Up Front

with the Publisher

The Banabans appeal to the British High Court (p. 16) ends in an ingenius paradox. Australia’s national daily newspaper, The Australian, headlined the result, “Devastating defeat for an island in the sun”, while the same day the Banabans’ own national news paper, The Fiji Times, headlined the story, “Banabans happy, no complaint on judgment.

It is true that the Banabans lost their major claim for back royalties on the phosphate removed from Ocean Island over many years and won a judgment for what will be a lesser amount for the illegal des truction of their trees by the British Phosphate Commissioners.

But the Banabans have always understood the distinction bet ween moral issues and legal niceties, even if the British Government and the British Phosphate Commissioners are now publicly revealed as having dis played only self-interest.

The Banabans have won a great moral victory. They have had the satisfaction of hearing a high British Judge condemn both the British Government and the BPC over their treatment.

The Banabans have been saying nothing else for many years. They have always pressed for recognition that they are land owners and people, entitled not merely to a proper share in the riches that have poured out of that tiny island which is left looking like a desolate moonscape, but entitled to be con sulted and treated with respect.

The money has been of secondary importance.

Not until recent years, when they were forced to put into motion the long and complicated machinery which has only finally ended in the British Court’s dec ision, were they consulted or given any real consideration. This is now a matter of official record, which is why the Banabans accept the court’s verdict as a just one.

The Banabans’ problems with British bureaucracy began very

early in Britain’s occupation of Banaba (Ocean Island). Some Resident Commissioners recognised the injustice of Whitehall, but others, including Sir Arthur Grimble, took a paternalistic, outrageously bureaucratic line.

This is not merely a matter of hindsight. The official record shows a long history of protest by the Banabans themselves.

Pre-war government attitudes were, of course, everywhere more paternalistic and less enlightened than they became (under pressure) after the war. It’s more than probable that with international help the Banabans could have won justice if they had been able to stay on the island after the war, as the Naurans did. The Nauruans, being on hand to watch over the actions of big brother BPC, forced fair play on Nauru. But with the Banabans removed from nearby Ocean Island, and camped rather unhappily at Rabi in the Fiji group, it was a case of out of sight, out of mind.

Important negotiations on phosphate royalties went on after the war without the Banabans being present. They were repre sented by the colonial GEIC government, which still had its own interests at heart.

PIM has actively supported the Banabans case since 1965, when we published, that October, the first full account of their life on Rabi and their behind-scenes fight for recognition. The Banabans owe most to their leader, Rotan Tito, and his son ? Tebuke Rotan, for the drive which won them through despite some grim and unhappy periods.

In view of the judgment, Britain and her BPC partners cannot dare not to make a large financial con tribution to the Banabans future prosperity. To do less will be to compound their past actions.

Stuart Inder