Trusteeship Council

The Ewes, the Samoans, and the Trusteeship Council

IF Sir Carl Berendsen was correctly reported, Sir Carl hoisted himself high on the petard of his own logic, when he returned recently to Wel lington, NZ.

Sir Carl is a distinguished New Zealander—probably, in the realm of public affairs, one of the brainiest men the Dominion has produced in a quarter-century. But he is not an elected man—he started life as a public servant, and is now a kind of super-bureaucrat. Gentlemen of statesmanlike stature seldom reach Parliamentary rank nowadays, any way—that being the measure of the deterioration of the ballot-box system.

Sir Carl has been NZ’s represen tative at various United Nations conferences, and he came back with some hopeful things to say about the future of the United Nations. (His intelligence should not be judged by that. All returning delegates are expected to say such things, although the United Nations structure, be cause it lacks its first essential, unity, is plainly disintegrating before our eyes.) Especially did he praise the work of the Trusteeship Council, and what it had accomplished in re lation to Western Samoa.

Then, to show the problems con fronting the Trusteeship Council, Sir Carl mentioned the Ewe people of

Togoland, Africa, who, he said, by a historical accident, had for many years been divided among three territories, although they belonged to the same tribe and had the same tradition of unity. However, Britain and France were now trying to find a way of uniting the Ewes. (Both Britain and France, it appears, possess a share of Ewe territory.) WE find ourselves, in great surprise, directing the attention of Sir Carl Berendsen to the Territory of Eastern (or American) Samoa —surprise, because we were under the impression that Sir Carl, in his more humble and less titled years, had a good deal to do with the adminis tration of the (then) Mandated Terri tory of Western Samoa. It is reason able to suppose that Sir Carl is aware of the existence of Eastern Samoa— maybe, he has even made a call there.

Back in the bad old days of peace, prosperity and progress, when In dividualism and Power Politics ran international affairs, and freaks like Red New Planners had the inevitable tin-can tied to their tails—some 60 years ago—Britain, Germany and America were squabbling over their respective interests in the Samoan archipelago. Finally, in 1899, they settled matters thus: Western Samoa

was allotted to Germany; Eastern Samoa, with its exceedingly useful land-locked harbour at Pago Pago, was handed over to America; and Britain, on condition that Germany withdrew her claims in respect of Vavau (Tonga), Niue (Cook Islands) and all the Solomon Islands south east of Bougainville, withdrew en tirely from Samoa. Fifteen years later, in 1914, the British, in the persons of the New Zealanders, dis placed Germany in Western Samoa.

Ever since, the native inhabitants of the Territories of Western and Eastern Samoa, although one people in character, colour, language, history and tradition, have been separated as completely as the unhappy Ewes of Togoland. Probably, the Samoans have a better case than the Ewes for national unity. We know nothing about the Ewes; but of the Samoans we can say that they are a superior type of Polynesians, and the Poly nesians—as demonstrated by the people of Tonga, and the Maoris of New Zealand—are capable of assum ing a large and increasing measure of self-government.

TO unbiased observers, the predica ment and embarrassment of certain UNO planners in relation to the Samoan archipelago is quite funny. The spokesmen of both the United States and of New Zealand are sincere when they declare that their respective countries are banner bearers in the campaign for human liberty, racial freedom, national unity, and so forth—the history of both the

big and the little nation is full of examples to prove it.

But neither United States nor New Zealand will even discuss the subject of Samoan unity, although, in all the world, there probably is no clearer example of a people being held in two completely separated communities by Power Politics.

America, of course, is not going to abandon its hold on Eastern Samoa— first, because of the excellence of Pago Pago harbour, and second, because possession of Eastern Samoa gives America a position of great strategical value in the very centre of the South Pacific—and America has no other base anywhere in the Pacific south of the equator. The Americans salve their consciences by giving to the 14,000 natives of Eastern Samoa a very excellent Administration.

New Zealand has indicated her readiness to withdraw from Western Samoa, if and when the Western Samoans are capable of self-govern ment. The Samoans are very capable people; but the main argument against NZ’s withdrawal is that the 65,000 natives in Western Samoa, in stead of forming a Government on Western European lines, probably would be split up among two or three rival kings, and start fighting in the manner that caused so much trouble half a century ago.

IN history, geography, politics or commerce there are few if any reasons why New Zealand should have supreme power over Western Samoa. There are some good reasons why the responsibility should be assumed by the British Colonial Office or the United States, which have far greater facilities and resources in this kind of colonial administration. How ever, New Zealand is extremely jealous of her authority in Western Samoa; and the present set-up is as good as any, while Samoans remain d'vided.

As Uncle Sam is now the Policeman of the Pacific, and therefore should have at least a toe-hold south of the equator, it probably is in the best interests of everyone that Eastern Samoa should remain under the Stars and Stripes. But, while the Samoans are thus separated, Trusteeship Council spokesmen should not talk hastily about the unhappy Ewes.

Anyway, what is wrong with the idea of leaving Eastern Samoa per manently under United States pro tection, and uniting Eastern and Western Samoa by placing Western Samoa also under the American flag?