Whitehall and Wellington
pp. 5-6 · Read in the full issue
Let us Remove the Dead Hands of Canberra, Whitehall and Wellington
ALREADY, before the Japanese invaders have been driven away, the people of the Pacific Territories are beginning to discuss the political and administrative conditions under which they hope to live in the future; and there is a strong and growing feeling against any further close association with Canberra, Whitehall and Wellington.
Before the new Pacific world is finally shaped, the British (and, some hope, the Fighting French) com munities of the South Pacific tropical territories will make a strong plea for the creation of a new British Dominion (a writer in the last issue of the “PIM” suggested “the Dominion of British Oceania”) or, perhaps, a South Pacific Territories Federation, which will link together, in one strong group, the Territories of (west to east), Papua, New Guinea (Man dated), British Solomons, New Hebrides, Gilbert and Ellice Colony, Nauru, Fiji, Western Samoa (Man dated), Cook Islands, Tonga, and, maybe, New Caledonia and French Oceania.
Only by the creation of such a self governing Dominion or Federation, functioning under the protection of Great Britain, or under an Anglo- American Union (or whatever body may be set up by the victorious United Nations for the policing of the post
war world), can the Pacific Territories escape from the dead hands of Aus tralia, Great Britain and New Zealand, all too manifest in Pacific Islands administration during the past quarter century.
I know, very well, the objections that will be offered, immediately, to the idea of creating a tropical Pacific Islands Dominion—l presented most of them, myself, when first I heard the plan discussed. But, as I became accustomed to the thing, I began to see much that is in its favour.
AS it was in 1939, all those rich South Pacific tropical territories were parcelled out among the Euro pean nations. Working, again, from west to east, we had Dutch New Guinea, attached to the Netherlands East Indies Empire; North-west New Guinea, with the great islands of New Britain, New Ireland and Bougain ville, governed by Australia, through Geneva; South-east New Guinea (Papua), with the Louisiade Archi pelago, attached to Australia as a Territory; the British Solomon Islands, governed by Britain through a High Commissioner in Suva; the New Hebrides, governed as a Con dominium (often aptly termed a “Pandemonium”) by Britain and France, jointly; the French Colony of New Caledonia, to which is attached
the Loyalty Group; the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony (British), with which is included the rich phosphate island of Ocean Island; the other rich phosphate island of Nauru, governed jointly by Britain, Australia and New Zealand through a Man date; the British Crown Colony of Fiji; the Kingdom of Tonga, self governing under Whitehall protec tion; the large and rich territory of Western Samoa, governed by New Zealand under Mandate; the New Zealand territory of the Cook Islands; and the large, rich and beautiful French Colony of French Oceania.
Could one find, anywhere, a greater jumble of administrative forms, administrative machinery and colonial policies?
One would need to travel up and down among the Islands, as I have done for over ten years, to realise how the development and use of those vast, rich territories have been retarded by the blight of remote con trol. Only one, the British Colony of Fiji, has made any real progress during the past quarter-century; and I believe that Fiji’s progress has been due to the strong impulse of its own richness and fertility, rather than to any effort made by Whitehall.
New Guinea, Papua, Solomons, New Hebrides, Samoa, Cook Islands, Tonga, New Caledonia and Tahiti supply us, in their records of the past quarter century, with a story of official inertia, administrative laziness, dis couragement of private enterprise
and resentment of any criticism— especially constructive criticism—that would be hard to equal.
EVERY one of those territories is within the southern tropics.
Every one has a substantial native population. Except that there are Polynesians in the east, and Melan esians in the west—very different peoples—each territory has similar problems relating to native education, native health, the training of natives in agriculture and handicrafts, the protection of natives’ land titles.
The problems of every one of those territories, in relation to European settlement and the development of the country by European enterprise, the control of commerce, industry and transport, the limitation of Asiatic immigration, etc., are almost exactly the same.
Yet—believe it or not!—every one of those territories has been adminis tered independently in the past by the controlling authority, without consultation of neighbours, or any attempt to co-ordinate policies or exchange experience. There is not the slightest difference, that I ever have been able to discern, between administrative conditions in Papua and Mandated New Guinea, or be tween New Guinea or the British Solomons; but Canberra always has kept the administrations of Papua and New Guinea in separate, water tight compartments: there was no exchange of trained personnel or comparison of policies—each went its separate, jealous way.
The only attempt at co-operation and co-ordination of effort that I have seen in all those South Pacific Territories was made in the Suva Medical School. Here, since 1930, selected youths, from all the central and eastern territories, have come together for four years’ training as native medical practitioners; and the success of this system has been truly remarkable. But—believe it or not—Australia, deaf to all appeals to join in a co-operative effort for the good of the native peoples, has kept haughtily aloof from the Suva Medical School, and there are no NMP’s in Papua and New Guinea.
NO one who knows the history of the Pacific Territories will lay the blame for this dismal adminis trative record upon the adminis trative officials. In every territory, from New Guinea right across to Tahiti, I have come to know the officials very well. I have met some dull and stupid and lazy men; a few greedy place-seekers; but I can say of the great majority that they are men of superior ability, strong of purpose and incorruptible, and almost pathetically eager to do something really worth while for the progress of the Territories for which they are re sponsible. But I can say, also, that in the case of the older men, I often found the lethargy that is based on defeated hopes and years of discour agement. I can name, now, a score of the highest administrative officials in the Pacific Territories who once were brimming with enthusiasm and
energy, and whose hearts have been broken by the inertia of bureaucrats at Canberra and Wellington and Whitehall, and by the indifference and ignorance of politicians—poli ticians pitch-forked into positions where they have to take adminis trative responsibility for tropical countries they have never seen, and know nothing about.
THIS is not the first time I have criticised this ridiculous system, and I know well the answer I will get. Some Ministerial gentlemen, in Australia, or New Zealand or Britain, will quote some statistics to show the “marvellous progress” made by the Territories in question under the system I have described. His statistics and his arguments can be knocked to pieces in a moment by anyone who really knows the Pacific Territories; but they seem to satisfy the indif ferent public and the uninformed newspapers.
There is very little community of interest between the nations which now govern the Territories, and the Territories themselves. There is complete and far-reaching community of interest between the Territories themselves. Then, why should they not be allowed to govern themselves, and thus escape the deadly influences I have described? A demand for self government will come, I think; and, if it is to be considered in a spirit of justice and reason, an answer to that question will have to be found.
THERE is grave significance in this extract from the Chicago “Tri bune” (one of America’s greatest newspapers, violently isolationist and usually anti-British), which was published in “Sydney Morning Herald” on February 4:— “One of our legitimate war objectives is farthest from the minds of those who are talking most about peace plans. That objective is permanent safety for the United States, which can be attained only by retention of all the islands we have occupied. Only an insane man or a traitor would surrender land won by the lives of our brave men.
“We do not say this should include any part of Africa or Iceland, certainly not the British Isles, but it means all the islands in the Western Atlantic, New Caledonia, the Fiji Islands, and the Solomons.
The Japanese mandated islands are go ing to be ours by right of conquest.
“Although it required American troops and leadership to drive the Japanese out of Papua, we should evacuate from there after the war and require Australians to defend Papua themselves. Beyond that point, we believe that the Philippines, Borneo, Sumatra, Java. Malaya, and Burma should be free for development by their own inhabitants.”
These claims may seem to us fantastic; but they do indicate that powerful influences already are turn ing their attention to the future of the Pacific Territories. We should be wise, now, to begin thinking of the future, and planning, if possible.
Certain things stand out, and may perhaps be accepted as facts: The future of the administration of every Pacific Territory will be closely studied by the United Nations; the claims of Britain, Australia and New
Zealand, and, possibly, of France, for a continued free hand in the control of South Pacific Territories, will be challenged, because of their miser able, unimpressive record during the past 25 years; the United States, on the ground of her future security, will want re-assurance concerning the future government of the numerous Pacific Territories now occupied by American forces.
The prospect is startling. Great changes seem to be looming. But at last we may have a chance of getting rid of the dead hand of Canberra, Wellington and London officialdom.