The Western World And Asia

Press, Volume XCI, Issue 27664, 21 May 1955, Page 6

The Western World And Asia

It is regrettable that some persons seem unable to approach the great problem of living standards in Asia without laying responsibility for Asia’s poverty at the door of the white man. Typical is Mr Nash’s statement to the Labour Party conference that “millions of “ people in Asia and Africa had “existed for centuries at levels of “subsistence that were an indict“ment of all the Western world”. The validity of such an assertion can be tested within a fairly narrow compass. First, it may be generally observed that within the period covered by Mr Nash’s “ centuries ”, millions of people in Europe were living at a level of subsistence that left them with nothing to spare for countries that far outnumbered Europe in population. This leads directly to a point that has applied for “ centuries ”, and which still applies, namely, that at the root of Asia’s subsistence problem is growth of population. The Western nations surely cannot be blamed for the rapidity with which Asian populations increase; if the argument is that Western “colonialism” exploited Asia and prevented Asian i resources from keeping pace with population increases, the West’s ' capacity to help must surely be . considered. However, it is be-

yond argument that under colonialism the productive improvement of Asia ameliorated the lot of millions of Asian people. For instance, the British left India magnificent legacies of irrigation works; Burma under British rule was a rice-producing country which fed millions of Asians besides its own people; the Dutch left Java a highly developed island, with an enviably happy people. But the task of raising, the subsistence level of Asia’s masses was always checked by sheer weight of population increase. A modern example illustrates the magnitude of the problem. It is estimated that the amount of new capital investment required for each new consumer in India is not less than £lOO, even at bare subsistence levels. With an extra 5,000,000 Indians a year (the present rate of population growth) this’ means finding, simply to avoid going backwards, of new ifffipiteil, annually, or about 60 per* cent more than India is estimated to have produced for all purposes in 1950. It is absurd to say that the Western world stands “ indicted ” for not having found comparable sums over the years for not only India, but China and the rest of -Asia’s masses. In the next 25 years, on “ medium ” assumptions compiled by the Population Division of the United Nations, the population of Asia is likely to increase by 52 per cent., and those of North America and Europe respectively by 33 per cent., and 31 per cent. Thus, the present disparities between the populations of the Western world and Asia will increase, and thrust still greater burdens on the Western world if it is to be responsible for the level of subsistence in Asia. Would Mr Nash face squarely the implications of assuming such responsibility? Would he say that New Zealanders and the other peoples of the Western world should lower their standards of living by a very substantial amount in order to raise the subsistence levels of the few millions in Asia who would be affected by the best the West can do? The fact is that Asia’s salvation, like that of all areas in the world, lies within itself. It is proper that the Western world should help Asia; such help is being abundantly and generously .given. But the help the Western world gives to Asia can be no more than help to Asia to help itself. The poverty in parts of Asia (by comparison with modern Western standards) is desperate. But when hearts move in response, good sense should not be driven from the head. Asia’s share of responsibility for its ills must be recognised; certainly, there is no reason for the people of the Western world to go round in hair shirts expiating an imaginary responsibility for conditions that are beyond their controk