Europeans Divided As To Success Of South Pacific Conference; Natives Pleased

Wanganui Chronicle, 5 May 1950, Page 5

Europeans Divided As To Success Of South Pacific Conference; Natives Pleased

(From the A.A.P.’s Special Representative) SUVA, May 4 (Rec. 8.55 pm).-—European advisers and councillors at the South Pacific. Commission, which concludes tomorrow, are divided in their opinions about the success of the conference, but native delegates arc enthusiastically unanimous.

They regard the conference as a tremendous success—a view which they never tire of telling the people, and which they intend to spread far and wide when they return to their island homelands.

The conference, which sat for a fortnight, was the first time the native races of the Pacific have been brought together. For that reason alone it was a courageous experiment. Overall results have convinced South Pacific Commission members that the conference must —despite its critics—be classified as successful.

From the native point of view the conference's main significance lay in the fact that Europeans, for the first time, were officially recognising that the Pacific races ultimately will be able to look after themselves economically, and socially—and, in the further future, politically. The gathering together of these scattered representatives gave them a feeling of importance and prestige which affected them profoundly, not with a feeling of vanity but one of sincere appreciation. They will leave for their homes at the week-end with a story they will spread throughout the Pacific, which will inevitably raise the native opinion of the Pacific white overlords. The real value in the conference, according to delegates, lay not merely in discussions in the plenary sessions and in committee, but in unofficial contacts between representatives. In the conference itself they dealt with simple subjects which are close to their lives—mosquito control, healthy villages, fishing, village schools, vocational training, food crops and co-operative societies. Dr. J. W. Burton, Senior Commissioner for the Australian Government, expressed the realistic view held by most observers, when he said the conference had been a successful experiment which fully justified the outlay in money and effort. He considered

there were many obvious weaknesses, and frank recognition of these would help make future conferences successful.

“Naturally, many of the subjects chosen for discussion had on them the stamp of the administrations concerned, and reflected the opinions of mentors rather than the untutored judgment of the native delegates themselves,” he said. There was no outstanding evidence of originality at the conference. As it went on, there was evidence of mental fatigue, because many of the less-developed people are not accustomed to concentrate for long periods at a time. This did not apply to the Polynesians.” Dr. Burton said the Australian, New Guinea and Papuan delegates presented a marked contrast to the comparatively sophisticated Polynesians. “Australia must be prepared to spend far more money and manpower to bring her island people to a higher level of intelligence and knowledge, and this effort is essential if Papua and New Guinea are to take their rightful place in this wide comity of Pacific peoples," he said. Mr. Milton Shallbeck, United States Commissioner at the conference, said the American delegates were wholly satisfied about the conference and its results. Delegates from American Samoa would return with enthusiastic reports.

Netherlands observers have been among the conference’s more outspoken critics. They crtiticised the limiting of conference speeches to ten minutes, claiming that this upset the native speakers. The French delegates were inclined to echo the Dutch feeling. Emerging as dominant personalities of the conference were those natives with high educational qualifications, such as the sibilant Prince Tungi, of Tonga, the huge assured Tamasese, of Western Samoa, and a decorative and vocal woman delegate, Makea Nui, of Rarotonga.