Why Pacific Mandates Must Go Into Melting-pot

WE have printed Mr. Glover’s most informative letter, as he wrote it; but we emphatically disagree with the arguments of his last three paragraphs.

In 1914, the Territories of Western Samoa, New Guinea and Caroline and Marshall Islands were German posses sions, having become so in accordance with a whole series of international treaties and agreements made between 1860 and 1900. A greedy, Prussianised Germany forced war upon the world. As a result of that war, Germany was defeated—and deprived of her colonies, all over the world.

The international opinion, in 1918-20, was that Germany should undergo a period of punishment. She should pay reparations, and she should be deprived of her colonies, for the time being, at any rate. No undertakings whatever were given; but it was clearly understood at the time (and this writer has a very clear memory of the circumstance) that if Germany re-established herself as a trustworthy nation, she might be permit ted to regain certain of her colonies— where such return of colonies did not compromise or prejudice the fundamental rights of the indigenous peoples. That was the clear understanding, not of the slick politicians and writers of Britain

and France, but of the masses of our people, who want to see the causes of wars removed.

THE attempt was seriously made, then, to introduce into human and inter national affairs the principle that all peoples are entitled to the largest practicable measure of freedom; that no nation has the right, merely because it wants to hold colonies or territories, to keep smaller communities in subjection That was the idea behind the issue of League-of-Nations Mandates to certain nations in respect of the former German colonies; and (Mr. Glover carefully avoids this important point) behind the obligation imposed upon the Mandatories individually to report annually upon their trustee-ship, to the Council of the League of Nations. The Mandatories were ex pected to educate and train the indigen ous peoples for self-government.

If the Mandatories held sovereign rights in respect of those ex-German colonies, why were they obliged to grovel at Geneva, once a year?

The fact that the machinery of the League of Nations did not work has no bearing upon the history of the terri tories, or upon the argument. Neither does the fact that, to-day, the interests of the Mandatories (developed during the last 20 years without check or hindrance) are sunreme in the several territories they administer.

In 1914, German interests were supreme in all those German colonies. There was no real reason why those territories should have been absorbed into the Empires of Britain and France, any more than that they should have been handed over to any other nation. Britain and France already had enormous colonial possessions, and could need no more, for anv reason whatever. At that time (1919) defence was not a consideration, because the League of Nations was going to see to it that there would be no more wars.

If it had been proposed to add the ex- German colonies to the Empires of Britain and France, irrevocably, in 1920, there would have been a chorus of pro test from an outraged world—and rightly so.

THE Pacific Mandates were given to British Commonwealth nations, and to Japan, in trust, to be disposed of ultimately by the League—and it was hoped that, in each case, the people.con cerned would be taught to govern them selves, and ultimately would be granted independence (as was done in the case of the United States and the Philippines).

Mr. Glover has quoted what he believes to be authorities. We do not question his interpretations. According to the let ter of the law, they probably are sound.

But, on a basis of international moral ity, they not only are wrong—they are dangerous. Mr. Glover’s opinions are held by quite a number of old conserva tives, whose conception of what is right is based on precedent, tradition and facile argument. They cannot under stand that, in international affairs, the world is to be governed by a new code.

For the sake of the future peace of the world, and what may be called “the new order,” we hope that the voices of such gentlemen will be stilled, not only in the years immediately ahead, but for ever.

mOO many people are all too ready, X now, to paint the British and French Governments as land-hungry, greedy, insatiable. Actually, the Imperial devel opment of Britain and France is respon sible, more than any other factor, for the enormous progress in human affairs, and the raising of the average standard of living, throughout the world, during the nineteenth and twentieth centuries.

But that era is ended. Upon the nations with great colonial empires— Britain, France, Russia, Holland—is now thrown much of the responsibility of creating a new order, for all peoples, based upon the Four Freedoms. Mr.

Glover, and men who think with him, should try to align their opinions and their plans with those of the men who framed the Atlantic Charter, rather than seek to perpetuate the old order.

The question before us is not one of trying to extend our sovereignty over additional territories, but of trying to show justification of our sovereignty in the very many territories which we already occupy.

The Pacific Mandates will go back to the League of Nations, or whatever inter national organisation takes its place after the war. As Germany has forfeited, for at least a couple of generations, all right to be regarded as a Power entitled to hold colonies, the Pacific Mandated Territories will not go back to Germany.

Then, where shall they go?

Two questions will decide. First, are the peoples of the Territories capable of governing themselves, under the tutelage and protection of an international body?

If not, what country can show a para mount interest in the Territory concerned, and be entrusted with its administra tion. on behalf of the indigenous inhabitants?