The Pacific Islands As They Will Be

IN 1950

WRITTEN BY ROBERT FAHERTY, OF CHICAGO “DAILY NEWS,” FOR

This Journal

rjTHE prospect for peace and security JL for the Pacific Islands, under amicable political arrangements, seems brighter every day as the drama of world war and world politics unfolds.

The question of the day is: To what degree will the United States choose to exert influence in political and military affairs of the Pacific regions in which the Stars and Stripes did not fly before this war? All who have any stake in the great Pacific archi pelagoes or the coral dots about the Equator want the answer.

It is now evident that the Japanese will not decide the future of the South Pacific, nor even of the northern islands they held under mandate and armed for launching war. Two years have passed since the Jap jungle fighters were looking down upon Port Moresby from the south slopes of the Owen Stanleys. Then —or at least before the Australians defeated the Japs at Milne Bay—it seemed possible that Admiral Yamamoto would hoist his flag over all Oceania.

To-day, surely, the foremost desire of all the islanders must be some in surance that Jap forces never again will be able to strike south of the line. (And it would be comforting to

know that all those sampans would not re-appear on shell-poaching in vasions.) I look at the picture of the Pacific Islands in 1950 merely to express the hopes and opinions of an individual —of a past-military-age journalist who has some special interest in the Pacific as a traveller before the war.

From an armchair position in the geographical centre of the United States, I do so humbly in the know ledge that thousands of men under arms, under the flags of the “United Nations, have a deeper interest in the Pacific to-day and are creating its future.

HERE in Chicago, however, there are events this year that have bearing on the future of the Pacific and world politics—the nominating conventions of the Republican and Democratic parties. The Republican convention has provided some reason for hope that the United States may be relied upon to assist in charting a peaceful world, to help restrain any future Hitlers or Tojos.

The Republican party dared not give expression to the isolationist thinking that had dominated its councils for 20 years. That fact was

a recognition of majority sentiment among the American people favour ing some degree of active co-opera tion by the United States in a world council of nations, or in some variety of alliances with other powers.

The foreign policy platform adopted by the Republicans and the expres sions made by their candidate, Thomas E. Dewey, are a far cry from the loucl isolationist voices of the party in the legislative halls in past years. And such voices had been strong in unceasing and often suc cessful effort to prevent Roosevelt from re-arming the nation and mobi lising its manpower, up to the very day of the Japanese assault upon Pearl Harbour.

The changed voice Of the Re publican party is a good omen. It does not mean irrevocably that a Republican president and Republican dominated Congress would join in a League of Nations. It does not mean that a Republican administration would do anything about world collaboration, or would not block collaboration by erecting a tariff wall around the United States. But this new voice does mean that the Re publicans know that a majority of Americans want to help other peoples to prevent future wars. And thus the Republicans might feel compelled to do something about it.

If the Republicans do not win in the November election—most fore casters predict re-election of Demo

crat Roosevelt—it is nevertheless of great importance that the Republican party is aware of public sentiment for a collaboration of nations. Such awareness may, some day, be the deciding factor in a two-thirds vote of the US Senate for ratification of American entry into a world council.

IT is true that some isolationist voices have been within the Democratic all the American legislators who viewed Hitler complacency were not in

Republican ranks. But these Demo crats have been a small minority, and the Roosevelt policies won despite them.

In viewing American internal poli tics with relation to the Pacific, it is necessary to note an ominous development. The isolationists, who have recently decided to call them selves nationalists, include many who have become maudlinly chauvinistic, jingoistic, imperialistic.

Something About the Egocentric Colonel McCormick

ONE of the most strident of these voices, in print—for his speaking voice is somewhat a mumble—is that of the egocentric publisher of a notorious Chicago newspaper which has given this city an unfortunate reputation. (One hesitates to mention his name—Robert R. McCormick —or that of his so-called newspaper, the Chicago Tribune, for he vainly treasures every mention. Australia had the good sense to refuse to let him print an edition there.) This publisher says, now, in a manuscript he has read many times in public addresses and has printed flamboyantly in his newspaper: “We should retain air bases and radio stations wherever we have built them, and we should secure now, by treaty, the right to fly directly everywhere we want to go.” (American-built bases are now everywhere in the WOI *l d! ) Six weeks before Pearl Harbour, his newspaper said: “What vital interests of the United States can Japan threaten? She cannot attack us.

These now cry: America must seize bases all over the world. These men are the same who opposed every move by the President designed to check Hitler, who derided the President’s warnings of oncoming war, who tried to block the re-building of the Navy and the training of an army, who opposed the Lend-Lease law, who have persisted in denouncing Russia and Great Britain throughout this war.

That is a military impossibility. Even our base at Hawaii is beyond the effective striking power of her fleet.”

This man, and the editorial writers, Washington correspondents, cartoon ists and editors of his paper who accept his money to do such work, have waged an all-out verbal war against the Government of the United States, the Government of Great Britain, the Government of Russia, almost every day since the Govern ments of Germany and Japan launched the war upon us.

TT IS newspaper, three days before ** the Pearl Harbour attack, pub lished to the world a secret document of the United States Army which outlined a plan for deploying Ameri can troops from North Africa against a Hitler-occupied Europe. This docu ment, containing estimates of the forces that the US could muster, and much other information, was pub lished under the signature of Chesly Manly, a correspondent of the news paper. It interested Hitler so much

that it was referred to In Germany’s declaration of war upon the United States.

This newspaper earned even greater notoriety by an account of the Battle of Midway which was written in its office in Chicago. The first paragraph of the story flatly said that when the Japanese fleet steamed out of its bases to attack the Hawaiian islands, the United States Navy knew that the Japs’ ships had started out to sea.

That story was so startling that intelligence officers of the Navy called the editors to Washington instantly to demand an explanation of its publication.

Other newspapers later said that the Chicago story had informed the Japanese admirals that the US Navy had broken down the Japanese naval code. Actually, the movements of the Jap fleet had been known to the American admirals, and the Japanese radio communications were no secret whatever, Washington colum ists then reported. They said the Japanese immediately changed code after the Chicago revelation, and thus deprived the US Navy of a tremend ous advantage in the deadly sea war.

The Department of Justice sought a penalty for the offence, but the news paper responded by attacking the Department—and carried through by waging a two-years war of words against the Government’s efforts to prosecute a number of persons who are now on trial on sedition charges —among them confessed German agents and spies.

The Chicago newspaper greeted the Republican convention with a “nationalist” cartoon containing these words: “The United States, im mediately upon the successful con clusion of the present war, will announce that it will take no part in future European wars. This an nouncement effectually will end future world wars.”

The cartoonist did not say what the United States would announce if a fleet of bombers large as the B-29, from Europe, suddenly deposited a load of bombs upon New York.

TT is important to evaluate the voice of this publisher and his news paper. In past years he has intimi dated many politicians. He has fostered isolationist officials and law makers, has used them as stooges to raise outcries that he might publish.

He has dominated Republican politics in the Middle West. His views are spread to millions in two other news papers—one in Washington, one in New York.

But it is my opinion that now his influence is dying, that the record of his sins and his errors is so long tihat it will not be misconstrued by the people and their representatives in the charting of American policies.

Believe me, it will be favourable to the future of the people of the Pacific Islands, and to those of the rest of the world, if the forces of which he

has been the spokesman do not prevail in the post-war years.

Any diminution of power of that “nationalist” blow will mean less possibility of imperialist gestures by the United States in the Pacific—l use the word “imperialist” to mean a broad extension of the flag over'the Pacific for motives other than needed security.

It is clear to-day that the US Navy will seek to establish future security for itself when Japan is conquered, As to what positions the admirals will regard as needed for security, perhaps nobody can say definitely at this time; and at least I have no such specific knowledge.

Certainly, no commander of the US fleet, no President, could sleep at night, in the 1950’5, without knowing that the fleet was strongly based in

the Pacific, more strongly based than in December, 1941. current American conquest of A the mandated islands north of the Equator implies American mili tary rule for a considerable period, And there is significance in the fact that some American correspondents’ dispatches from the Marshalls said flatly that the United States would never relinquish those isles. Perhaps such dispatches were not authorised.

But they had a note of finality, The admirals, certainly, will wish to maintain strong bases in those Central Pacific Islands. And the Pacific powers and colonies that re gard the American Navy as an Ally might well desire that the mighty ships and planes of the United States (Continued Overleaf)

be there, aimed eternally at Japan.

Sir Keith Murdoch, of Melbourne, has expressed that wish in the United States.

It is likely that the admirals, and the generals, perhaps, would like to strengthen the general position of the US in the Pacific by maintaining an additional base or two in other zones—beyond Pago Pago.

IT is a mere guess that some admiral may suggest a large permanent base in the South-west—in the general neighbourhood of Rabaul or Bougainville—or suggest that the American forces have access to faci lities in those waters, with consent of other nations. Sir Keith Murdoch expressed it: “Joint British-American- Australian control of strategic posi tions; a regional Pacific council.”

Now, in the United States, one does not expect the admirals to be im perialistic. One does not expect that American warships will swagger about the Pacific. One does expect the admirals to demand a degree of security. And the Navy is now pre paring to have strong peacetime forces.

The danger of an American tend ency toward imperialism for the sake of mere chauvinism lies in the out cries of the isolationist “nation alists.” And the signs of the growing defeat of that bloc in American politics holds forth hope for the development of amicable co-operation of the great powers in the Pacific for mutual welfare.

In a picture of the future of the Pacific, however, I like to consider a personal vision—an impossible one, but pleasant.

I should like to sail again on the Makura of the Union Line (she was sold into the China coast trade, and I hope she still floats) with Captain McDonald and First Officer Bonetti and Chief Steward Smith and the Radio Officer Gough, for Papeete, and

breakfast with champagne at the Diademe, and a long, leisurely stay on the languorous French isle of Tahiti. My residence tax is paid— and I keep the receipt.