Banabans impress MPs
p. 89 · Read in the full issue
From BERTRAM JONES in London
Two British Members of Parlia ment back in London after visiting the GEIC have presented their find ings to the Foreign and Common wealth Office on the Ocean Island independence issue.
The report’s contents have not been revealed but I understand they recommend immediate talks between the governments of UK, Australia and New Zealand to cover, not only the Banabans’ claim for Ocean Island independence but the future economic needs of the GEIC when the anticipated separation of the Ellice Islands from the Gilberts be comes a reality.
The MPs, Sir Bernard Braine (Conservative) and Mr John Lee (Labour) are believed to have been impressed by the Banabans’ case, especially their contention that they are a different people from the Gil bertese and therefore independence would be right and proper. Tliat would appear to be an important point in the Banabans’ favour, especially as the MPs’ report has been studied by top officials in the Foreign and Commonwealth Office and could go to the Foreign Sec retary, Mr James Callaghan.
Added weight to the MPs’ opinion derives from their experience in colonial affairs. Sir Bernard was Parliamentary Under-Secretary at the Commonwealth Relations Office in Mr Harold Macmillan’s government in 1961-62. Mr Lee spent seven years in the colonial service, mostly in Ghana.
The MPs are back with the belief that ministers and officials in Tarawa are greatly concerned about the financing of development plans for the Gilberts in preparation for the cessation of their phosphate revenue when the deposits are worked out; expected to be in February, 1978.
Ministers in Tarawa gained the impression that Sir Bernard and Mr Lee thought that, because of the assured income from the Ocean Island phosphate, too little had been done to prepare for the phosphate less future.
At Tarawa MPs made it clear that they felt impelled to consider the Banabans question in relation to the outlook for the whole colony after independence and that they fully re cognised the need for generous pro vision for all.
That left the Banabans happy, too, because although they would like the
full income from the Ocean Island phosphate for its few remaining years they have repeatedly declared that they do not want the colony to be the loser.
In Fiji, en-route to Australia, the MPs had informal talks with Fiji’s Prime Minister, Ratu Sir Kamisese Mara, who is believed to have reiterated his government’s view that, although it could not become involved in the independence issue, it was prepared favourably to con sider a request by the Banabans for associate status for Ocean Island with Fiji if independence were achieved.
In Canberra, as in Tarawa, Sir Bernard and Mr Lee expressed the view that, nowadays, a people’s identity was what that people be lieved itself to be—one way of say ing that if the Banabans believed themselves to be a separate race then they were a separate race.
They disagreed, as politicians, with the reported British point of view that Britain cannot force the GEIC to give independence to Ocean Island, and on their return to London are understood to have stated categoric ally that ultimately a political de cision will have to be made by British ministers, having regard to the realities of the situation and to what was sensible and fair.
Sir Bernard and Mr Lee are con vinced that the Banabans have a distinct identity which, politically as well as morally, it would be wrong to ignore.
Britain’s refusal to agree to in dependence for Ocean Island is purely economic and stems from British concern about the economic future of the Gilbert and Ellice Islands.