Pacific

Asiatics And The

Future Of The

Vol. 1.—No. 5.

December, 1930.

AS an amusing commentary upon the lack of co-ordination of Brit ish policy in the administration of the Islands territories, we may cite the cases of New Hebrides and the Solo mons.

British interests in New Hebrides are being steadily wiped out. The French planters use indentured Ton kinese labour and —so long as a fair price is obtained for their produce— they can operate profitably. But the British planters are not permitted under British laws to indenture Asiatic workers, and must depend upon unsatisfactory and almost unob tainable native labour. A British Commission, after close inquiry in 1927, recommended that British plan ters he given at least the same privi leges as the French, and allowed to employ Asiatics. Nothing has been done—and the British have been forced either to seek French national ity or to sell out to the French. The position has been reached when we might as well hand over New Hebrides altogether to France, and put an end to the “Pandemonium Government,” as the Condominium Government is called. We have lost our share of New Hebrides —which is only another ex ample of British official fatheadedness.

Now turn to the Solomons. The same British officials —or their near relations —who have ruined the Brit ish New Hebrides planters fay refusing to let them indenture Asiatics (and indenture means that they must even tually be deported) have seriously em barrassed British traders and planters in the Solomons by permitting the un restricted entry and activity of Asiatic traders. The thing would be comic if its effects were not so tragic.

We do not want Chinese traders in these British Islands territories, yet Chinese traders have been encour aged to come in and get busy. We do want Asiatic labourers in many groups—Chinese for preference —and they are resolutely kept out.

These quaint contradictions are not, of course, deliberately arranged. Our British administration do try to he rea sonable and logical. It is all the fault of the system—or the lack of system —and it all goes to show how essen tial it is that some attempt should be made to co-ordinate idea and policy.

There are many matters of tremend ous importance to the future of these Pacific territories, which require the united attention of the half-score of administrations which function inde pendently in the South Seas; but none is of a more vital character than our future relationship of the Asiatic races, which are constantly pressing forward into these rich, undeveloped territories.

The subject raises issues which can not be much longer ignored. To whom does the future of the Pacific Islands belong? To the indigenous

natives who, in spite of our eagerness to impart education and culture, show a definite inclination to disappear be fore the forward march of our civi lisation? To the Europeans, who are seeking for lands where (as in Java) they can make comfortable homes and, as the superior, directing race, take charge of the native populations and their industrial activities? Or to the Asiatics who, as demonstrated already in Hawaii and Fiji, will quickly estab lish themselves in any of the islands, live close to the soil and take com plete and permanent possession?

Britain, as the principal power in the South and Central Pacific, must accept the responsibility for an early and definite answer to these ques Ijons. And Australia, as Britain’s chief deputy in the Pacific, should take the initiative in seeking the answer.