The Geic-One Colony Or Two?

By a special correspondent

One of the major problems posed for metropolitan countries by the decolonisation process has been to ensure political stability during the early years of self-government and independence. Without stability, at tempts to achieve or maintain econo mic viability and to improve living standards are jeopardised. The result is instability, and so the circle con tinues.

The problem has been complicated in many dependencies and former dependencies by the fact that colonial boundaries were drawn with scant -egard for cultural or ethnic con siderations. The outcome, seen in its ;xtreme form in Nigeria, can be an ntensification of racial rivalries luring the final stages of decolonisa lon and the early years of autonomy.

Where they have emerged, tensions lave arisen less from purely racial antagonism than from regional de rivation and from what are seen is inequalities of economic op >ortunity especially with regard to education and employment.

In the Pacific the potential for such livisive forces is seen most clearly in Japua New Guinea, in the Trust erntory of the Pacific Islands Micronesia) and the Gilbert and illice Islands Colony.

The GEIC now has a “member ystem” of government and could be xpected to progress to a ministerial ystem and then self-government /ithin a very few years. Whereas, in tie past, the future problems of the ?EIC have been seen almost ex lusively in terms of the expected jss of revenue from Ocean Island hosphates, the British administration as recently been forced to consider ie more immediate problem of mether the colony can, in fact Lirvive even to self-government with s present boundaries.

The Ellice Islanders fear future emulation by the Gilbertese numbering some 48,000 to the Ellice danders’ 8,000), and a low level of eyelopment in the Ellice once the nlbertese control the purse-strings, nd a consequent reduction in educa onal and employment opportunities, hus they have, through their elected jpresentatives, begun to request jparation from the Gilberts (PIM lov., p. 9).

The GEIC separation movement is ot new; its potential dates back to ie last years of the 19th century hen the Gilbert and Ellice Islands rotectorates were lumped together

under a single administration for reasons of cost and convenience. With the limited scope of administration— dominated in any case by expatriate personnel—there was little strife until the late 1950 s when the introduction of Colonial Development and Welfare Fund schemes, and changed attitudes towards localisation and political development, led to a rapid rise in the numbers of Gilbertese and Ellice Islanders in the civil service.

With their more flexible attitude towards social change, and their higher educational levels (schools in the Gilberts had suffered from war time occupation of the islands by the Japanese) Ellice Islanders were generally quicker to take advantage of the changed situation and the chances it offered. The result: a high proportion of Ellice Islanders in government schools and in the civil service, and resentment on the part of Gilbertese who also complained of racial arrogance on the part of Ellice Islanders then arriving in Tarawa in large numbers.

There were no demands for separa tion at this stage but racial feelings intensified in the early 19605, especially on Tarawa, and led to the formation of the colony’s first political parties. The initiative was with the Gilbertese at this time and was expressed in terms of resentment where the races were in a competitive situation.

With more rapid constitutional development in the late 19605, and the transfer of increased responsibility to elected representatives, the Ellice Islanders began to seek guarantees to protect minority interests. Some concessions were made in the 1966 constitution and then, in 1971, all islands of the Gilbert and Ellice

groups were given at least one member in the Legislative Council, resulting in average electorates in the Ellice having less than half the voters of those in the Gilberts.

With these concessions, together with assurances that the reserved powers allowed for the protection of minority groups, the administration was able to persuade the Ellice Islanders to withdraw their objections, but they continued to insist that they would seek separate dependent (on Britain) status when internal self government was granted to the colony.

In 1971 the issue nearly came to a head in the Legislative Council until the Ellice members were persuaded to withdraw a separation motion by the government’s promise that it would investigate the implica tions of separation. This was done, and Sir John Field, the Governor visited the Ellice to discuss the situation without, so far as can be seen, effect ing any change in the attitudes of the Ellice Islanders.

The problem has gained some urgency over the past few months; not so much because the demands for separation have been more widely and loudly expressed but because, if precedents are adhered to, a further constitutional “step” should be taken around the time of the next elections due early in 1974. This means that in the course of the next 12 months some agreement on the longer term constitutional status of the colony must be reached.

The Ellice position is fairly clear.

Their representatives will probably ask for separate colonial status.

The Gilbertese are in a somewhat ambivalent position. Many of their representatives favour separation or, at least, would not oppose it. At the same time they want to progress to a ministerial system of government but, they fear, any agitation for separation will slow down the transfer of responsibility.

Recent developments have forced the British administration to take a rather more positive approach to the situation. In the past it has vacillated between ignoring the problems and attempting to quiet any stirrings in the hope that they represented only transitory discontent. Seldom in the past has there been any serious attempt to examine the implications of separation for the Gilbertese, the Ellice Islanders, and Britain. Any

negotiations towards this end in the future would have to focus around the division of the colony’s reserve funds (built out of phosphate royalties); phosphate revenues, while they last; overseas employment op portunities; and the ability or other wise of each group to provide for and staff its own government and services—all potentially contentious issues.

Policies of centralisation on Tarawa followed since World War II could cause future problems. The Gilberts would have the infrastructure but would become even more heavily dependent on expatriate personnel.

The Ellice would lack the infra structure. Both would lack the ability to pay for government and services (at present levels) without substantial amounts of aid.

Britain is left with a dilemma— to sustain one non-viable government, or two? The outcome will depend on whether a compromise can be reached between the maximum that each party will allow, and the minimum that it will accept. Perhaps there are now second thoughts about past promises that dependent peoples ;ould have the constitution of their :hoice?