And What Are We Here For?

Research Council Leader Makes Some Pertinent Points For S. Pacific Commission

The purpose, the policy and the hopes of the new South Pacific Commission were discussed in a scholarly and very notable address by the Deputy Chairman of the Commission’s Research Council (Dr. L. G. M.

Baas Becking), when he opened the Council’s sessions in Noumea on April 30. The following is the text of the address, complete except for some unimportant omissions.

WE are here as the wards, the trustees, and the partners of the indigenous population.

We have been working in the tropics, according to our lights, for 300 years now.

We have played our role in the emancipa tion of the native population. This role has been ill-defined, for the conception of our task has been partly dependent up on Government policies and partly deter mined by our own convictions.

But, to-day, we fortunately meet on the common ground of the technical aspect of this problem. Our role has been defined as relating to the economic development, social development and hygiene of the area.

We welcome you here as experts in many fields, and we sincerely hope that our efforts will result in the initiation of various projects which will strengthen co operation in promoting the economic and social welfare and advancement of the peoples in this region.

THE small group of four, the full-time members of the Research Council, which I represent here, have met in the last three months a number of organ isations, specialists, administrations and average citizens, native and European. We have heard about a great number of plans, policies and wishes. We have re ceived a great many projects to be put before this Council. Often we had to re member our own personal background, acquired during our previous sojourn in this area or in the tropics. Often, when our a priori ideas threatened to hamper us we had to forget them. We had to try to find a communis opinio, the largest common denominator, in an ocean of opinions.

With your help we will consider the proposals made to us, and together we will prepare a report to the Commission.

And it is .up to this meeting to decide whether, as often happens (as in many more august senates), it will only con sume cellulose and produce carbon di oxide, or whether we shall put our ideas into operation.

Our ideal must be to help you in your work, not to burden the workers in the field with more than you already carry.

We are in no way inclined, on the other hand, to take over existing duties or ser vices that rightfully belong to the existing administrations. We should strive to pro pose plans that bind the area together, plans to combat provincialism and isola tion. v We should leave the controversial topics to others, and remember that our role lies outside the realm of politics. If, however, social injustice or other misery exists, we should not shirk our duty, as an advisory body, to warn, our Commis sioners.

We are all aware of our lack of means, in “books, bricks and brains,” in materials, in buildings and technical personnel. We are here first to make the “halt lead the blind,” but we are here also to cure the paralysis and the blindness of both these patients.

WE are something more than a co ordinating body, created to act like the old encyclopedist, to gather all the data on the region and to publish it

in heavy tomes. We are here to prepare for speedy action. It is our opinion mat at the present time the theoretical and the academic have to yield place to the practical. We must be guided by the master mind of Pasteur; “La Science n’a jamais plus de grandeur que dans ses ap plications bienfaisantes.” When a house is on fire it seems foolish to repair a telephone or to varnish a floor.

Still, the fact that we are scientists here together, men that, speak a common lan guage as an expression of common mental

tenets, is of inestimable advantage to our work. Any practical measures proposed will carry with them scientific implica tions. And their consequences should be investigated when our first campaign is over.

The only fear, if fear it be called, is that our work may suffer from the wiles and whims of territorial governments. It would be deplorable, indeed, if projects were to be left half-finished, like broken promises, like friendships forgotten. This has been the tragedy of tropical govern ments; the flower to-day in bloom often fades to-morrow. And this has been clearly recognised by the natives them selves.

We have been deeply impressed by the great trust placed in us. All over the region people expect us to do things; and there will be no excuse if we betray this trust. . . .

IN the course of conversations with vil lage chiefs, teachers, publicans, labourers and scientists, in discussions with administrations and in the proposals made by the Commission and to the Com mission, one catch-phrase seems to stick in my mind, “the impact of Western civilisation.”

This term describes only very imper fectly the actual influence of black birders, sailors, traders, planters, Govern ment officials, teachers, missionaries, and last, but not least, the American garri sons in the period 1942-46. Obviously these influences have drawn native com munities hither and thither, have often disrupted them or decimated their popu lation. But above all these influences, both destructive and constructive, there has been the changing policy of those who governed, and later developed into administrations.

In the exploratory phase, from the late

Seventeenth to the end of the Eighteenth Century, the original idea of those govern ing was much the same as that expressed at the birth of the pre-war French co lonial policy as “la mission civilisatrice.”

Not only the missionaries, but nearly everyone concerned, seemed convinced that it was our duty to impose the Wes tern mode of thinking, of life and of be haviour upon the ignorant native.

Prior to, and during the French Revo lution, the attitude changed, although the influence of Jean-Jacques Rousseau and his admiration of “natural man” has per haps been over-estimated. It was now thought that Freedom, Equality and Fra ternity should embrace the whole human race. But, unfortunately for the emotion alists, the post-Napoleonic period was in this region, one of exploitation, during which even exploration remained in the background.

Later in the Nineteenth Century the pendulum swung back to the idea of “la mission civilisatrice,” and our role in the non-self-governing areas of the world is still by many interpreted as such.

However, the Twentieth Century brought a renewed feeling of guilt and impotence to the white races. These feel ings, as interpreted by such historian philosophers as Spengler and Ortega y Gasset caused, in many respects, a revival of what could be called “Rousseauism.”

A common ground for the “civilisers” and the “conservators” may be found in those aspects of Western civilisation that are to be considered beneficial. For no intelligent person to-day would seriously suggest forcing a Western mode of living upon the native races of the Pacific. But it is equally true that nobody would sug gest, on the other hand, preserving the native races in the Neolithic Age forever.

The tenets of the period of exploitation, which is not yet over, were simple. Eco

nomic motives came to be the chief guid ing star of human existence. The gathering of goods, the increase in wants (often artificially induced), the effort to increase production as well as population were, and are still considered by many, part of an inescapable necessity. Others (without always adhering to the theory of “paradise islands”) urge that the facts have disproved the primary importance of economic laws.

(Continued next page)

BUT, while economic factors play a role in any socium, the happiness of man depends upon non-economic factors as well.

Culture cannot be transplanted, for its roots are too deep in history. Civilisation is the material expression of culture. We have therefore to ask ourselves: which are the elements of Western civilisation that can be grafted upon existing local culture in order that the happiness of the natives may be promoted? This may be the modern version of the new super annuated “mission civilisatrice.”

Freedom is the general goal to which all Governments are striving. Only too often this word is interpreted as only political freedom. In order to be free, man should be able to control his en vironment; and his relations with other human beings are only part of his en vironment.

One most difficult freedom must be at tained; freedom from sickness. It is clear

that all of us agree to this at least. In order to obtain this freedom all forces in the socium have to collaborate. For it is not only a matter of hygiene and medicine. Improvement of native diet is a primary factor. But this cannot be at tained without improvement of horticul tural crops, by fisheries, by the raising of stock. It implies also improved housing, 'drainage, sewerage-disposal and, most of all, it implies education. In order to im plement all this the community should, preferably by means of co-operatives, con tribute to world economy, lest it become a benevolent society paid for by far-off governments.

There are countries which may be des cribed as economically “extrovert.” By this I mean a country like New Zealand, that contributes to world trade, import and export added, £l4O per capita per an num, Other countries are economically “introvert,” like India, Indonesia, and China, where the per capita contribution

might be lower than £l. We should not hastily assume that this goes with “back wardness.” Self-sufficiency, a form of in troversion, also enters into the picture.

A settler, or an autochthonous farmer, may reach a degree of self-sufficiency either on his farm or in its immediate vicinity that enables him to turn his back on the external turmoil. He boils his own soap, he tans his leather, bakes his bread, fells his trees, raises crops and stock. The women weave and the pottery wheel turns in the shed. Maybe there is no better life.

And so, in many cases, we are inclined to leave the self-sufficient people alone.

A wealthy brotherhood of nations may well afford it. An impoverished world, however, will continue to look askance at these secluded paradises. To them, in creased production to satisfy world de mand is a prime necessity for the con tinuance of the human race.

WE meet with many self-contained tribes and villages and individuals in our region. We want labour to increase trade: they stand apathetically by, then silently return to their villages.

They are not interested. If we educate these people (if “educate” be the right word) the fear of labour may possess them. This is an international fear which makes men all over the world look upon labour as a nasty ritual only intended to provide them with wages. We have dragged the people from their little gar dens, where they worked with love and pride, in order to throw them into the Babel of our own restlessness.

While there is no solution, I cannot help thinking about these things.

If we must disturb the self-sufficiency of this region, the least harmful way may be by means of co-operatives. The co operatives, fortunately, can be grafted in most cases upon local culture. It is only in New Guinea, with its multiplicity of languages, that the graft will have diffi culty in growing on the wildling scion.

WHEN we centre our attention on the improvement in health, it appears, therefore, that both economic and sociological development is involved. In analysing the problem into factors we find that it is necessary to: (1) Further native co-operatives and the raising of export products, the benefit from the trade reverting partly to the co-operative and partly to the administration., (2) Further education. (3) Further the development of native horticulture, agriculture, fisheries and stock-raising.

And in order to assure the future of the community, an administrative policy of: (4) Planned land utilisation and hydrological reserves. Measures against burning, fallowing, clean felling, over-grazing and other dissipatory practices should be implemented.

The above, however, is by no means all that is necessary to assure the future of a country.

The more successful a Government is in its health programme and in the im provement of economic efficiency, the more the population will increase. And on this point I fully subscribe to the opinion of Warren Thompson, (Popula tion and Peace in the Pacific, 1945): “. . . to reduce the birthrate is in con trast with primary colonial aims; cheap labour to produce cheap raw materials. . . .” and further, because in this area these materials are chiefly agricultural, we may quote again; . . areas which are primarily agri cultural and produce chiefly raw

(Continued on Page 55)

materials have never been able to trade on reasonably just terms with more developed industrial areas, even within national boundaries. . . .”

As long as our region is going to de pend almost entirely on the export of copra alone, it will be very difficult to materially raise the standard of living.

If we were to write down a sequence of “economic density” both in relation to land-usage and possible population, it would run as follows: (1) Stockraising—many acres needed to support one family. (2) Agriculture—fewer acres needed to support one family, (2) Horticulture —one acre may sup port one family. (4) Industry—one acre may support several families.

If we want increased population as well as increased prosperity, industries have to be developed. Industries, in the first instance, centred about that most abun dant economic plant, the cocos palm. In that case finished products will be ex ported instead of raw materials. Agricul ture, horticulture, fisheries —all would be come a background for industry.

Apart from “das Dritte Reich,” no country ever developed a consistent popu lation policy. But the extermination of undesirables and genocide were its results, which made such a policy rather unpopu lar.

Still, the question remains: are we going to be able, in spite of migration and in dustrisalisation, to take care of the in creasing population which automatically follows any benevolent measure? % Here I shall again have recourse to Warren Thompson and quote: “. . . Only an international organisa tion which is first and foremost in terested in colonies as a part of the world organisation can be expected to encourage the control of population growth in the interest of higher levels of living among these colonial people ”

This, again, requires education.

N EDUCATION has the attention of every Government. Education is, however, often thought of as a post-Napo leonic system of a sequence of the “three R’s,” then secondary education, culminat ing in a university. And the sub-conscious adherence to this (to us, Europeans, self evident) system has often wrought havoc in the minds of natives—more than any where else the dictum “a little wisdom is a dangerous thing” applies here.

The recognised system is such that there can be no “half-way houses.” Primary education is not an end in itself. It creates thirst instead of quenching it; it makes half (or less than half) educated creatures, that merely assume some of the outward trappings of Western “white collar” workers. It gives a young man just enough to make him at war with the world.

The newly educated does not want to follow the royal road. He wants to sit behind a long-coveted desk and look im portant. He has not learned that educa tion is the creation of an inner receptivity for the assimilation of ideas. To him it is only means to an end, and that end is only too often hot to lead his people but to feel superior to them. Leadership should be based upon achievement, and a practical leader should have mastered the fundamentals of hygiene, house-build ing, and horticulture. . . .

The wider aim of Fundamental Educa tion has now been defined. It is to

help men and women to live fuller lives in adjustment with their changing en vironment, to develop the best elements of their own culture, and to achieve the economic and social progress which will enable them to take their place in the world. Fundamental Education should thus be designed to provide a first step to further education.

While universal literacy may be a de sirable ideal, the teaching of reading and writing is not only, or even always the most immediate, purpose of Fundamental Education. . , , AS I said in the beginning, the division of our activities into three groups is rather artificial. If we want to syn thesize, the question may be put: “What shall be our role in these regions?”

The tendency nowadays is gradually to liquidate ourselves and our influence.

Some of the nations represented here have over three centuries of experience in the tropics. To those of us who have been interested in these questions for genera tions a farewell to the tropics would be unthinkable.

Our own mind is not made up. The pendulum is swinging slowly from one ex treme to the other, and only the future historian will be able to determine the period and the amplitude of this move ment. Let us hope that we will enter into a close partnership with the inhabitants.

There is Governmental and there is private enterprise. The former may be come over-organised and impractical; the latter may become odious when it is out only “to buy cheap and to sell dear.” But Government has been learning a lot from business, and officialdom, fortunately, is in many places efficiently organised.

Private enterprise, when it also assumes proper care for its personnel and when it adequately recognises its social task, may be a boon to the community. Govern ment enterprise and private enterprise should meet on common ground: the well-being of the land, so that happy people may dwell thereon.

In the Senates, in Governments and, to a lesser degree, in administrations, prob lems do not loom so large as at the peri phery, where the work has to be done.

It would be lovely to write a report, let us say on land-spoliation, in Washing ton, in London or in Paris. It would not be so lovely if we had to write a report here. It would be more difficult to write it in a territory.

But let us not write reports. Let us go to places where the actual misery exists.

For most of us have come to the tropics, not to further our own interests, but to be of real service to the community. As the French poet, Paul Verlaine, has said: “Je voudrais voir le monde en fete.”