Germany and Her Ex-Pacific

Colonies She Wants Africa—Not New Guinea

|Y| UCH continues to be said about the ITJ. “future of the former German colonies” —which, of course, is a matter of direct concern to the Territories of New Guinea, Western Samoa and the Caroline and Marshall Islands. Also, because any change in the control of those Territories will affect all other Pacific Territories, the subject is of interest to all Europeans in the Pacific.

Certain statements, more or less official, have been issued by the Governments of the various Powers.

The German attitude is that, in order to uphold “German prestige and dignity,” as well as provide Germany with an out let for her colonising energy and supply her with a source of raw materials, Ger many will not forego in any degree her demand for the return of her former colonies.

There have been several statements made on behalf of the British Govern ment. Summed up, they are to the effect that Britain has not considered, nor is she considering, the transfer of British mandates to any other Power. The sub ject has not been brought officially before the Government. It is clear, however, that there is in Britain a large and apparently

growing section of British public opinion which is in favour of a return to Germany of some portion of her lost colonies —preferably, in Africa.

The official attitude of France is that “France would no more think of giving up her mandated territories than would Britain,’’ and would be unwilling to expose the native populations now under French rule to “German racial theories.” That statement, however, was made before the new Socialist Government took charge in France.

Japan has stated, in unequivocal terms, that she w T ill not voluntarily return the Caroline and Marshall Islands to Ger many. There is no doubt that some secret understanding between Germany and Japan was reached early in 1936; and there is a report current that, in that agreement, Germany surrendered all claims to those island groups. There also is good ground for the belief that, if Japan is not actually fortifying the Marshall and Caroline Islands, she is accumulating sup plies of certain essential commodities in certain secret bases in the groups—especi ally oil.

Australia, naturally, is deeply concerned.

Under Australian administration, New Guinea and the Bismarck Archipelago have undergone rapid development, and newly-created values represented in the gold industry must amount to millions of pounds. Those important interests cannot be sacrificed.

Germany’s demand for the return of her colonies is bound to receive increasing attention in the Chancelleries; but the fol lowing extract from a private letter, written to a friend in Sydney recently by a very well-informed Dutchman, who knows New Guinea well, and who recently has been travelling in Holland and Ger many, supplies some reassurance for Aus tralians: “I heard from very well-informed circles in Germany that they will only try to get back some of their African colonies, and not New Guinea.”

The problem remains for Britain, how ever. Britain, in Africa, holds Tangan yika, Togoland, the Cameroons and South west Africa under mandate; and every time it is suggested that one or other of those territories should be returned, there is a sharp howl from some important interest concerned, and an attempt made to influence public opinion against the suggestion.

On present indications, we may take it as unlikely that there will be any serious move to disturb present conditions in New Guinea and Samoa. Apart from economic considerations, the islands are too far away from Europe to be properly defended.

What body—if any—has the right to take a mandate away from a Power? Can mandates be withdrawn?

Discussing these questions in the columns of the London Daily Mail, Mr. P.

Donner, Conservative, M.P. for Basing stoke, England, says that there has been much loose talk about the Mandated Ter ritories by the man in the street. Many people have believed our authority ov«?r these territories is derived from the League of Nations. This is due to ignor ance of the genesis of this complicated system. The actual position is as fol lows: The former German colonies were dis tributed among the Mandatory Powers by the Supreme Council of the Principal Allied and Associated Powers at the San Remo Conference on May 7, 1919. The territories were finally ceded by Ger many, under Article 219 of the Treaty of Versailles, to the Principal Allied and Associated Powers collectively, i.e., Great Britain, France, Italy, U.S.A. and Japan.

These powers have never ceded them to the League, but, under Article 22 of the Covenant, agreed to submit annual reports of their administration to the Council of the League, and to require the assent of the Council to any amendments or alterations to the terms of each man date. These mandates were documents drawn up by the Principal Allied and Associated Powers themselves, and later “approved” by the Council of the League.

The League only came into being on January 10, 1920, i.e., nine months after the allocation of the title to mandates was conferred by the only body capable of conferring it, viz., the Principal Allied and Associated Powers to whom the territories had been ceded. The League’s job is only to see that the terms of the mandates are observed and to approve or disapprove any changes in these terms. Thus Japan, though no longer a member of the League, continues quite properly to administer the ex-German islands allotted to her by the Allied Powers.