The Waikato Times With which Is Incorporated The Waikato Argus. TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 1931. EAST AFRICAN UNION.

Waikato Times, Volume 109, Issue 18350, 9 June 1931, Page 6

The Waikato Times With which Is Incorporated The Waikato Argus. TUESDAY, JUNE 9, 1931. EAST AFRICAN UNION.

The British elector Is still, fortunately, perhaps, the custodian of the interests of many millions of native and backward people. In the Crown Colonies, Nigeria, Uganda, Kenya, and the rest of them, British responsibility Is still complete. Tanganyika, formerly German East Africa, lias tended since the war to be lumped In with them, and there Is at present in session an inquiry Into the question whether an economic union should be devised between Kenya, Tanganyika, and Uganda. The arrival in Britain of native representatives of the tlireo territories affected by the proposal for closer union, to give evidence before the Joint Select Committee on East African affairs, focuses attention on the matter. The proposal for drawing the three territories closer has been resisted from its inception both by Uganda and by Tanganyika. They are well aware of the political ambitions of the small community of white settlers in Kenya, of the adverse conditions of native labour that exist there, and of the heavy financial commitments which that colony has incurred. Uganda quite definitely fears that closer union may spell in the end federal union. Its press speaks of the proposal as “a horse born of the Kenya stables,” points to the loans with which Kenya has been supplied, and suggests that it would be an attractive solution to that colony's problems to have “some more property to throw into the mortgage pool.” Tills attitude is voiced witli more caution both in despatches from the Governor of Uganda and from 11.11. the Kabaku, or native ruler or the Baganda people. Neither would object to common action. which has indeed already been partially taken, as regards communications—railways, posts, telegraphs, ami the like —and matters of public, health. Bui every attempt towards closer political union has met with reasoned objection both from 11.11. the Ivabaka and from the Governor- The

former has made repeated representations to successive Secretaries of State since 1921 that the rights of his people, as defined in the agreement of 1900, should not be affected by any plan lor closer union. The latter points out in a recent dispatch that this nervousness has its 'origin not only in “fear of domination by special interests in Kenya” but in recognition of the fact that “native policy in Uganda has proceeded on wellordered lines which are generally acceptable, and that the country has little to gain and much to lose by immersion in political controversy." The objections of Tanganyika to any closer union with its neighbours are rather different. They are, for one thing, the concern not only of the British Ministry and the British elector but of the League of Nations. The mandate which gives the guidance of Tanganyika to Britain is a model for all Governments that have native peoples under their control. It lays down conditions of labour and land tenure for the Indigenous population that are based not upon exploitation but upon guardianship. It enjoins upon Britain, under article 22 of the Covenant, the duty to aooept the tutelage of the native peoples “until such time as they are able to stand by themselves.” “Is this proposition generally accepted or not?” asks the Governor of Tanganyika Territory in a dispatch of last July. If It is, he urges, then it is the duty of the mandatory, however long it may take, “so to train the people that they may have when the time comes a full place in the political structure of the territory.” If, and only if, that primary condition of a “B” mandate is observed, permission is given under the Covenant to further the aims that advocates of closer union have In view, for toy article 10 of the mandate for Tanganyika the mandatory is empowered to “constitute the territory into a Customs, fiscal, and administrative union or federation with the adjacent territories under his sovereignty or control.” And that is the crux of the matter. It will be possible to effect the aims that the enthusiasts for closer union urge when, and only when, the territories that might naturally march politically with Tanganyika fulfil in their government, as scrupulously as does the mandated territory, the conditions as to guardianship of the native peoples that the Covenant lays down. There can be no question of whittling away native rights in Uganda or Tanganyika to meet the convenience of the Kenya settlers. The British Parliament would resist the first, the Mandates Commission of the League the second, and it Is the duty of the British elector, on whom responsibility ultimately rests, to see that neither is attempted.