"Anti" Attitudes

Letter to the Editor "Anti" Attitudes At The SP Conference

• Some of the views expressed by “PIM” on the Fiji delegation to the recent South Pacific Conference in Rabaul are the subject of this letter from Mr. H. B. Gibson, MLC, of Labasa, Fiji. Mr. Gibson, a solicitor, was leader of the Fiji delegation to the Conference.

SIR— The article in the Fiji Times by Mr. Stuart Inder brought forward the comment, “The indigenous people certainly resented a European chairman at the South Pacific Conference”.

Mr. Inder stayed only five days at the Conference. I do not know if his article was intended to create the impression which it has.

I only know that when Mr. Inder left Rabaul his words would fully interpret the feelings I then had.

Certainly I would then have agreed, with the May issue of the Pacific Islands Monthly that Fiji did not need a European delegate.

The May issue has, however, brought forward the peculiar re action, “so Europeans are not to be beneficiaries of the South Pacific Commission”.

Of course, anything which was printed in the May issue of the Pacific Islands Monthly must like wise have been only an impression gathered in the early days of the Conference, because that issue went to press when the Conference had just begun.

When Mr. Inder left Rabaul I studied the origin and constitution of the South Pacific Commission to see if there was any bar to a European or part-European Terri torian participating in its benefits or activities, and found that there was not. Thus I stayed with the Economic Committee, determined to press forward with the matters in which I had great interest — namely tourism, fisheries, the biological control of the Rhinoceros Beetle, and a determination either to end the Commission or recom mend to the contributing Govern ments that they give it sufficient money for its proper functioning.

Was "Still Annoyed"

I think I was successful. Reuter confirms that the initiative in the matter of recommending better contributions to the work of the Commission came from the Fiji delegation.

I was still annoyed at the ineptitude of the Executive of the Commission in having divided the Conference into two Committees,

when the only Rules of Procedure it had were designed for one Committee of the whole Conference but I was fortunate to have the advice of the Hon. Semesa Sikivou, who assured me he could find no anti-European feelings amongst the other delegates, and thus we got to know one another better despite the fact that (through the kindness of the Senior United Kingdom delegate, Mr. Reid Cowell), I was living at the Ascot Hotel, and not at the Malaguna Technical School.

After two weeks we came to the Second Plenary Session, and a lengthy recommendation was tabled from which I quote only the following words: “The exchange amongst Territories of indigenous on-thepot technicians”.

I moved for the deletion of the word “indigenous”, and in support said: “Someone may think I have a chip on my shoulder about this word ‘indigenous’. I assure everyone I will leave this Conference with le warmest feelings towards every one, especially the ‘indigenous’ people.

“However, last night the dis tinguished delegate from New Guinea, Mr. George Kassi, introduced me to his wife as ‘the adviser to the Fiji delegation’.

“After I had explained how I as a delegate like himself, I warned that the delegate who, on the first day of this Conference, had appeared to say through an interpreter that he thought the holder of a certain high office should be an ‘indigenous person’, had really intended to say that he did not think a chairman of a Committee should be an adviser,”

I must here explain that few delegations sent a European, and tgat all the delgations (except the French and the Fijians) did have a European adviser and he, at the beginning, did most of their talking, although he could not himself vote.

This amendment was lost by 14 to 18, but the joy to me lies in the it that the amendment was onded by my fellow “indigenous” delegate. And the whole New Guinea-Papua delegation (including the man who had appeared to that he thought the chairman would be “indigenous”) voted with

"Eventually Enjoyed It"

eventually enjoyed the Fourth ith Pacific Conference and grew •espect even the Senior Executive ces whose sincerity and de on to a great ideal must be ured.

The Conference is worth having every three years because it brings together all the peoples of the South Pacific who have a love for locracy, for freedom of thought

and for absolute freedom to express their thoughts.

In our interview with the Fiji Broadcasting Commission (which was broadcast yesterday) Semesa made some interesting observations on the role of advisers which give deep food for thought, but these presents are written only to assert that anyone who has gathered from your articles the impressions I have mentioned above is wrong, and that there cannot and will not be any opposition to any delegation to the Fifth South Pacific Conference in cluding a European.

Yours, etc.,

Labasa, Fiji.

H. B. Gibson.

• Neither in his report in the

Fiji Times or May PIM did Stuart Inder say the indigenous people "resented" a European. He said "moves against the Europeans have not been made with any idea of antagonism, but rather in the spirit which says, firmly 'Now look you'll understand that this is our show, and we really are ready to take it over. So you don’t mind shoving off like good fellows, do you?’"

Inder spent a week at the Conference during a three weeks’ visit to New Guinea, but his report was not published, nor was PIM published, until the Conference had concluded. If Mr. Gibson is suggest ing that on second thoughts PIM's report would have taken a different view, we can assure him he is wrong. —PIM Editors.