THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS SATURDAY, APRIL 11, 1936 FORMER GERMAN COLONIES

New Zealand Herald, Volume LXXIII, Issue 22391, 11 April 1936, Page 10

THE New Zealand Herald AND DAILY SOUTHERN CROSS SATURDAY, APRIL 11, 1936 FORMER GERMAN COLONIES

As the holder of the mandate for Western Samoa, New Zealand is directly interested in the discussion that has ax-iser in Britain as to the future of mandated territories, a discussion pro.npted by Germany's sustained demand for the return of her former colonies. The mandate was conferred upon the King, to be exercised on his behalf by the New Zealand Government, so that the Dominion is not in any way answerable to the Brtish Government, nor bound by the policy the latter may decide to follow. It would be idle to pretend, however, that New Zealand's actions will not be profoundly influenced by the line Britain may take with respect to her own mandates in Afriea and Asia Minor. When the Colonial Secretary, Mr. J. H. Thomas, was questioned on the subject in the House of Commons in February, he said "the British Government his not considered and is not considering the handing over to any foreign Power of any of the British colonies or territories held under mandate." The answer, which was cheered liy the Commons, was quite definite and might have been expected to have buried the issue. A few days a 50, however, it was raised again, the Chancellor of the Exchequer replying in precisely the same terms. Mr. Chamberlain then went on to draw a distinction between col#niesi and mandates. Any proposal for the transfer of the former "could not be entertained for a moment." Mr. Chamberlain next pointed out the different status of the mandates, explaining that no provision was made for their transfer to any other Power and that, in order to effect a transfer, there would be required the assent of the mandatory, of the transferee and also of the Council of the League of Nations.

Some authorities may argue that mandates are not transferable in this way and that they can be terminated only when the people in a mandated territory have reached the stage of self-government. Certain British and 'German commentators have not paused to consider that point, but have hastened to interpret Mr. Chamberlain as meaning that Britain is prepared to consult the League "concerning the transfer of her mandates to their former owners under certain conditions. It is extremely doubtful whether so much can fairly be read into his statement, which was probably an explanation of status rather than a hint of future policy. It is possible, on the other hand, that it is a development of the British attitude as defined by Sir Samuel Hoare, at that time Foreign Secretary, in his speech last September before the League Assembly. Sir Samuel referi'ed to the anxiety felt by countries which did not possess colonies lest exclusive monopolies in raw materials should be set up to their disadvantage; and he suggested that the wise course would be to investigate the causes of this discontent and anxiety, to determine the real extent of the trouble, and to try to remove them. The British Government, he said, would be prepared "to take its share in any collective attempt to deal in a fair and effective way with a problem that is certainly troubling many people at present, and; may trouble them even more in the future." His offer was no more th:in one of joint exploration.

Since it was made the British public have not ceased to explore the subject on their own separate account, with the useful result that a better understanding has been reached of Britain's position in the colonies and mandates, and of her responsibilities and duties to thein. Moreover, the claims, based on economic arguments, of foreign nations to share in them, have been examined in the light of facts and possibilities and been found to possess but little foundation. What the Times says of the colonies applies equally to the mandates: "They are not objects of barter or parts of a jig-saw puzzle to be transferred from one owner to another to fit a political pattern. . . . The principle is now firmly established that 'possessions' are trusts to be administered in the interests of the inhabitants with a view to the time —it may be near in some places, far off in others—when they will be qualified to look after themselves." Now, so far as the most clamorous foreign voices have been heard, those of Germany and Italy, they do not regard colonies and mandates in a disinterested manner, but rather as fields for economic exploitation and perhaps even for military recruitment. Neither Britain nor the Dominions could transfer their trusts if they were to be so used. If the idea of exploitation is implicitly repugnant in the modern conception of colonial administration, it is explicitly so in mandated territories. A mandate is a "sacred trust of civilisation" and mandatories are to "derive no benefit from such trustee•ship." Of course Germany and Italy might undertake to observe these terms, in which case it would be relevant to ask what__reliance, in view of their recent record, could be placed on their pledged word, what sort of civilisers Nazis and Fascists were likely to prove, and whether they would use more tolerance in subject lands than they do in their own. If, a.'S the League Covenant contemplates, self-government is the natural fruition of a mandate, great care must be taken in choosing the tutors of backward peoples.