Why South Pacific Commission

Should Be Given a New Status

rHE political future of the South Pacific Islands is a matter of supreme importance not only o Australia and New Zealand, but o all the countries which are cashed by the Pacific Ocean. The :onditions which rule in the count ess islands which stretch across en thousand miles, from Indonesia o French Oceania, will necessarily iffect the life of the people in Australia, North America and South America.

Theoretically, that position al ways has been recognised. To-day. )wing to the extraordinarily rapid iwakening of Asia to national con sciousness, and the domination of he continent by the Muscovite leds, it is a practical proposition hat may not 'be for one moment gnored. If the Asiatics can, the Asiatics surely will occupy all the lands.

The Pacific Islands are under he dominion of the Western 3 owers. That control is exercised hrough the Governments of United states, France. Holland, and the British group (Britain, Australia ind New Zealand). So far as uture administration and develop nent are planned to resist aggres lion and maintain security, there s no evidence of a common policy.

Phe various Territories remain, as hey were in Victoria’s day, the ad ninistrative chattels of the parti ular Ministers in power, for the ime being, in Lond'on, Paris, The iague, Canberra, Wellington and

(if we are to include the North Pacific groups) Washington.

That is not a good thing.

Whether we like it or not, the era of pure “colonialism” is past. Con siderations of defence and pelf preservation call for something more —for international planning, THERE is only one place where the representatives of the six Western Powers sit at the one table, to deal exclusively with Pacific Islands affairs; and that is at the headquarters in Noumea of the recently-created South Pacific Commission. But, so far, the SPC has been a quasi-scientific body, without any administrative author ity. The very idea of considering, at SPC sessions, the political future of the Islands has been dismissed with a shudder.

If the SPC is going to be of any real use, in relation to the future of the Pacific Islands, and the nations which surround the Pacific, the authority and status of the SPC must be considered a little more seriously by the six member-coun tries.

Plenty of talent, and money, were made available for the establishment of the SPC; the job of creation and organisation has been very well done; the eminent men of the Re search Council entered into their work with enthusiasm and vision; plans and recommendations of great value have gone from the Council to the Commission; but

there is a painful lack of evidence that the m’ember-Governments are much interested in what the SPC is doing, and trying to do. On the other hand, there is some little evidence that some of the people associated with the SPC have be come disheartened, and are losing interest.

BECAUSE Australia has the biggest stake in the South Pacific Islands, and in the SPC, Australia is the worst sinner.

Except for the appointment of that organising genius, Secretary- General W. D. Forsyth (who now is gone) Australia’s contribution in personnel to the SPC has been un impressive. Even if the present set-up remains, and the status and authority of the SPC are not in creased, the SPC will not achieve maximum usefulness unless Aus tralia realises that its Commis sioners should include at least one man of statesmanlike vision and drive.

This is not to be regarded as an offensive reflection upon that doughty old Departmental war horse, Mr. Reg Halligan. If the chief qualification for SPC control is bureaucratic knowledge and ex perience, there is no one better suited than Australia’s present senior Commissioner. But if the SPC is to serve South Pacific needs in the most effective way, its activi ties must be planned against a realistic background of interna tional affairs. That is a job for statesmen, and not for the men trained in Departmentalism and

(Death of W. H. Carpenter, p. 113)

Bureaucracy, no matter how ex cellent their records.

THE future of the Pacific Islands lies mostly in the hands of Britain, France. Australia and New Zealand —Dutch interests are small, although American interests, through Micronesia, now are sub stantially increased. There should not be the slightest difficulty about the British, French and Americans making common cause in planning the political future of the Islands, just as they now are doing in relation to Southeast Asia.

If SPC discussions could be lifted to Ministerial levels, the SPC table in Noumea could become the Wes tern nations’ clearing-house for all diplomatic problems affecting the Islands’ future and not reserved only for matters affecting native welfare.

The health, education and living standards of the natives are im portant; but the natives will have neither health, education nor better living standards if Red Asia falls in on top of them; and that con sideration should affect all our thinking and planning, just now.

The SPC is doing a helpful job— although probably spending too

much money on non-essentials. The SPC could, with so little adjust ment, do a job of greater useful ness, and of immensely more im portance to the future of the South Pacific.

For example, why should not the six nations which rule the Pacific Islands not evolve a common policy in relation to the Indonesian claim to Western New Guinea, which vitally affects all of us? Why leave the Dutch New Guinea problem to be kicked around the Chancelleries of half a dozen Capitals, while the Northwest Pacific deteriorates?