in Pacific

'Frisco Conference Will Bring Changes in Pacific

HERE, many times, since 1939—and especially since Pearl Harbour— the opinion has been expressed that the end of World War II will see con siderable changes in administration in the Pacific Territories generally, and perhaps some changes in national controls.

If we were to lose the war, these things would be inevitable, on a sweep ing scale. If we win the war, it is reasonable to suppose that two things will follow—the victorious nations will create a new international organi sation for the maintenance of world peace, and the old League of Nations, which failed so lamentably in its primary purpose between 1921 and 1939, will be swept away. With the League of Nations, of course, will go the Mandates system; and that will directly affect the future of four Territories—New Guinea; Western Samoa; Caroline, Marshall and Mariana Islands; and Nauru.

Now please turn to page 12 and 32.

It will seen from the news articles there that a conference of the United Nations will meet in San Francisco on April 25 to set up a world organisation for the maintenance of peace, and that that organisation eventually will dispose of the Territories now held under League of Nations Mandates by various nations. rERE will be no early decisions.

The League of Nations still is in being, and it will not be liquidated until the new world organisation of

the United Nations is formed and ready to function and to take over the considerable properties and re sponsibilities of the League. The latter include the Mandates. It is to be presumed that the Mandatories will formally return the Mandates to the League, which in turn will hand them over to the new world organi sation, which will dispose of them as it thinks proper.

There are 14 Mandates. They all are held by members of the United Nations group, with the exception that the Carolines, etc., Territory was held by Japan. It may be sup posed, therefore, that generally the Mandated Territories will remain close to their present political alle giances, except that the Carolines, etc., will not be restored to Japan.

But this is only supposition. The dominating voices in the future world authority will be those of Britain, United States and Russia; and it is likely that the two latter, in disposing of the present Mandated Territories, will ignore all considerations other than the welfare of the native in habitants. That is going to raise some prickly problems in places— especially in the Near East, where Arab national aspirations in Syria and Transjordania, for instance, will be found in sharp conflict with the wishes of the present Mandatories.

Here, however, we are concerned only with the future of the present Pacific Mandates; and it is interesting to consider tlje probabilities, in the

light of well-known and frequently* expressed views of the Powers that will dominate the new world organi sation.

IT is unlikely that the future of) each Mandated Territory will be considered individually. It is almost certain that those Territories will be studied as part of a general picture, embracing the whole of the wide Pacific, and including, not only the dozen or more separate Territories south of the Equator, taut also the five large Territories (Netherlands Indies, Borneo, Philippines, Carolines, etc., and Hawaii) north of the Equator. There are certain Terri tories where neither political allegi ance nor administration is likely to be disturbed —such as Fiji, Hawaii, Netherlands Indies, New Caledonia.

But there are other groups where the present Governmental set-up may have to be altered, to conform to future international needs.

Those international considerations, plus the necessity for disposing of the Mandated Territories, will make cer tain changes necessary; and so the new world authority probably will decide to make a study of the present condition and probable future of every Pacific Territory.

What we call international needs, of course, relates to the obligation to be placed on the nations generally— and upon the United States in par ticular —to police the Pacific in the interests of world peace. For this purpose, either particular nations, or the new international authority, will require naval bases and airfields in various parts of the Pacific. Leading Americans have been quite frank

about it—the United States expects to get bases in or near French Oceania, Fiji, New Caledonia and the Bismarck Archipelago.

But their statements were made a considerable time ago. Their very proper demands may now be met by the creation of the international authority, which will make the polic ing of the Pacific an international rather than a national responsibility.

SOME countries — Australia notably was one—expressed alarm at the prospect of the United States settling down in powerful bases close to their shores. These myopic people should take another look at the map of the Pacific (especially the north-western corner of it) and then perhaps they will thank their national gods for any development that will bring the Americans beside them as near and friendly neighbours.

Japan will be defeated. But Japan is an extremely fecund nation of 90,000,000 people, and we may not count upon their extermination— much as we may favour it! Apart from Japs, nearly one-half the human race lives in overcrowded south-east Asia—people who to-day are busily learning all the scientific and industrial arts of the Western nations. What chance is there of European communities surviving in the Pacific, unless the Pacific is con stantly and strongly policed!

These things are apparent to the statesmen who are organising the new world authority; and these con siderations transcend all the piffling little political and commercial motives by which we may seek to influence the future of the Pacific Territories.

If the United States, or Britain, or Russia, or the new international authority, wants any Pacific island or group so as to ensure the future pro tection of the Pacific, by all means let that*island be surrendered. Better to lose one, than lose the lot!

A USTRALIA will wish to keep New ** Guinea and the Bismarck Archi pelago. Her claim is so strong that it cannot really be challenged. The inhabitants are quite incapable of self-government; they should be placed in the care of a sympathetic, democratic nation like Australia. But if the protecting authority needs a base or two in that region for future police purposes—part of New Britain has been suggested—it would be stupid and short-sighted of the Aus tralians to offer any objection.

Western Samoa is in an entirely different category. Samoa has no political tie with New Zealand. NZ commercial interests there are negli gible. Unlike New Guinea in relation to Australia, Samoa provides NZ with no protective barrier. The Samoans —one of the best branches of the Polynesian race—are quite capable of a large measure of self-government— u Ji a Y e been trai ned and encouraged by NZ to expect a share in their own administration.

The same Considerations apply e (T^L m , the T c . ase of Eastern Samoa (American). It now is the hope of

all friends of the Samoans that New Zealand and United States will aban don their present holds so that Eastern and Western Samoa may be united as one country, under the pro tection of the international authority.

NAURU, again, is in another cate gory. This little island has no territorial value, but is of enormous economic importance, because of its mass of phosphatic rock. Nauru phosphate helps to maintain agricul ture in Australia and New Zealand.

Nearby, Ocean Island (part of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony) is in exactly the same category.

Now that the Nauru Mandate held by Britain, Australia, and NZ goes back into the melting-pot, why should not Nauru and Ocean Island, whose interests are exactly identical, be placed together in one administration?

Ocean Island, with its rich revenues, carries the very poor colony of Gilbert and Ellice—it pays for the govern ment of those picturesque but un productive atolls. Nauru could be placed with Ocean Island in the Gil bert and Ellice Colony and, while supplying the South Pacific Dominions with phosphate, could take some part of the G. & E. financial load off the British Colonial Office.

THE future of the Caroline, Marshall and Mariana Islands is com pletely obscure. Almost certainly, they will pass into the care of the United States, the Power which has taken them from Japan.

The archipelagoes have little econo mic value, and they are so widely scattered along the equatorial belt that they are an administrative head ache. Perhaps the Americans can divide them into a series of groups, some of which could be used, under the care of the international author ity, as naval bases, and as bases for both protective and commercial air craft.

SO much for the Mandates. There are other Territories which call for attention in any post-war re vision. What is to be done with the New Hebrides, for instance?

It is time the cumbersome, costly and ridiculous Condominium Govern ment was swept away. But, after that, what? Australia may put in a claim. But Australia’s only reason for controlling the group—namely, so that it may be part of Australia’s protective arc—will be removed when the international authority accepts responsibility for policing the Pacific.

Although Australia had ample oppor tunities to colonise islands of the New Hebrides, Australia did nothing. In any event, Australian politicians would “murder” the New Hebrides.

Two-thirds of whatever colonisation was done there—little enough, in all conscience—was done by the French: the British record is very poor. But the French record still is not good enough to justify a claim by France for complete possession of the group.

The same considerations apply to the British Solomons—that Cin derella of the British Colonial Office in the Pacific. The con

stitute, in land area, one of the big gest—and best—territories in the South Pacific; yet they are the least developed.

If it once becomes clear that one of the staple products of either the New Hebrides or the Solomons can be assured of a steady market, the possibilities of European colonisation in the two groups are immense—and without in any way prejudicing the interests of the limited number of Melanesians in each.

Regional Council idea—provided A for in the Dumbarton Oaks plan now on its way to San Francisco, and strongly favoured by the represen tatives of Australia and New Zealand —may supply the solution to many of the problems which we now see in the future of these Pacific Territories— including the disposition of both the Solomons and the New Hebrides.

In the Pacific, as in many other parts of the world, there is a problem created by the existence of small com munities of people, occupying small areas. They are entitled to life, liberty and happiness, the same as anyone else; but, because they are small and defenceless, they are always dragged in under the flag of a power ful neighbour. A South Pacific Re gional Council, responsible to the world authority about to be created, could not only take care of such small communities, but also could act as an authority for the co-ordination of administrative conditions.

It is possible to imagine, here in the South Pacific, Britain providing the Government of Fiji; Australia, New Guinea and Papua; France, New Caledonia and French Oceania; New Zealand, Cook Islands—but all those nations being responsible to the Regional Council for all matters af fecting the natives, and the Council seeing to it that the various adminis trations, in governing the natives, run on parallel lines.

The same Regional Council might decide upon whom to place responsi bility for the government of such places as the Solomons and the New Hebrides; and it would, presumably, encourage the largest practicable amount of self-government in the Polynesian countries of Samoa and Tonga. It probably would study the problems created by the rapid growth of introduced Asiatic populations in these Pacific Islands—e.g., Indians in Fiji, Japanese in Hawaii, Chinese in Tahiti.

It is clear that, if the new world authority is to function as now planned, there will be far-reaching changes in the Pacific Territories as soon as the war is over.

Word has been received from Mr. Des- , mond Carew, formerly Magistrate in the Fiji Service, who was taken prisoner when the Japs over-ran Malaya. He stated that he had recently been operated on for appendicitis but was now recovered and feeling better than he ever had in his life. His sister, Miss Maureen Carew, who was nursing in Hong Kong when the island fell, is still a prisoner of war, but continues her work in' the prisoners’ hospital.