Pressure I[?]

Fiji Under

The Un

Britain in December gave furthS deails about its plans to arrange ' constitutional conference in Londt\ to hammer out a plan for politics progress in Fiji.

THE details were given to the IX General Assembly, which pq Britain under pressure to “transfi power in Fiji’. It was the second tinn in 1963 that the UN had taken s interest in Fiji’s politics, and for tIJ second time Britain—and Fiji—maoi it clear that the interest wasn’t appn ciated.

The General Assembly voted 78-1 with 21 abstentions, on a motion thd Britain “take immediate steps i transfer all power to the people » Fiji”.

The British delegate at the UniteJ Nations, Mr. Cecil King, told tHJ Assembly before the vote that it w;\ Britain’s policy to fulfil in Fiji “tHJ obligation laid down by the Unit©] Nations charter”. But the people « Fiji had made it plain that indepeis dence was not at present the issu« for them.

Mr. King continued: “Since the United Nations Commiii tee on Colonialism adopted its resolvl tion on Fiji [last July] the Britisi Government has proposed the coic vening of a conference in the neis 12 months or so to work out the ne'e constitutional framework which wih preserve a continuing link with Britain and within which further prcr gress can be made in the directioo of internal self-government.

“This conference will considol whatever aspects of Fiji’s constitutioo the people of Fiji wish to discuss, ini eluding the question of the franchisi and the composition and membershiii of the Legislative and Executiwi Councils.

“In view of my Government’s del cision to convene this conferences my delegation will abstain on thd draft resolution submitted here.

“However, this abstention shoulli not be taken to mean that my Gove eminent is committed to any parti cular constitutional solution for Fiji —it will be for the repesentatives od the people of Fiji themselves to deaf cide this in consultation with thd British Government.

“It is precisely for this purpose thasi the conference is being convened.”

In Suva the Fiji Government madd

short statement on the UN resolu n: “Abstention from voting does not iresent acceptance of the resolution t expressed Britain’s rejection of ; claim that the United Nations has y right to interfere in Fiji’s affairs this way.

“This resolution is no more bind ; on Britain than the resolution ssed about Fiji by the United itions Committee on Colonialism t July.”

Earlier Resolution [The July resolution of the UN mmittee affirmed the right of the jian people to self-determination d national independence and in ed Britain to work out with the ople of Fiji a new constitution ividing for elections on the prin »le of “one man, one vote”.

It asked Britain to take immediate ps to transfer all power to the ople of Fiji “in accordance with nr freely expressed will and desire d without any conditions or reser tions”.

Four of the six Fijian members of i Legislative Council issued a pub statement in July saying that the V Committee on Colonialism lould not interfere in our affairs less we, the people of this country, sk its assistance through our knowledged leaders”.

The four European elected mem rs of the council all agreed that ii and Britain could be left alone work out the best system for the )lony.

All the Indian members of the uncil remained silent.] In Suva in December all the un icial members of the Legislative Hindi, meeting the day after the V resolution became public pro rty in Fiji, held a meeting, and reed that constitutional change was matter of domestic concern to Fiji d the UK Government.

The unofficial members decided to :ommend to the Government that

the “Member System” be introduced in the first half of 1964.

Their statement read “ They (the unofficial members) welcome the statement of the British delegate to the United Nations that it will be for the people of Fiji, through their representatives, to de cide the pattern of constitutional de velopment in consultation with the British Government.

“Informal discussions on constitu tional matters have been held since August this year. As a result the un official members have unanimously decided to recommend to the Govern ment that a “Member System” should

be introduced in the first half of 1964.

“It is expected that the recommen dation will be debated early in the New Year. Plans are also being made for the continuation of discussions among unofficial members as a pre liminary to the London conference proposed by the Secretary of State for 1964 or 1965.”

The unofficial members held their meeting behind closed doors. When it came to signing the statement to be issued four of them refused to append their signatures.

These were the loosely-styled Fed eration members, three of them elected, Messrs. A. D. Patel, S. M.

Koya and J. Madhavan, and one nominated member, Mr. C. A. Shah.

All are Fiji-Indians.

The attitude of these men is not regarded as representing general In dian opinion but it is certainly a straw in the wind.

One of the major problems to be plumbed at the constitutional con ference is the differing attitudes to Fiji’s political future held by some Indians and some Fijians, and es pecially to find out how strong and how representative these attitudes are.

The Indian population of Fiji is almost half the total population of 427,000.

NG and Nauru New Guinea came in for one of its regular attacks by the Soviet at the General Assembly in December.

The Soviet delegate accused Aus tralia of “colonial repression”. But the Indonesian delegate paid tribute to Australia’s policies in Papua-New Guinea.

Australia was still waiting for counter proposals by the Nauruans for resettlement, the Australian representative, Mr. Dudley McCarthy, told the General Assembly Trustee ship Committee in New York in December.

He said that the Nauruans had rejected Australia’s plan to resettle them on Curtis Island.