Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon: Are we launching a full-scale attack on French sovereignty? CANADA
More than 4,000 kilometers from Paris, the archipelago of
Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon finds itself at the heart of a highly political
and symbolic debate. By sending a letter to the Head of State, Senator
Annick Girardin has chosen to make public a concern she considers
paramount: the prospect of a concrete weakening of French sovereignty in
this overseas territory. The issue is not strictly military, but it
touches on one of the fundamental attributes of the State: control of
its airspace. According to the information provided, an ongoing
administrative project is considering modifying the management of the
so-called "approach" airspace around the archipelago, that is, the zone
below 6,000 feet. This area, essential for aircraft landings and
takeoffs, plays a strategic role in controlling local air traffic. For
the senator, entrusting this management to a foreign authority, even
partially, would amount to crossing a political threshold that the State
cannot afford to ignore.
A technical space that has become a political issue
In his letter addressed to Emmanuel MacronAnnick
Girardin offers a decidedly political interpretation of a matter
presented, in her view, as purely technical. She argues that airspace
management cannot be reduced to a question of operational performance or
administrative pooling. In her view, it is a clear marker of the
State's authority over its territory, including its overseas
territories. The archipelago, with a population of approximately 6,000,
is situated in a unique geographical environment. Enclosed within
Canadian airspace, it nevertheless falls legally and politically under
French sovereignty. It is precisely this delicate balance that the
senator believes is threatened. She warns that a transfer, even a
limited one, would be interpreted locally as a retreat, or even as a
disengagement of the State. This local perception constitutes a central
point of her argument. Airspace management is presented as a tangible
symbol of the French presence. By abandoning it, even partially, the
State risks fueling a feeling of abandonment already perceptible in some
overseas territories, where geographical remoteness accentuates
sensitivity to decisions taken from Paris.
Beyond the local dimension, the senator emphasizes the international
implications of such a decision. Saint-Pierre-et-Miquelon represents one
of France's few territorial footholds in North America. In a
geopolitical context marked by increasing attention to North Atlantic
and subarctic regions, any shift perceived as a concession could, in her
view, weaken France's strategic position. She thus warns against
setting a precedent. While sovereignty can be adjusted here for
practical reasons, nothing would prevent similar approaches from being
applied to other overseas territories in the future. The debate
therefore extends far beyond the initial administrative framework to
question the overall coherence of France's sovereignty policy. At this
stage, no final decision has been officially made public. But the
senator's statement places the issue in the political arena, where it
can no longer be handled discreetly. By reminding everyone that
sovereignty cannot be delegated, Annick Girardin seeks to force the
executive to clarify its position and to measure the symbolic,
diplomatic and territorial consequences of its decisions.
