The Manawatu Daily Times FRIDAY, JANUARY 22, 1937. A British View on Colonies

Manawatu Times, Volume 62, Issue 18, 22 January 1937, Page 6

The Manawatu Daily Times FRIDAY, JANUARY 22, 1937. A British View on Colonies

The whole world naturally expects Great Britain to weigh very seriously the proposition that she should make some big gesture to restore harmony in disordered Europe, even if it involved some sacrifice for herself; and this, it is suggested, might take the form of restoring to Germany some of tho colonies which she surrendered after the World War. Dr. Schacht reiterates the German case in an article in a recent issue of Foreign Affairs where he argues for his country’s need of colonial raw-material sources. If a transfer of colonies could be made without disadvantage to any but the British people, then many Britons would admit that it ought to be agreed to. But before any just conclusion can be reached on the question, it is right that the case of those who live and work in mandated territories should be heard. Such a case has been made out in a memorandum issued by the Joint East African Board. That body, representing production and trading interests in Tanganyika, Kenya and Uganda, cannot be regarded as entirely disinterested. Its members are British, and they must be expected to be partial to a British form of government. Nevertheless they have a right to be heard. They point out that of the four “basic materials of modern industry,’’ named by Dr. Goebbels, German Minister of Propaganda, only 4 per cent, of the world’s supplies come the colonial areas of all nations; and that Germany can now buy as much us she likes in the British Mandated Territories, and can freely export to them. In East Africa, the balance of her import and export trade is in her favour. As a home for surplus European population East Africa has little to offer. Tanganyika has now only 8453 Europeans (3000 German); Kenya, 17,500; Uganda, 2000. But these are not the considerations that will weigh most. There are certain obligations ■which have to be carried out by the mandatory power, and are now carried out by Great Britain. Here are three: (1) The mandatory must insure freedom of conscience and worship. (2) Must give to the nationals of all States members of the League the same rights as to her own nationals. (3) Must not establish military or naval bases or organise any national military force except for police and defence of the territory. The question has to he faced —would the German Government be ready to fulfill these obligations? If she did not, would all east and southern Africa, now relatively disarmed, be compelled to resort to a policy of competitive armament? And, it might be added, would she adopt the policy, now pursued throughout the British Empire, of preparing the population for eventual increased participation in self-government? These are questions which should not be answered off-ha-*d. There is no reason to suppose that Germany in the future might not come to take a view of colonial responsibility similar to that of Great Britain.- But at least it ought to be understood that there are at present other than purely selfish reasons which make Great Britain hesitate before handing over the native populations of Africa to the care of another nation.