Amalgamation Plan.

Is it Possible to Link Papua with Mandated Territory?

[Letter to the Editor] I have just read the report in your November issue of the Parliamentary de bate on the N.G. Legislative Council, and the suggestion to amalgamate New Guinea and Papua. No wonder things in New Guinea are reported to be bad.

The most difficult part to reconcile is contained in the fourth paragraph, sec ond column, page 37, and the plea; for amalgamation by Mr. R. F. H. Green.

How is it possible, if one considers that the Mandate is to be “for all time,” and at the disposal of the “crazy” Mandates Section of the League of Nations, to suggest an amalgamation, and give Pa pua to them also?

The Commonwealth has spent huge sums on B.N.G. and, if the suggested scheme did pass the vote, what stand would the Mandates Section of the League adopt? It would not be possible

to send the annual report to Geneva on one division only, and it is not within their scope to demand a report on the Commonwealth’s governing of a non mandated area. It may perhaps be as well, if they are so anxious for this am algamation, to get the position of the Mandated Territories properly settled, and to also be very certain that the Mandates Section are not willing to re turn to Germany some of her lost pos sessions, amongst them being New Guinea.

In any case, talk of this kind can only end in futility, until the foregoing ques tion is properly settled, and if it is im perative that the countries holding the Mandates must send an annual report in connection with their actions, then it must be very patent to all concerned, that the Mandates Section still have a say in the matter of amalgamations.

It is perfectly obvious that most of the members reported as having dis cussed the New Guinea Legislative Council at the meeting referred to, know little or nothing of the “black” races of the world, and New Guinea is no excep tion, beyond having 90 per cent, of in digenes who can be classified as being amongst the “most backward natives in the world.” There are some here in Rho desia, also Congo Belge, Bechuanaland, Portuguese Africa, and what was known as German S.W. Africa, who are just as far down the plane of civilisation.

However, no matter what country is visited, we Britishers always appear to have more difficulties than other coun tries, with our native dependents. We have trouble in Samoa, which could have been settled months ago, if those respon sible had only studied the cause thoroughly; then there was the trouble in Rabaul, when all the labour walked out on the Government, and quite a number of hard things were said about everyone in Rabaul, in authority at that time. Some of the natives made mention of the fact, “that they did not know it was so easy to get away from the white man, or that he was so utterly unaware of what they intended doing.”

It is, maybe, that we give in too much, or on the other hand, our so-called civil isation methods are not in keeping with the modern machinery, etc. In Portu guese East and West Africa, the native has a very big say in the Civil Service, and the same thing obtains in Congo Belge. At the Frontier between Rho desia and Mozambique, there is a Por tuguese Post, but no British Post. More often than not, the only officer in charge is a native, who is most particular as regards who shall pass through; whilst in Congo Beige, the immigration officials on the highway are invariably coloured men. It is also a great sight in Eliza bethville, to see the native police band take full charge of the main thorough fare, and hunch any person, be they black, white or brindle, out of their path.

However, I am getting away from the subject. Before any talk of amalgama tion is brought to the first stage I do beg of the politicians to study the Man dates more closely, and also, if they can, without prejudice (and may I say loss of pride) go to New Guinea (both Brit ish and the Mandated Territory) and study the conditions as they are by stay ing there six to twelve months incognito.

When they return to Australia, I am perfectly certain that their ideas will be so different that even their own kin won’t recognise them from their speeches on the subject under review.

I am, etc.,

Waipata.

Bulawayo, Rhodesia.

Jan. 22, 1933.