Future Of Pacific Mandates

Great Decisions Likely at 'Frisco Conference

THERE are four Territories in the Pacific whose future must be affected by the Pacific war. They are Territories held by certain Powers under Mandates from the League of Nations. The League of Nations (see articles on pages 3 and 32 of this issue) is to be replaced by some new International Organisation to be formed at the United Nations Confer ence at San Francisco next month. It follows, therefore, that the Mandate system will be reviewed and, almost certainly, replaced by some other system. The four Territories are: Mandated Territory of New Guinea, administered by Australia.

Mandated Territory of Western Samoa, administered by New Zea land.

Mandated Territory of Caroline, Marshall and Mariana Islands, administered by Japan.

Mandated Territory of Nauru, administered jointly by Britain, Australia and New Zealand.

Since it became clear, late in 1942, that the United Nations could count upon the complete defeat of the Axis Nations, and that decisions made in conference by the United Nations would take the place of any peace conference (such as that at Versailles after World War I) plans have been drawn for some sort of International Organisation. The first steps were taken at Dumbarton Oaks (USA) last

year; the next at the Crimea Confer ence of the Big Three, in February; and the next (and most important) will be decided upon at the San Francisco Conference next month. (See articles on pages 3 and 32.) But, amid all these conferences, nothing official has been said as yet about the future of the League of Nations and of the Mandate system.

On February 18, however, the follow ing letter was published in the New York Times, and we are indebted to the US Office of War Information for the text of it. The letter was signed by the following, and its significance will not be lost upon the many people interested in the future of the Pacific Territories: John W. Davis, Democratic candidate for President in 1924; Huntington Gilchrist, consultant on international affairs to the State Department; Arthur N. Holcombe, chairman of the War Production Board Appeals Board; Emory Ross, executive secretary of the Foreign Missions Conference of North America; James T. Shotwell, chairman of the Commission to study the organi sation of peace; Sumner Welles, former Under-Secre tary of State; Quincy Wright, Professor of Inter national Law at the University of Chicago.

Plea For Continuance Of " Trusteeship"

IN his speech at the dinner of the Foreign Policy Association at the Waldorf Astoria Hotel, on January 19, 1945 (says “New York Times” letter), Colonel Stanley, British Colonial Secre tary, referred to the Mandates system as

representing “the old theory of trustee ship.”

It might be inferred from his address that he favoured abolition of this system.

We believe this is the first public inti mation of such a policy on the part of any of the Mandatory Powers. . . . We hope it will not be considered inappro priate for us to point out the significance of any such development.

The Mandate system, it will be recalled, was set up at the end of the last war for the government of those fourteen depen dent Territories, including Palestine and Tanganyika, and many islands in the Pacific, which were taken away from Turkey and Germany.

It seems pertinent and proper to ask whether we correctly understood Colonel Stanley, and whether he is now perhaps in favour of the annexation of Man dated Territories by the Powers adminis tering them. We also believe it pertinent to ask what is the policy of our own Government, and the Governments of other Powers on this point.

We might add that, in our opinion, Pacific islands formerly Mandated to Japan should not be annexed by the United States but should be governed by this country as trustee for the United Nations. Suitable strategic arrangements should, of course, be assured.

COLONEL STANLEY quite properly out lined the truly remarkable achieve ments of the British Government in the development of its colonies, and pro posed for thejfuture a system of inter national regional advisory boards, like the Anglo-American Caribbean Commission.

We support this proposal, and hope that such Commissions will do much to raise the standards of agriculture, public health, education, etc., in the various re gions concerned.

This system Colonel Stanley calls “partnership.” To us, it supplements rather than supplants the “trusteeship” system of Mandates which the British Government in the past has loyally sup ported, and which, in the opinion of many experts, might well be extended to other dependent Territories.

Abandonment 6f the gains which are inherent in this system might imply a step toward the division of the world into several Great Power zones of exclusive domination. It would weaken the system of international responsibility for dependent peoples which was actually practised between «the wars* The continuance and development of this principle, and its extension to other dependent Territories, especially those to be taken from our enemies at the end of this war, would imply just that much more confidtnce on the part of the United Nations in the success of their new venture.

IT would seem desirable politically (if not necessarily legally) that any fundamental change in the status of the Mandated Territories (including the Pacific islands formerly under Mandate to Japan) should be made only with the consent of that “civilisation” in whose trust they were placed. This would re quire the consent of the League of Nations (and the United States), 1 or of the new United Nations, and not merely a decision by a small coterie of Great Powers of whom mierht be directly interested- in the result.

Nothing on this subject is contained in the Dumbarton Oaks proposals; and, pre sumably, this situation has been given further consideration since that meeting —perhaps at the time of the Crimed Con ference.

It is to be hoped that this important matter will be placed on the agenda of the San Francisco Conference, and that the peoples of the world will be given the opportunity to express their views before any binding decisions are made.

(See comment in article or. page 3)