END OF WHITE RULE

Grey River Argus, 20 August 1942, Page 7

END OF WHITE RULE

In Far East (BY J. F. HORRABIN). (PART III.) Economic developments in the 20th. century' made all the colonial territories of south-eastern Asia enormously more valuable. Malaya whose original importance to Britain was primarily strategic, was discovered to be a source of rubber and tin. The East Indian islands, while ’they continued to grow the copra, sugar, tobacco, sisal, coffee, tapioca, and other vegetable products, which had made their exploitation profitable, became still more important as a result of the development of rubber plantations, oil wells, and tin mines. The whole region produced wealth on a vast scale. But its people benefited little. Sir Frederick Whyte quotes a Dutch consul-general as remarking that “the East Indies were worth a pound a week to every household in Holland.’’ On the other hand, an 1.L.0. report (1938) speaks of “the harsh struggle for mere existence so characteristic of India and Java.”

In Indo-China and in Java, as well as in Burma and India, there were nationalist movements. Dutch rule in the Indies is customarily described as “paternal,” and as having been “successful in warding off the more serious forms of unrest which developed in the oriental dependencies of other Powers.” But there were violent ’outbreaks in Java in 1926-27; and there is a native professional class “in touch with subversive movements in other oriental countries.”

The British governed in Malaya by a kind of indirect rule, through the native sultans who were guided by British “advisers”. Government has meant more or less efficient administration in the interests of economic development —the provision of roads and rails to serve in mines and rubber plantations, and of health services to ensure a reliable supply of labour power; and the construction at Singapore of enormous harbour facilities to meet the growing commerce of the whole region.

In Indo-China, after a long period of neglect, the French from 1900 onwards set to work on a systematic exploitation of agricultural resources. Eut, in D. W. Brogan’s phrase, their “egalitarian principles seemed to suffer a sea-change between Marseilles and Saigon;” and the share of Annamese or Tongkingese in the actual sphere of government was strictly limited. Moreover, both economically and psychologically IndoChina was closely linked to Southern China; and Canton was the birthplace of Sun-Yet Sen’s revolutionary movement. From 1930 onwards there were demonstrations of nationalist discontent in various areas.

In the Philippines, on the other hand the U.S. came to terms with the nationalist movement which had existed since the days of Spanish rule — which had indeed helped to turn the Spaniards out of the islands. In 1934 Congress granted provisional independence to the Philippines for a period of years; and in 1946 the islands were to take over full sovereignty and become the Philippine Republic. It will be noted that the Filipinos alone among the- peoples attacked by the Japanese since last December have “regarded the conflict as being personally their own.”

What of the future ? If Japan wins the war, the- answer is plain. The countries of Eastern Asia and the South Seas, in the words of Mr Arita’s famous broadcast, are “geographically, historically, and racially related,” and destined to be united as “a single sphere on the basis of common existence.” Such a sphere, Mr Arita pointed out, “pre-supposes the existence of a stabilising force,” and Japan’s “mission” was to act as that stabilising force. East Asia, in fact, is to be “unified” in the same way as Hitler would unify Europe; by the planned organisation of all . its resources under the aegis, and primarily for the benefit, of a single ruling race. The final condemnation of European rule is so many Far Eastern territories is that this prospect clearly holds no terrors for great masses of the- populations. And if Japan is defeated ? It becomes ever clearer that she cannot be defeated except by a combination of forces in which FreeChina plays a leading part; and, perhaps, Free India, also. And in that eventuality it will be as much, surely, a victory for the idea of “Asia for the Asiatics” as if Japan were the conqueror. A victory for Free China (or Free India) does not necessarily mean the instantaneous ending of exploitation —let us be clear about that. But it must mean the triumph of a spirit of nationalism which will never permit the re-estat lishment of white domination and of Asiatic — qua Asiatic—subjection. If the U.S.S.R. comes into the struggle in the Far East it will certainly not be to fight for any such re-establish-ment. Whether or not Australia could be maintained as a White Man’s Preserve would appear more than doubtful.

The struggle in Asia, like the struggle in Europe, is a fight against racial domination. It can only, in Asia as in Europe, be really won when free co-operation, based on 3 recognition of the equality of all peoples, takes the place of any and every kind of imperialism. —“Left News.”