Commentary

ipan's New South Seas

o-Prosperity Sphere

REGULAR PIM readers would have noticed the build-up of janese trade interest in the South is in recent years. Hardly a month ;s by when PIM doesn’t report ne new development—minor in it f—in one Islands group or another. the report, page 10, shows the mds picture covers quite a broad ivas. But it’s an even broader one you take into account the big in ase in Japanese trade in both Aus lia and New Zealand, fhus what the Japanese couldn’t in the South Pacific during World ir II they are now on the way to ng by a different method. They building something of a Greater it Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere.

Jefore the Pacific War this would r e been unthinkable and older ders will remember the protests I alarms that always attended the iting of Japanese fishing vessels where in the South Seas and the utation they earned as shell chers from Pacific reefs, apanese investment, concessions, ling, or interests in the area were, those days, looked upon with the atest foreboding. Japan’s sharp aufacturing practices, particularly the branding of goods, were arious and “Made in Japan” was onymous with shoddy, hese days, Japanese fishing know / is welcomed in the very areas ;re Japan’s presence was once thema, to the extent that when country thinks of “development” ;ems to think of “tuna fishery” in same breath. apanese investment, if not exactly :omed by everyone, is tolerated administrations to an extent that ild have been unbelievable in its war context. apanese manufactured goods, at same time, are no longer shoddy lanufacturers there are capable of ing out small and large products compare with the world’s best, some fields—such as transistor

os, cameras and binoculars—they

J the field virtually to themselves. glance at the trading figures of iy South Pacific territories, as set m our survey this month, shows vast change that has come over trading pattern in this area in last five years, and the large portion of it that now belongs to m.

In some cases Japan has usurped the place of other nations; in others she has benefited from the advance ment of the people of the area and created a new market for herself.

Most of this has come about be cause most Pacific countries have accepted the fact that this area is the legitimate trading area of Japan as it is of Australia and New Zealand— that she has to live and we have got to learn to live with her.

Japan, moreover, is a good custo mer as well as a supplier. She is saving the Australian wool industry from depression; she takes Pacific phosphate, copra, cocoa, fish, minerals and other raw materials. It looks as though she is going to give Fiji, Samoa and Tonga an outlet for their bananas which, up to date, could be sold only in limited quantities in New Zealand.

Since Britain’s abortive negotiations to enter the European Common Market began 18 months ago, we have been told repeatedly that Aus tralasia and the South Pacific belongs to the Asian trading sphere and the growing importance of Japan in the area simply gives emphasis to the proposition, Japan is here to stay—mostly be cause she is performing some task no one wants, or is capable of taking on; is risking capital in commercial propositions the rest of us feel to be unattractive or unsafe; is buying produce that others feel they can do without; and selling us goods that, quality for quality, can more than compete with those made by more traditional suppliers.

If this trend continues—and there seems nothing to stop it—Japan must inevitably play a larger and larger part in the affairs of the Pacific. If we believe that this is fair and right, we should do what we are doing now —sit back and just talk about it. If we believe that it would not be a good thing, economically or politic ally, we should think more construc tively on how to meet Japan in fair competition for the Islands markets that are so quickly developing.

PIM believes that the Japanese should never be allowed to develop a trading monopoly in the South Pacific but that is what will happen if European interests continue to do nothing more constructive than com plain. Japan is earning its place in the Pacific while we are losing by default. We will continue to lose un less we recapture some of the 19th century spirit of adventure which in

spired our grandfathers to go out and develop Pacific trading against even greater odds than we face today.

What is Happening

To the South

Pacific Commission?

PREPARATIONS are being made under which Mr. W. D. Forsyth, OBE, a top-level man of the Aus tralian Department of External Affairs, will take over the Secretary- Generalship of the South Pacific Commission next month.

Mr. Forsyth left Sydney on February 1, to spend a couple of weeks in Papua and New Guinea.

He will leave Sydney on the Mari posa, on March 21, for Noumea, and is expected to take charge of the South Pacific Commission organisa tion about March 24. It is under stood that the retiring Secretary- General, Mr. T. R. Smith, will leave Noumea, for Sydney, late March.

Although it was indicated, months ago, that a “review conference” was contemplated, no announcement has been made by any of the Member Governments concerned (Britain, Australia, France, United States and New Zealand) to indicate whether there are to be any changes in the structure or activities of the 15-year old Commission.

The winds of political change are blowing with increasing strength through the South Pacific Islands.

Some attempt should be made, through some international agency, to co-ordinate the policies and plans of the five nations concerned with the future of the Islands Territories. The only such agency in existence is the South Pacific Commission. But, if it is to be used in relation to political development, there must be changes in the 1947 Agreement under which it was constituted.

Other factors demand attention: Is Indonesia to replace Holland on the Commission, now that the Dutch are gone from West New Guinea? Has any provision been made to admit the new, independent country of West Samoa to the Commission? In view of the growing hostility of France to what it believes is an Anglo- American partnership in world affairs, does France wish to remain in the South Pacific Commission? In any event, is it not a fact that the four English-speaking nations in the South Pacific Commission have found their association with France more of an embarrassment than an advantage?

There are plenty of subjects for the attention of an SPC “review con ference”; but no sign, as yet, that such a conference actually is planned.