 28, in his opening speech to a plenary session of the High-Level International Conference on the Peaceful Settlement on the Question of Palestine and the Implementation of the Two-State Solution, France's Minister for Europe and Foreign Affairs, Jean-Nöel Barrot stated the 'prospect of two States, whose rights are recognised and respected, is in mortal danger.' But assurances and momentum had been achieved, with Barrot acknowledging the condemnation by the Arab League of the Hamas attack and the insistence by its members on the release of the remaining hostages, the disarming of the group and conclusion of its rule in the Strip. Of the G7, Starmer was the next to be swayed, but with a notable proviso: 'the UK will recognise the state of Palestine by the United Nations General Assembly in September unless the Israeli government takes substantive steps to end the appalling situation in Gaza, agree to a ceasefire and commit to a long-term sustainable peace, reviving the prospect of a Two-State Solution.' To this could be added the need for Hamas to release the hostages, accept a ceasefire, disarm and 'play no part in the government of Gaza.' In shabby fashion, room is left to withdraw the offer for recognising Palestinian statehood. 'We will make an assessment in September on how far the parties have met these steps.' Carney, the latest addition, claimed on July 30 that the two-state solution growing from a negotiated settlement between Israel and the Palestinian Authority had been eroded as a prospect by four factors: the threat of Hamas to Israel; accelerated building across the West Bank and East Jerusalem, including numerous instances of Israeli settler violence; the E1 Settlement Plan and the July vote by the Knesset calling for the annexation of the West Bank; and the ongoing failure by the Israeli government to arrest 'the rapidly deteriorating humanitarian disaster in Gaza, with impeded access to food and other essential humanitarian supplies.' The Canadian PM, in reasons almost identical to Macron, had also been swayed by 'the Palestinian Authority's commitment to much-needed reforms' in governance, including the promise to hold elections in 2026 that will exclude Hamas, undertaking anti-corruption measures and the creation of a demilitarised Palestinian state. A resounding theme comes through in the latest flurry of statements: Palestinians continue to be lectured and harangued under the guise of humanitarian understanding, told who can represent them or not (a reformed Palestinian Authority promisingly good, Hamas decidedly bad), and whether they can have any semblance of a military force. 'Recognising a State of Palestine today,' states Barrot, 'means standing with the Palestinians who have chosen non-violence, who have renounced terrorism, and are prepared to recognise Israel.' Standing, it would seem, with a certain type of idealised Palestinian. The Palestinians have become diplomatic merchandise or bits of currency, to be gambled with in the casino of power politics. Starmer is the worst exponent of this, hoping for such returns as Israel's halt to the slaughter and famine in Gaza and the release of the hostages by Hamas and its disarmament. But the idea of Palestinian recognition remains, at this stage, a moot point. At the end of any diplomatic tunnel on this lies certain requirements that would have to be met, not least the criteria of the Montevideo Convention from 1933. Despite gathering some dust over time, it outlines the relevant requirements for statehood: any recognised state in international law must have a permanent population, a defined territory, a discernible government and the capacity to enter into relations with other states. In the UK, some 43 cross-party peers have sent a letter of warning to Starmer arguing against recognising a Palestinian state, citing such familiar, legal grumbles. There was, for instance, 'no certainty over the borders of Palestine' nor 'a functioning single government, Fatah and Hamas being enemies'. Neither could enter into relations with foreign states, with one entity having not held elections for decades, and the other being a 'terrorist organisation'. Despite the UK not signing the Montevideo Convention, recognising Palestine 'would be contrary to the principles of governing recognition of states in international law,' the convention having become part of international customary law. On the bloodied ground, where legal abstractions dissolve into fleshy realities, Israel is doing its level best to make sure that there will be nothing left of a Palestinian state to recognise. For Israel, the case is not one of if or when, but never. The machinery of slaughter, deprivation and dislocation is now so advanced it risks smothering the very idea of a viable Palestinian entity. Israeli policy till October 2023 was engineered to stifle and restrain any credible progress towards a Palestinian state, crowned by feeding the acrimonious divisions between Hamas and Fatah. After October 7 that year, the sharpened focus became one of expulsion, subjugation, or plain elimination of the general populace. Palestinian sovereignty remains, to date, incipient, a bare semblance of a political self. This egregious state of affairs continues to be supported, even by those wishing to recognise Palestine. In some ways, those sorts are arguably the worst.
Scoop
a day ago
- Scoop
Roch Wamytan: Paris Political Agreement For New Caledonia 'Not Enough' For Kanaks
Lydia Lewis, RNZ Pacific presenter/bulletin editor A former New Caledonia Congress president says there are "not enough" benefits for Kanaks in a new "draft" agreement he signed alongside pro and anti-independence stakeholders in France last month. Wamytan said that, after 10 days of deadlock discussions in Paris, he failed to secure the pro-independence mandate. He told RNZ Pacific that he refused to sign a "final agreement". Instead, he said, he opted for a "draft" agreement, which is what he signed. It has been hailed as "historic" by all parties involved. While France maintains its neutrality, Wamytan said that at the negotiating table it was two (France and New Caledonia's pro-France bloc) against one (pro-Kanaky). A main point of tension was the electoral law changes, which are said to have sparked last year's civil unrest. "We call on France to respect the provisions of international law, which remains our main protective shield until the process of decolonisation and emancipation is completed. Hence, our incessant interventions during negotiations on this subject (electoral law changes)," Wamytan told RNZ Pacific. He said it is difficult to understand whether France wants to decolonise New Caledonia or not. "We have a lot of concrete measures in this proposed agreement, but the main question is a political question. Where are you (France) going with this? Independence or integration with France?" The document, signed in the city of Bougival, involves a series of measures and recognition by France of New Caledonia as a "State" as well as a double citizenship - French and New Caledonian - provided future New Caledonian citizens are French nationals in the first place. But this week, New Caledonia's oldest pro-independence party, the Union Calédonienne (UC), officially rejected the political agreement signed in Paris. Wamytan maintains New Caledonia is not France. But the French ambassador to the Pacific has previously told RNZ Pacific New Caledonia is France. However, Sonia Backès, the leader of the Caledonian Republicans Party and the president of the Provincial Assembly of Southern Province, says the agreement signed in France is "final". "Roch Wamytan and the pro-independence delegation signed an agreement in Bougival. Since their return to New Caledonia, their political supports have been fiercely critical of the agreement," her office said via a statement. "As a result, radical pro-independence leaders like Roch Wamytan have chosen to renege on their commitment and withdraw their agreement is final; there is no other viable political balance outside of it." So why did Wamytan sign? When asked why he signed the draft agreement when he does not agree with it, he said: "After the 10 days they obliged us to sign something." "We told them that we [didn't have] the mandate of our parties to sign an agreement, but only a project or draft. "It was important for us to return with a paper and to show, to explain, to present, to debate, for the debate of our political party. This is the stage where we are at now, but for the moment, we do not agree with that. "We [tried] to explain to [France and pro-France bloc] that we have a problem [with electoral law change being included]. "This is our problem. So we signed only for one reason…that we have to return back home and to explain where we are now, after 10 days of negotiation. [Did we] achieve the objectives, the mandate given by our political parties?" He said one thing he wants to make clear is that what he has signed is not definitive and is now up for negotiation. An FLNKS (Kanak and Socialist National Liberation Front) Congress meeting is set down for this weekend with the Union Calédonienne Congress meeting held the weekend prior. Wamytan said that it is now up to the FLNKS members to have their say and decide where to next. "They will decide if we accept this draft agreement or we reject," he said. "We have two options: we accept with certain conditions, for example, on the question of the right to vote on the electoral rule. Or for the question of the trajectory from here to independence. Through a referendum or the framework proposed by President Macron." "This is an important element to discuss with France, but after this round of discussions." He expects further meetings with France after community consultations. Communication problem Wamytan admits the pro-independence negotiators did not communicate clearly about the agreement to their supporters. He said after signing the document, President Macron and the pro-France signatories were quick to communicate to the media and their supporters - and the messages filtered to his supporters resulting in anger and frustrations. He said the anger has mostly been around the signing itself, with people mistaking the draft proposal as final. "The political, pro-Kanaky party were very, very, very angry against us. We did not communicate and this I think is our problem." Bribery allegations Wamytan has also dismissed unconfirmed reports that negotiators were bribed to sign a historic deal in Paris. He said he was aware of people chucking accusations of bribery around, but said they were false. "It has never been in the minds of Kanak independence leaders doing such practice practices," he said. "After the signature of the Matignon Accord, 37 years ago, with [FLNKS leader Emmanuel Tjibaou] and with us after the signature of Noumea accord in 1998, we heard about the same allegation and some rumors like this."
NZ Herald
3 days ago
- NZ Herald
Eloi Rolland: Parents of missing French teen return to New Zealand
The parents of missing French teen Eloi Rolland have returned to New Zealand. Thierry and Catherine Rolland posted an ad in a Central Otago newspaper seeking sightings of their son, who hasn't been seen since he disappeared from West Auckland on March 7 2020. That morning the 18-year-old searched Google
