Can New Guinea Be Amalgamated With Papua?

Valuable Contribution to an Interesting Controversy.

Although little has been heard lately of the idea of placing the Aus tralian Territory of Papua and the Mandated Territory of New Guinea under the one general administration, there is no reason to think that it has been abandoned. World affairs, both international and economic, are in confusion, and probably this is no time to deal with a matter that is affected by both considerations. But the subject will certainly come in for much discussion in the future.

Meanwhile, we present the following letter from Mr. R. F. H. Green.

M.P., as a most valuable contribution to the argument. Mr. Green knows the Territories intimately; and the data that he has assembled about the Mandates includes much that we have not previously seen published.

YOUR March issue contains on page 14 a letter over the nom-de-plume of “Waipata” dealing with, chiefly, the very interesting question of the sug gested amalgamation of Papua and the Mandated Territory of New Guinea.

His letter rambles considerably, but I gather that he is not in favour of such amalgamation. He implies that it is not possible under the terms of the Mandate —chiefly on account of the Annual Report to the League of Nations —to amalgamate, and advises us “to be very certain that the Mandates Sec tion are not willing to return to Ger many some of her lost possessions, amongst them being New Guinea.”

Perhaps I will be forgiven if I deal with the second question first, as I am sure many of your readers have at some time or other wondered how long Australia will hold the Mandate, and some have even asked whether it is wise for us to develop the Territory, seeing that at some time or other we may lose it.

This question is obviously of great importance in itself, and more so when one considers the ever-present demand of Germany for the return of her lost colonies; a demand which has come more to the forefront now that Japan —one of the Mandatory Powers —has given the stipulated two years’ notice of her intention to withdraw from the League. The same demand from Ger many may be intensified were Australia to give similar notice, and in that event we may possibly be obliged to give the same reply as Japan has just given re garding the mandate held by her.

But that contingency need not, I be lieve, be considered while the League remains in existence. The League of Nations is still functioning—and I am one who hopes it will continue to do so—consequently I think we may only regard the matter from the viewpoint of such continuance.

The only two ways Australia can at present lose the Mandate is by relinquishment or by revocation. Power (if any) of revocation is vested in the Council of the League which, according to Article 5 of the Covenant, can only act by unanimity. Great Britain, as for herself and the British Empire, is a member of the Council, and it is obvious therefore that no revocation can take place without her consent. It is un thinkable that the United Kingdom would agree to the revocation of a mandate held by one of the Dominions.

Australia, in effect, can only lose the Mandate if she is willing to let it go, but not otherwise.

To quote the words of a well-informed writer (E. van Maanen-Helmer, “The Mandates System”):—“Provided the Mandatory Power does not infringe any of the other provisions of the Mandates or of Article 22, it may establish any kind of administration it chooses. It may rule the natives directly . . . , or indirectly ... It may encourage Euro pean or native production. ... So long as its administration can be shown to be really securing the well-being and de velopment” of the peoples entrusted to its care, the Mandatory Power cannot be interfered with. This point of view has been upheld by the Permanent Man dates Commission on every possible oc casion.”

Having dealt with what I might call the terminability of the Mandate, one may turn to the other matter raised by your correspondent. This could be dealt with just as briefly, but possibly a fuller explanation will place the whole question of amalgamation in a

clearer light so far as the Mandate itself is concerned.

Under the Treaty of Peace signed at Versailles on 28th June, 1919, Ger many renounced in favour of the Prin cipal Allied and Associated Powers all her rights and titles over certain Ter ritories and Islands that had been cap tured from her. Amongst those Terri tories was German New Guinea, which was conquered by and surrendered to the Commonwealth on 17th September, 1914. The representatives of the Allied and Associated Powers, after long and at times acrimonious discussion, re solved to apply a mandatory system, such resolution being embodied in Article 22 of the Covenant. The Man

dates were classified (called A, B, and C Mandates) and certain conditions were attached to each class. Australia was assigned a C Mandate for New Guinea and she accepted her responsi bility in an Act assented to on 30th September, 1920.

Under a C Mandate these Territories were to be “administered under the laws of the Mandatory as an integral part of its territory” (Part of Section 6 of Article 22 of the Covenant).

According to a distinguished and authoritative writer (Sir Anton Ber tram) the conditions attached to this class of Mandate “seemed indistinguish able from annexation.” So far noth ing has appeared which would prevent Australia uniting for administrative purposes former German New Guinea with one of her own territories. As a matter of fact, our Mandate appears to consider union as a distinct possibility.

Article 2 of the Mandate given to Australia reads: “The Mandatory shall have full power of administration and legislation over the territory, subject to the present Mandate, as an integral portion of the Commonwealth of Aus tralia, and may apply the laws of the

Commonwealth of Australia to the ter ritory, subject to such local modifica tions as circumstances may require.”

Papua, although not strictly an in tegral part of the Commonwealth, is one of our territories, and is contigu ous to the Territory of New Guinea.

It is well to note that contiguity was specially considered when the Mandates were classified. Section 6 of Article 22 of the Covenant specifically mentions ‘‘their geographical contiguity to the territory of the Mandatory,” and, as mentioned above, we hold our Mandate under this very section.

One condition of each Mandate stipu lates the sending of an Annual Report to the Council of the League, which refers it to a sort of sub-committee known as the Permanent Mandates Commission. I use the word “sub-com mittee” in no derogatory sense. When one considers the present personnel of the Commission, as well as those who have been members previously, it is manifest that for experience in Colonial Administration, as well as for general competence, the Commission so far has been excellently composed. It is inter esting to note they receive no salaries, and during the period they are members of the Commission they are not allowed to hold any office which puts them in direct dependence on their own Govern ments. There are no representatives of special interests and, although the Com mission may summon technical experts on special questions, these experts attend in an advisory capacity only.

This Commission considers the re ports in detail, and in 1927 con siderable trouble arose regarding a questionnaire it had submitted to all Mandatories; but that matter need not be gone into here.

This matter of Annual Reports ap pears to worry “Waipata,” as he states that (in the event of amalgamation) “it would not be possible to send the annual report to Geneva on one divi sion only.” Togoland and the Came roons are ex-German Territories in West Africa, and were conquered by British and French troops during the war. Mandates in respect of each of these were assigned to France and Great Britain, each nation taking a portion of both Territories.

Unlike Australia’s C Mandate, which provides that her territory shall be “administered in accordance with the laws of the Mandatory as an integral part of its territory,” Great Britain accepted a B Mandate, which contains some concession regarding administra tion but not so wide as in a C Man date. As a matter of fact, however, Great Britain administers her portions of these territories held under mandate as parts of older colonies. So we find Togoland administered as part of the Gold Coast, while the Cameroons have become an administrative part of Ni geria. Annual reports in respect of both the Cameroons and Togoland are sub mitted to the Permanent Mandates Com mission and have been accepted by that body.

Seeing that the League has already acquiesced in the sending in of a re port concerning one “division” of what is virtually an amalgamation, I cannot conceive any complaint being made by the Commission were the Mandated Territory of New Guinea administered as a part of Papua, or vice versa. In fact, the C Mandate given to Australia would make it very much easier to do so than the B Mandate given to Great Britain.

Consider Ruanda-Urundi, in Central Africa. This territory, comprising an area of 21,429 square miles, with a population of 4,500,000 is held under mandate by Belgium. In August, 1925, there was created an administrative union between Ruanda-Urundi and the Belgian Congo. Article 1 of the Belgian Law commences: “The territory of Ruanda-Urundi shall be amalgamated for purposes of administration with the Colony of the Belgian Congo, of which it shall form a Vice-Governor-General’s province.” Although objection has been raised regarding the wording of this Law, the Belgian accredited representa tive defended the intention rather than the wording, and drew particular atten tion to Article 6 which states: —“Any provisions of the laws of the Congo which may be contrary to the stipula tions of the mandate . . . shall not apply to Ruanda-Urundi.” There the matter rests.

So much for the two contentions raised in your correspondent’s letter. I pass over his further remark that, be cause of these contentions, discussion is futile. Had “Waipata” really known anything about the Mandatory System, as well as the terms of the Mandates, I do not think he would have made such a statement. The question is not only such a very live one, but also of the utmost importance, that I am grateful to him, in spite of his gibes, for hav ing initiated such a discussion.

I have dealt, in this letter, only with what may possibly be called the academic side of the question of amal gamation, but unless a proper basis is laid so far as the legality or otherwise of any such move is concerned, later discussion may not be helpful. I have tried to show that in so far as the Mandate itself is concerned there is no bar to amalgamation.

Two principles, however, would need to be safeguarded. One is that the Ter ritory must continue to be administered on behalf of the League, and the other is that the administration must be dis interested. I can see no difficulty in ad herence to both those essential prin ciples.

It is a different question altogether, of course, when consideration of its advisability is concerned. Here enter practical questions of finance, law and legal procedure, administrative prac tice and control, taxation, etc., etc. — in fact, a multitude of subsidiary mat ters, each one of which has to be con sidered.

That there is a great deal to be ad vanced in favour of amalgamation I am convinced, but it also cannot be denied that before anything of such a nature can be achieved many hurdles have to be overcome. To quote an example: the recent law inaugurating a Legislative Council in the Territory obviously makes amalgamation much more difficult.

I am, etc.,

Roland F. H. Green.

Canberra, 4/4/1933.

The failures of life sit around and complain; The gods haven’t treated them right; They’ve lost their umbrellas whenever it rains, And they haven’t their lanterns at night.

Men tire of the failures who fill with their sighs The air of their own neighbourhoods: There’s a man who is treated with love-lighted eyes He’s the man who DELIVERS THE GOODS.

Walt. Mason.