Some Sidelights on Trusteeship
pp. 41-42 · Read in the full issue
What Our Pacific Territories Have to Endure
A CONSIDERABLE section of !i the Europeans in New Guinea did not conceal their animosity •wards the Trusteeship system, ruder which New Guinea is gov :-ned by Australia, said Mr. Enrique s Marchena, of the Dominican Re rablic, in a discussion at the irusteeship Council of the United tations in New York, on July 2.
Ir. de Marchena was a member of ne delegation from the Trusteeship nuncil which visited Micronesia, lauru, New Guinea and Western amoa in April and May.
Mr. de Marchena said that he ad encountered this sentiment also i Australia and, as further evid uce, he quoted statements he had ?en in the Pacific Islands Monthly.
The English member of the dele tion, Mr. W. A. C. Mathieson, lallenged Mr. de Marchena’s pre sntation of the position. He denied lat many Europeans shared those .ews. According to the Australian ssociated Press, Mr. Mathieson >aid it was not entirely fair to jrtray the Pacific Islands Monthly > the mouthpiece of thinking eople in Australia or giving the ews of the European people in the rust Territory.”
(Editorial Note: In Due
•urse, we may receive a fuller re >rt of the discussion, and have •mething to say directly to Mr. iathieson. In the meantime we can sure Mr. Mathieson that 90 per :nt of the people who know any ling about New Guinea conditions and especially the people who live New Guinea —regard the trustee dp Council control of New Guinea ith derision and dislike.) N June, a small party of members of the Australian Parliament visited New Guinea. On return g, one of them—Mr. H. S. Rober n—e xpressed the forthright dnion that United Nations control r er New Guinea was quite un stified and that, in the interests development, and of native wel re, the Territory should be an ixed by Australia. That was an mest opinion, reflecting the views practically all Europeans in New jinea who are free to express emselves.
The important point, of course, is at there is no worth-while future r New Guinea unless private terprise is encouraged to go in d make use of the land, and de lop the great Territory’s un tiited natural resources. Mr. •berton pointed out that this nnot be done under the present stem—even although Australia is ending over £6,000,000 per annum the country because under usteeship there is no security, her in land tenures or in relation future control.
But, within 24 hours, three other members of the Australian Parlia mentary Party—all Socialists —had rushed into print with a united howl against Mr. Roberton. They, of course, supported UNO; con demned any thought of annexation, and the “shocking” suggestion that the land of the natives should be taken from them; referred to the “Fuzzy-wuzzy angels”: and solemnly warned that New Guinea might be come another Malaya or a Mau Mau area—the sort of cliches we have had, ad nauseum, ever since
the Eddie Ward regime, from this type of political sociologist.
The issue is quite simple. New Guinea cannot be effectively de veloped under the present set-up.
Apart from anything else, Aus tralian taxpayers will not continue indefinitely to provide £6 or £7 millions annually for financing socio-anthropological dreams. If Australia does not develop New Guinea effectively, New Guinea in the very nature of things—will be taken over and developed by Asiatics, who will not concern them selves much about native welfare.
WE do not know who Mr.
Mathieson is, or with what authority he speaks. Probably, he is one of that very numerous tribe of politico-sociological theorists who cluster around the United Nations building like bees around a honey-pot, and who have become one of the most embarrassing headaches of this chaotic post-war world.
The value of his conclusions may be seen in another Trusteeship Council debate, wherein (it is re ported) Mr. Mathieson (Britain)' and Mr. Pignon (France) ' un-; equivocally condemned the use 6f !
Pidgin in New Guinea and “urged that every effort be made to replace Pidgin English by English in all in struction in New Guinea.”
Although the NG Administration went to endless trouble and expense in April to show the well-fed and highly decorative Trusteeship Coun cil delegation all over New Guinea, the delegates seem to have learned very little. If they had been only, partially alert, they would have dis covered that use or non-use of Pidgin probably is the Territory’s Number One administrative problem, and the keenest men in the services there have been seeking the solu tion for a long time. They would most willingly discard Pidgin, if they could. But what can they do: to effect reforms in this direction,; when (a) There are scores of different languages among the Territory’s U million people; (b) New Guinea has not even reached the stage where it can supply enough English-speaking youths to be trained as teachers of village schools: (c) Meanwhile, nearly all com munication between Europeans and mtives, in the spheres of adminis tration, commerce and industry, is necessarily carried on in Pidgin, which is so easily learned by all classes, including the illiterate natives, and the literate and semi literate Europeans.
If Messrs Pignon and Mathieson had made some really practical sug gestions, as to how multi-tongued New Guinea can quickly and effec tively change over to simple Eng lish, as its common tongue, they really would have helped.