But They Won't Call The

“ You Say Yes, And I Say No”

But They Won't Call The Whole Thing Off

It might seem surprising that Pacific Governments have to “lobby” to get increased funds for the work of the South Pacific Commission. But they have been lobbying for that lately.

THE San Francisco report on the views of the senior US Com missioner for the SPC, Dean Knowles A. Ryerson (see story at right) merely brings into the open a subject which has already been discussed behind the scenes, and will be for some time yet.

The US is interested in giving more money to the Commission, and is feeling its way among the other five governments. But, as it no doubt expected, it is not finding it easy to be open-handed.

An increase in the US grant would upset the percentages of all the government contributions, or the total ceiling—or both. Whatever happens, the member governments would have to take a closer look at their commitments, and that is not an easy thing to get them to do.

"Canberra Ceiling"

The immediate stumbling block is that the 1957 Canberra Review Con ference decided that a ceiling should be set for three years, and that the total annual contributions from governments should not be higher than this although contributions from new sources, such as Founda tions, would be permissible. That ceiling doesn’t expire until 1960.

It’s too early yet to say just where each Government stands on the matter of continuing the ceil ing after 1960, for firm Government policies would not have been worked out. But at the moment it looks as if Britain is rather hoping to keep the ceiling where it is for the next three years, too. She is not in terested in spending any more money in this part of the world.

The Netherlands likes saving guilders no less than Britain likes her sterling, but the Dutch would not object to the ceiling going up.

Neither would the French. The French attitude seems to be that they will go along with the majority, without complaint.

The most interesting attitude is easily that of Australia, which finds the biggest proportion (30 per cent.) of Government funds. There appears to be an argument going on.

The Department of External Affairs (which among other things

(Continued on page 150)

administers Australia’s contributions to Asia under the Colombo Plan) says Australia should give more to the SPC; the Department of Territories says she shouldn’t.

The way the Territories Depart ment looks at it, Papua-New Guinea —the main Australian territory re quiring aid —already has plenty of its own, and Australia doesn’t have to spend more money to get the SPC to help it.

No doubt the Americans will hope that the Territories Department’s opinions won’t prevail.

SIR ALAN BURNS, GCMG, former British Colonial Governor, and (1947-19561 Britain’s representative on Trusteeship Council, United Nations.

PROFESSOR A. T. PEACOCK, Professor oi Economics at University of Edinburgh.

MR. T. Y. WATSON, CMG, a former Agri culture Officer in Uganda and Kenya and now retired.

Secretary Op Commission: Mr. R. Cl

G. Strick, formerly District Officer at Ra.

Fiji.

The Commission’s terms of refer ence provide that they are “to ex amine the surveys of the Colony’s natural resources and population trends and, having regard to the need to ensure the maintenance of a good standard of living for all sections of the community, to recom mend how the development of the Colony and its resources should pro ceed”.

A special meeting of the Council of Chiefs (the body which directs and, to a degree, controls Fijian native administration, under the Government) was held in Suva late in May, to consider and prepare material for presentation to the Burns Commission.

Material also has been prepared by representative groups of Indians, and by leading members of the European community.

Up to May 28, the Secretary of the Commission, in Suva, had re ceived representations from 96 in dividual Fijians, 50 Indians and 2fi Europeans. Naturally, there is a wide diversity of opinion about the future political and economic de velopment of the country.