The Fate of New Guinea: Is It to Be a "Returned German Colony"?

FLlT—the only insect spray that REALLY kills

The Fate Of New

GUINEA Is it to be a “Returned German Colony”?

THE demand for the return of her former colonies to Germany again received much prominence during the month. This is of paramount interest and importance to Australia in view of the possibility of the “handing back” of New Guinea to Germany.

In a letter to the London Times, Viscount Elibank, who paid a brief visit to Australia recently said he believed that if European peace was at stake Australia would not feel very strongly about the return of New Guinea.

This statement obviously caused embarrassment to the Commonwealth Government, for the Minister in Charge of Territories (Sir George Pearce) on January 6 sharply rebuked Lord Elibank and made it quite clear that Australia has no intention of surrendering New Guinea.

“During Viscount Elibank’s short stay he certainly did not obtain an accurate view of Australian opinion on this question,” said Sir George. “It is incorrect to say that Australia would not feel very strongly about the return of German New Guinea.

I am confident that opinion here is definitely and absolutely against the return of the Territory.”

Two or three gentlemen in Sydney who quite obviously know nothing about the position took the opportunity of proclaiming their opinions in the Sydney Morning Herald of January 7. Some thought that the return of New Guinea to Germany was inevitable. Others thought that Australia’s control should be retained. The mark of blank ignorance, however, was over all their statements.

The most interesting contribution to the discussion was made by that famous man, Lord Lugard, who probably is the world’s leading authority on problems of colonisation. Addressing a gathering under the auspices of the Royal Empire Society in London recently, and referring to the demand by certain Powers which did not possess colonies for a share in their control, and also to Germany’s recent demand for colonies, he said: “We feel that British honour is deeply involved. That we should declare ourselves ready to share any economic advantages accruing from our colonies is an honourable gesture of goodwill. To hand over on demand, as though they were slaves or cattle, peoples to whom we have pledged our protection is neither consistent with our national honour, nor, in the long run, would such a surrender make for peace.”

The crux of the question has not been referred to by Australian commentators.

Hundreds of Australians having confidence in the good faith of British institutions have invested their money and at least 15 years of their lives in New Guinea enterprises—plantations, stores, shipping companies, etc. Furthermore, thousands of people in Australia, Europe, and America, with equal confidence in the good faith of Great Britain, have become shareholders in the great mining and transport companies which have established the gold mining industry in New Guinea. How are these matters to be reconciled with the vague proposal that “New Guinea should be returned to Germany” ?

The economic position in 1914 when New Guinea was occupied by Australian forces is vastly different from the position in 1937.

The suggestion that New Guinea should be returned to Germany and the argument on the point does not, as a matter of fact, emanate from Germany. The subject which is a very thorny one has been stirred up by a number of gentlemen who