—

SR Lain oe ee ee

aaa

eT ae ee

BID

ate

WORLD AFFAIRS

“LET US HAVE PEACE”

Contents

ForeworD: THE Gestures aT GENEvA—Denys P. Myers

Peace In Our Time—Francis B. Sayre -

InrER-AMERICANISM FOR CANADA?

One Micronesian SpeEAks—Bethwel Henry -

“PROTRACTED CONFLICT” AND THE NATIONAL STRATEGY SEMINAR—Anthony Trawick Bouscaren

Tuomas Hosses AND THE “CoLtp War”—A/ldert A. Blum

SWEETENING Sour Bonpb Issures—Dana G. Munro -

DisARMAMENT OR DETERRENCE—Josephine W. Pomerance

LEADERS FOR PEACE IN THE AMERICAN PEAcE Society—Mabel Soule Call

Woritp News Maker—Vance Shiflett - Woritp Misce_ttany—FE/llen Collins Books _

Booxs RECEIVED

Marcel Roussin

To purchase past issues of The ADVOCATE of PEACE or WORLD AFFAIRS prior to the current volume, please apply to the University of Florida Press, University of Florida, Gainesville, Florida.

— men om

EDITORIAL BOARD Chairman: Denys Myers Editor: MarcaRET ALLISON BILLINGS Associate Editors: DonaLp ARMSTRONG, PHILIP MarsHALL Brown, Mapex Soute Catt, ELLEN Couns, Harotp Davis, Roveric Davison, FRankLIn DunHAM, Cuar_es G, FENWICK, Stantey K. Hornspeck, Evtmer Louis Kayser, Denys P. Myers, Vance Suircetr, JosEpH F, THorninc, A. Curtis Witcus.

— ann EERE *T.M. Registered.

PuBLISHED QuARTERLY BY THE AMERICAN PEACE SOCIETY VoL. 122 Fatt, 1959 NuMBER 3 Sent free to all members of the American Peace Society, 1307 New Hampshire Ave., Washington, D. C. Separate subscription price, $2.00 ayear. Foreign rate $2.35. Single copies, $.50 each. Second class postage paid at Washington 6, D. C., and at addi-

tional mailing offices.

U. S Pat. Of.

FOREWORD

The Gestures at Geneva

When Secretary of State Christian A. Herter started for Geneva to discuss the German question with the Soviet Union’s spokesman he had no great expectations, and he and his colleagues from the United King- dom and France came away with no notable settlement. But the stubborn negotiations from May to August centered more certainly on phases of the last of the war problems than any previous gathering, and the pro- cedures were more nearly standard diplomacy than past examples of brinkmanship.

The Geneva discussions, ostensibly devoted to phases of the status of West Berlin and German reuni- fication, dealt with details that nevertheless approached the basic differences between the communist and the free world outlook in “high” politics. The characteristic of “high” politics is an obsession or conviction in the minds of leaders expressive of aspirations or purposes to be realized. Like any ideas these things are potent incentives when vividly held, and can lose their usefulness without losing their momentum. Changes in content imposed by facts occur more rapidly than changes in the verbal formulas of this political ideology. All long-term history shows high policy survives only as it conforms to the interests of the people subscribing to it and is susceptible to mutual acceptance by other peoples who are affected by it.

The deadlock at Geneva was a failure to agree on details of the larger problem. In each instance the failure occurred because agreement on either side would have meant resignation of a basic element of high policy. The contrasts between the opposing policies are formidable.

The policy of France, the United Kingdom and the United States is the essence of human experience in ordering human affairs, its theses refined into common rules of law. The central element in this system is that a people chooses the form of its institutions, acknowledges the right of the individual to handle his own life and affairs in such a way that he does not infringe the rights of others, and that this pattern of life must be defended wherever it is jeopardized. They fought two wars within a generation to uphold these broad

rinciples. Within this frame each of them has i mn aspirations of the n: > of “high” policy principles. ithin this frame each of them has its own aspirations of the nature o ign” policy.

The Soviet Union originated in a revolt against the established experience of mankind that centered all economic activity and control in a central government with the result that the individual was subjected to the state in order that he might get social benefits it granted him. It conceived its mission to extend its system over the world. Communist theoreticians supplied doctrines to undermine the principles of law on which the rest of the world relied. Existing law was not, they claimed, the tried experience of generations which enabled men to live together in harmony, but only the devices of rulers to obtain advantages for themselves. What the communist state did was right because it did it, and resistance to its will was itself a crime. (The thesis cannot be stated at length here, but Vishynsky put it in its baldest form.) Internationally, the Soviet Union played both ends against the middle. If standard international law was of use, none could expound it more persuasively or forcefully; if it did not serve their purpose, no one has ever disregarded it more cynically.

Except for the German question, the upset of political arrangements by the Second World War has been liquidated. The Soviet Union held out on each of them until no further advantage could be gained by it. In Germany the two polities of the free world and Soviet Union are in direct conflict. The free enclave of West Berlin cannot be abandoned. Reunification depends upon the free expression of the Federal Re- public and the people of East Germany; we say that the imposed communist régime in East Germany is incapable of voicing the popular will, the Soviets claim it is the voice of the people. Those points mark the battle line of the “cold war.”

In high policy as in high strategy, insoluble situations are nullified by diversionary movements. The insoluble single question becomes more malleable when pooled with others. The German question needs to be associated in negotiation with all the problems of the present tension. Meetings of the heads of gov- ernments may make this possible. They can direct their diplomats to cultivate the forest of their relations instead of concentrating all attention upon individual trees.

Denys P. Myers

70 Worvp Arrairs, Pati, 1959

re mM

st id

et nd re

he ds yV- ns

=RS

Peace in Our Time

Today we are living through one of the most crucial periods of human history. Momentous changes have faced mankind before—in the year 476 with the downfall of the Roman Empire in the West and the beginning of Mediaeval History, in the year 1492 with the discovery of an unknown continent, the emergence of a new civilization and the inauguration of Modern History.

But today the situation is infinitely more porten- tous. The future, the very life, of the most powerful peoples in our present world depends upon the out- come. Even the survival of mankind upon the earth may hang upon the determinations of the next few years.

Under the advances of modern civilization great nations can no longer be built merely by conquering armies and military geniuses. The day is past when a Genghis Khan or even a Napoleon can achieve world power by triumph on a battlefield.

Modern nations of world-shaking power can today emerge only as they are built upon two fundamentals: first, possession of a great land mass to form the back- bone of the people’s economic and commercial power, and second, some quickening and creative ideal to bind the different men and women and races occupy- ing such land masses into a single unity of power.

In our world of today two paramount nations have thus come into being.

The first is America, fed by the measureless eco- nomic and mineral wealth of a vast continent, its diversified people bound together by a moving faith in individual human freedom, in the right of the rank and file of citizens to choose and determine their own government and to shape their own destiny. After a century and a half of pioneer struggling for the realization of this great faith the peoples of the United States have emerged one of the most power- ful nations in the world today.

In Eastern Europe and in the far-flung reaches of Asia lies another great land mass of incalculable economic and mineral wealth. Today the diverse and heterogeneous inhabitants of this far-flung territory are being welded together and united by another and altogether different ideal—the Marxian concept of the class struggle and the right of the workers to share equally in the products of their common labor, free from capitalistic exploitation. This, too, is a pregnant ideal. But the tragedy is that the leaders directing this powerful movement have built on despotism and a totalitarian rule in place of human freedom. The genuine will and desires of the work- ers in the Soviet Union today play no part in their 1959

Worvp Arrairs, FALL,

BY FRANCIS B. SAYRE

Former Assistant Secretary of State Former U.S. High Commissioner to the Philippine Islands

government and control. Instead, the governing few seek to gain their ends by totalitarian power concen trated in their own hands. Furthermore, Russian Communism places all its faith in the supreme power of material force and refuses to be bound or limited by moral or spiritual restraints. The dictatorship of the proletariat means, in Stalin’s own words, “un- limited power, based on force and not on law.” In this supreme struggle for material power human aspirations are being scuttled.

Obviously totalitarian measures constitute a far easier and more expeditious method of forging ma- terial power than democracy. Yet one wonders whether a nation built upon the suppression of the desires and thinking of the men and women who build it can ultimately survive.

However this may be, these two supreme world powers have today locked horns. The Soviet Union is bent upon surpassing and eclipsing the United States in economic power, in military power. But it is not a mere struggle between giants for territory or military strongholds. The conflict is basic. It is a fundamental struggle for ultimate survival between democracy on the one hand and totalitarianism on the other. In conflicts so basic as this up to now the recognized mode of settlement has been war.

The poignant tragedy of our day—or is it the gift of God—is that just at the time when this supreme conflict has emerged war has ceased to be a practicable means for the settlement of international issues. The development of nuclear weapons has utterly changed the character of war. Today no people can emerge from such a war victorious, for nuclear warfare threatens the doom of both victor and vanquished. It could even spell the end of the human race.

It must be clear, therefore, that no longer can we rest American foreign policy upon the same bases as of old. How then must it be shaped?

Shall we yield to Soviet pressures even though this means the gradual weakening of democratic forces in Europe? Can we permit Soviet inhumanity to extend its sway over Europe, over the newly de veloping nationalisms of Africa and in other parts of the world until democracy becomes a lost cause?

Shall we, on the other hand, stand firm against gressive Soviet attacks upon democratic peoples

age

and resist even if necessary by military force? Yet this may spell, probably will spell in this new era of nuclear armament, ruin and destruction for us all.

In these new perils which today confront us, what should constitute basic American policy?

As has been suggested, the modern world menace of Communism, recognizing no spiritual restraints of any kind and built solely upon material power, the imperialistic expansion and the sensational growth of Soviet Russia, the regimented power of Communist China, whose population within 20 or 30 years may well reach 1000 million people, the spreading Afro- Asian Revolution, still more challenging the devel- opment and menace of nuclear power, imperatively demand a new ordering of international relations. There is today no alternative to world peace. As the most powerful nation in our present world we, the American people, must face with candor and courage the absolute necessity of not allowing war to happen. The findings of methods other than war for the settling of international differences is an absolute must.

In the face of our present world, how can we pro- ceed? Is it possible to define or even to state the positive peace objectives which we of America must seek with whole-hearted devotion and to which we must consecrate all that we have?

Nine outstanding peace objectives seem to present themselves:

First: Limitless and insistent effort to secure inter- national agreement for

a) the immediate suspension and discontinuance of testing of nuclear weapons under effective international control.

b) the cessation of production of fissionable ma- terials for weapons purposes and the com- plete devotion of future production to peace- ful purposes under effective international control.

c) confining the exploration of outer space to ex- clusively peaceful and scientific purposes un- der effective international control.

d) the reduction of armed forces and non- nuclear armaments through adequate safe- guarded international arrangements.

Second: Increasing support of international organ- izations—the United Nations, the Specialized Agen- cies, their Councils and Committees—which are seek- ing through international agreement and world opin- ion to build well-planned foundations for interna- tional peace.

Third: The submission to judicial settlement and arbitration of such international disputes and differ- ences as are justiciable and within the province of international! law.

Fourth: The promotion and support of “people to people” movements. Under Twentieth Century conditions world peace can never be won except through the conquest of men’s minds and hearts. We cannot win the present unprecedented struggle by resting comfortably behind military armament. The sure and only practicable way to achieve a last- ing world peace is to make clear the pacific intent of the American people and to win other peoples with constructive ideas. This must mean constant inter- change of ideas through increasing flows of travelers and visitors, particularly young people, through in- creased exchange of books and literature, and through other cultural exchanges.

Fifth: Increased efforts to reach the thinking of the men and women within Red China and the Soviet Union. Hate breeds hate. Without direct people-to- people contacts, especially with those whose con- trolling governments in international conduct may violate principles of morality and justice, we lack the means of effectively influencing such nations and implanting in their peoples friendlier and more understanding attitudes.

Sixth: The building up of mutually advantageous trade programs with other peoples, and the constant reduction or elimination of such trade barriers as impede international trade in non-military goods. In our interdependent world of today we must help other peoples to develop their economic potentials.

Seventh: The sincere and persistent effort to find the settlement of territorial difficulties and resulting conflicts in such provocative trouble spots as

a) the Middle East

b) Formosa and Quemoy

c) West Berlin not through a reliance upon military might but through agreements based upon fairness and justice.

Eighth: The building and strengthening of under- developed and needy countries through foreign aid in the form of skilled manpower and material goods, given in humility and hope.

Ninth: The settlement, insofar as possible, of dif- ferences with Communist states not through the independent thinking and activity of the United States alone but through the concerted thinking and activity of leading non-Communist nations.

How, practically, are we to fight and win, with ideas rather than with military weapons?

Here is the tremendous, the burning problem of our time. Unhappily Americans do not yet seem to have grasped the vivid realities and framed a prac- tical policy.

One thing seems very clear. We cannot win by inaction or by resting comfortably behind military armament. Neither can we win by withdrawal from

Wortp Arrairs, Fati, 1959

the Far Eastern theater. The negative policy of continued blank refusal to recognize or deal with the Government of Red China seems utterly fruitless and barren. How can we spread our own ideas among the Chinese people if we in practice shut ourselves off from them? In international law, recognition of a government as the duly constituted authority does not depend upon moral approval of the Government’s acts. Before we accord recognition to Red China, serious problems must be straightened out. But it is high time that we proceed; to continue our policy of blank refusal effectively prevents us from launching among the Chinese people a war of ideas.

III

In the face of issues as tremendous, as soul-search- ing, as these one’s mind inevitably reaches for the ultimate. Mere diplomacy will not be availing. Nei- ther will adroit statesmanship. The issues go too deep. For the ultimate answer one finds oneself in- stinctively probing into religious truth.

Under the new conditions of our modern life we must build for world peace not through balances of military power but through the winning of men’s minds and hearts. We of the West must fight, surely not the people of Russia and China, but their present misguided thinking. Some day we shall need their help. We must conquer other peoples with construc- tive ideas.

What ideas?

Here our thoughts inevitably turn back to the very practical teachings of the Man of Peace who lived almost two thousand years ago. In our present utterly interdependent world only some form of prac- ticable brotherhood can constitute the basis of a last- ing peace.

Brotherhood, translated into political terms, is already winning many peoples. The United Nations is fundamentally based upon brotherhood. As the Charter puts it: “We the people of the United Na- tions . . . unite our strengh to maintain international peace and security.”” So was the United Nations Re- lief and Rehabilitation Administration, organized in 1943 to bring relief to the suffering and dying victims of war “through the provision of food, fuel, clothing, shelter and other basic necessities.” In the words of the representative of China, “We want the common man around the world who has felt this common suffering to know also a common healing and a com- mon regeneration.” So, also in the U. N. Economic and Social Council, the World Health Organization, the International Children’s Fund, and a score of

Wortp Arrairs, FALL, 1959

other international organizations. Collective security is one form of brotherhood.

A second fundamental concept upon which, it would seem, any enduring world peace must be based is that of the sacredness of human personalities. The conception of human freedom based upon inalienable hurnan rights is a conquering idea, which in its very essence is religious. World peace cannot be won among peoples subjected to tyrannical rule. As Abraham Lincoln put it: “Our defense is in the spirit which prizes the liberty of all men, in all lands, everywhere.” The concept of human freedom built upon the sacredness—the supreme worth—of indi- vidual human personalities possesses conquering force; with this matchless power free men seeking a world peace that is to be lasting must fight, and upon this must be built the coming peace.

In the third place, no international peace can be enduring unless it be built upon a supreme faith in the transcendance of spiritual over material power. Again and again history has proved that material force, triumphant for the moment, is ultimately over- powered by moral and spiritual forces. Power that is supreme cannot be won by material force alone.

The best hope for mankind is to lose now no time in building, particularly among peoples of growing influence and power, a profound belief in human brotherhood, in the worth of individual human per- sonalities as supreme over everything else in the world, in a living, dominant God over-ruling the earth. These are the conquering ideas which free peoples must today learn more valiantly to fight with.

Whenever in deadly earnest men have turned back to Christian fundamentals, they have tapped a source of unconquerable power. Americans, like others, have at their hands, if only they possess the faith and courage to put it into more practical play in their own country and in the world, a spiritual force of match- less potency.

“The supreme task, which is nothing less than the salvation of civilization,” declared Woodrow Wilson in his last published writing, “now faces democracy, insistent, imperative. There is no escaping it, unless everything we have built up is presently to fall in ruin about us; and the United States, as the greatest of democracies, must undertake it... . The sum of the whole matter is this, that our civilization cannot survive materially unless it be redeemed spiritually. It can be saved only by becoming permeated with the spirit of Christ and being made free and happy by the practices which spring out of that spirit. Only thus can . . . the shadows be lifted from the road ahead.”

Inter-Americanism for Canada?

There seems to be a spell cast on the relations be- tween Canada and the rest of the Inter-American System. Two years ago, when, for the first time, a Canadian Secretary of State for External Affairs had finally accepted an invitation to visit Latin America, the tide turned and his political party was defeated, after having been entrenched in power for almost a quarter of a century. And the Honorable Lester B. Pearson could not make the planned trip around Latin America, where there might have been a pos- sibility for him and for our country to become better acquainted with the problems of continental solidarity.

After that “grand dérangement” in Canadian poli- tics, the Progressive Conservative party came to pow- er but the change was so great that it took some time for the Prime Minister, the Rt. Hon. John Diefen- baker, to find a suitable candidate for the post of Secretary of State for External Affairs. During the years passed in the Loyal Opposition, Mr. Diefen- baker himself had been the expert on Canadian for- eign policy but he could not possibly carry on with the dual burden of Prime Minister and chief of our diplomacy. After a few months, just on the eve of the opening of the Session of the U. N. General Assembly, the Prime Minister appointed a newcomer to politics, Dr. Sidney E. Smith, President of the University of Toronto and a well-known figure in educational circles. The Honorable Sidney Smith, who was not a member of Parliament, had to be elected first in order to sit at the House of Commons. At the same time as he was campaigning in Hastings- Frontenac, he was directing our delegation in New York. Nevertheless, Mr. Smith was considered a competent man; he was fluently bilingual, and com- manded much respect nationally and internationally.

The new Secretary of State of External Affairs was not long in grasping the importance of continental problems and he took the opportunity of attending the inauguration of the President of Mexico to make a tour of Latin America. Accompanied by Canadian officials, Mr. Smith went to South America and met with the Canadian Ambassadors in that part of the continent. When he came back to Canada he seemed to be better informed on continental problems and he spoke at length of the O.A.S. and of American solidarity. Before the Standing Committee on Ex- ternal Affairs of the House of Commons, Minister Smith gave a long and interesting report on his trip and on the talks he had with Latin American officials and Canadian ambassadors. Without engaging him- self too much in the way of inter-Americanism, Min- ister Smith appeared to be enthusiastic about the inter-

BY MARCEL ROUSSIN

Director, Inter-American Institute, University of Ottawa

American way of life and he went as far as to say: “By joining the O.A.S. . . . Canada could con- tribute to holding for the West the friendship in the O.A.S. of 20 nations whose total population is already bigger and is increasing much faster than that of North America.”

Our Secretary of State for External Affairs dis- cussed with the members of the Committee, on that lucky 5th of March, the different implications of Canadian participation in the O.A.S. He evidently could not see any constitutional or legal objection to our participation, nor any strong reason against it. He even mentioned some important advantages that would result for Canada, for the other members, and also for the Commonwealth as a whole. And it is not without some surprise that we note Minister Smith’s words:

“Canada’s membership in the O.A.S. would have

the advantage of giving the whole British Com-

monwealth more intimate contacts with Latin

America. If the opposite reason were present in

1941—and that accounts for a reversal in the trend

at that time to join the O.A.S. (should read:

P.A.U.)—I think that that day has passed, and

I do not believe there would be any anxiety on the

part of the O.A.S., or the United States that our

membership would not be entirely acceptable by reason of our Commonwealth membership. In-

deed, I would turn the coin over and say that I

think they would welcome that connection in the

Commonwealth .. . and after mentioning the possibility that the West Indies Federation join the O.A.S., Minister Smith adds...

... there would be two representatives to put for-

ward in some measure the views of the Common-

wealth, and thereby exert some influence on the deliberations and the decisions of that body.”

If we have given so much space to the quotations from the Canadian Minister, it is because, in his own words, the fallacy of antagonism between the O.A.S. and the Commonwealth is definitely discarded by the chief of the Canadian diplomacy himself. Those are words that we must remember!

It was nothing but a dream, because five days after delivering that message of understanding and hope,

Worvp Arrairs, Fair, 1959

tne Honorable Sidney Smith died suddenly before attending a House meeting. Once more, the curse of fate had stricken the policy of closer inter-Ameri- canism and Heaven knows when Canada will come that close to better understanding and greater coop- eration. Evidently, Canada and the O.A.S. is such a hot problem that one can get one’s fingers burnt by coming too close to it.

We could just call it the end of the journey, or at least the pause that refreshes, but it would not be fair to all those who still believe that Canada is an American nation with an American mission and an American destiny.

For many years already, since the first Pan Amer- ican Medical Congress held in Washington in 1889, Canada has taken part in a few continental meetings and bodies. But there seems to be a lack of coordina- tion in the efforts waged by the Canadians in their relations with the other nations of the continent, and especially with the Inter-American System as such. At the turn of the century, a group of Toronto busi- nessmen established what was for a while the biggest enterprise in Brazil, and other Canadian concerns also founded branches all over Latin America, but it was only in 1941 that Canada opened its first diplo- matic mission south of the United States.

During the Second World War, when the Euro- pean and Asiatic markets were closed to Canadian products and our strategic industries had to turn to Latin America for the primary products, there seemed to develop a great interest toward everything that had to do with Latin America. Even Ripley could have thought of a new “believe it or not,” when the Prime Minister of Canada went as far, in 1941, as offering Canada on a silver platter to the Pan Amer- ican Union if our country was invited to the Confer- ence of the Minister of Foreign Affairs, held in Rio de Janeiro in January 1942. The Government of the United States, backing down on earlier suggestions made by President Roosevelt, thoughtfully advised Ottawa that it would be better to wait a few more years, because the Inter-American System was not ready to greet heartily a member of the British Com- monwealth of Nations. And that was practically the end of it. So, when the Chapultepec Conference voted a warm resolution of thanks and congratula- tions to the Dominion of the North, it was rather coldly received and the Rt. Hon. Mackenzie King had completely lost interest in Inter-American af- fairs. For anybody who knows the influence that the Prime Minister exercised on Canadian politics, it meant that the question of the Inter-American System was all but dead and buried.

The views expressed during the following years by Canadian officials were very polite and uncom- promising. They knew that there was something

Worvp Arrairs, Fai, 1959

called the Inter-American System, but it was nothing to compare with NATO or the Colombo Plan. In 1948, the Bogota Conference was known more for the riots than for the Charter. In 1954, the Caracas Conference seemed to create a much greater interest. As one recalls, the situation at the time was rather tense, in the Americas (U.S.A. and Guatemala) and in Europe (Berlin) not to mention Korea. The Canadian Government, without sending an official observer to the Conference, took steps to keep fully informed and the Department of External Affairs took a deep interest in the debates and results of the Tenth Conference.

During all those years, one might wonder if the interest of the Canadians in general and of the Canadian authorities more especially had developed in favor of a de jure recognition of the Inter-Ameri- can System. Evidently, the visits paid by two Canadi- an trade delegations, the trip of late Minister Smith, and a few other items might lead one to believe that Canada is inclining toward a better understanding of continental problems.

To understand how things are done in Canada, whether it is in connection with the Inter-American System, the grants to research, or the development of the North, one has to live in Canada. It cannot be fully understood from the outside because other coun tries lack the flavor of an American-situated country with British institutions protecting a bi-ethnic nation spread over the largest national territory of the hemi- sphere, at the cross-roads of the Old and New worlds.

Our geographical situation and our historical back- ground have taught us to live by ourselves without counting too much on outside help, and even at times to be very cautious about foreign influences. Our atti- tude toward the Inter-American System is a good example of that Canadian general attitude. Many Canadians believe sincerely that Canada should have joined the O.A.S. a long time ago, and for many indisputable reasons. Others will be strongly opposed to such an association because it might lead to the severing of relations with the Commonwealth, which according to some is a sine qua non of Canadian status. Many other Canadians are a little suspicious of any international organization because the League of Nations and the United Nations, according to them, have completely failed in fulfilling their aims, and when it comes to the Pan American Union, or the Organization of American States, they are completely dumbfounded.

The problem of Canada’s joining the O.A.S. is not an issue in itself but only part of the grand jeu of our foreign policy (or external as one must say here). Being at the cross-roads of the continents as well as of civilizations, Canada is forced to think twice before taking any important decision. A closer integration

to the Inter-American System is a very important decision because we fully realize its implications and its responsibilities. Whether it be from the political, diplomatic, cultural, economic or military point of view, Canada is a country of the American continent whose responsibilities have spread to embrace Europe and the Far East.

There is no doubt however that the question of the integration of Canada to the Inter-American System

has made great headway and that it becomes more evident every day that such closer cooperation is bound to come about. Nobody doubts that, but no- body knows either, when it will happen. The recent trip of our Secretary of State for External Affairs opened a new avenue on the Inter-American way of thinking. This avenue is still open, but it must be admitted that the way to reach the end is not yet clearly indicated.

One Micronesian Speaks

Note—The United States is the administering authority of the Trust Territory of the Pacific Is- lands, which consists of 96 distinct island groups scat- tered over an ocean area of 3,000,000 square miles. The area of the 2,000 or more islands and atolls is only 687 square miles. A “strategic area” in the Mariana Islands is administered by the Navy Depart- ment, and the Eniwetok Proving Ground for atomic bombs is in the Marshall Islands. High Commis- sioner Delmas H. Nucker is responsible for the civil administration of the population of 70,000 persons, of whom 13,000 are in school. Of the 99 Micronesi- ans who were in college in Guam, Hawaii, the Philip- pines, United States and Fiji, Bethwel Henry was one who specialized in government. At New York on June 29, 1959, he told the Trusteeship Council of his own aspirations for his people and of their prob- lems in development as he saw them.—£Fditor.

It is a great privilege for me to participate in this meeting and to observe the Trusteeship Council in its deliberations. I know this first-hand experience will benefit me greatly in my work in Micronesia.

I am from Mokil Atoll in Ponape District, East- ern Carolines. I had the pleasure of meeting the members of the 1959 Visiting Mission last February when they stopped in Honolulu to visit the Micro- nesian students. Later the Visiting Mission visited my home atoll of Mokil, and I am pleased that the people of this small atoll with a land area of only one-fourth of a square mile, had the opportunity to meet with the distinguished representatives of this important body of the United Nations. In Honolulu, I received a few letters from Mokilese expressing how grateful they were to have the Mission members visit their tiny atoll.

My main interest has been in political develop- ment and education. I had spent some time in Ponape District working in both fields. I have just com- pleted four years’ study at the University of Hawaii majoring in government, and I expect to use the knowledge acquired at the university to gain a better

BY BETHWEL HENRY

Adviser to the High Commissioner, Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands

understanding of the needs at home when working with my fellow Micronesians.

The Trusteeship Council in the past as well as the most recent Visiting Mission has commented on political development in our Territory. I would like to cite a few of my own experiences in this field to give the Council an idea of what I would call modernizing our political system. In the summer of 1957, I was a member of a political development team in Ponape District working in the communities on election procedures and regulations. It was grati- fying to see the enthusiasm shown by the people in their desire to choose their own public officials while retaining the traditional patterns they valued. I men- tion this because in my district, hereditary patterns of leadership and a system of titles have been very strong and important in the life of the people. Later, I had the opportunity of participating in the discus- sion of Sokehs Council on the chartering of Sokehs Municipality. This was one of the first municipali- ties in Ponape District to receive a charter. The team of which I was a member held many meetings with community leaders and the people of the communi- ties. We had to explain simply and carefully the meaning of election procedures. To issue a charter is easy, but such a charter would not mean anything unless the people want to understand it. They must understand and accept the duties and responsibilities as well as the privileges involved in representative government.

In my district also we have seen the gradual devel- opment over the past ten years of a representative legislative body for the entire district. At first, we had only a Ponape Island Congress in which the nine municipalities on the outer islands, of which my home Mokil is one, did not have any voting representation. The Ponape Island Congress in its initial stages had

Wortp Arrairs, Farr, 1959

al h:

Wwe rw

(Vv AY Ne

to adapt itself closely to the Ponape Island patterns, therefore, a hereditary House of Nobles as well as an elected House of the People was established. One of the reasons for the absence of the outer islands’ representation in this bi-cameral legislative body was due to the fact that most of the outer islands lack a noble class. As this two-house Island Congress met throughout the years and the people learned more and more about modern government, there was an increasing desire for wider and truer representation. I am happy to report that the leaders of the Nobles’ House were as active as members of the Peoples’ House in expressing desire for complete represen- tation. Along with this growing desire for elected representation came increased demands from the people of the outer islands, from Kusaie, Pingelap, Mokil, Kapingamarangi, and others for representa- tion in a district-wide congress. Last year, Mr. Presi- dent, a Congressional convention was held and a char- ter for an all-district, unicameral congress, with all members elected by popular vote, was drafted and adopted. This new Ponape District Congress is now in operation and has had several productive sessions. The first president of the District Congress was a congressman from my home island of Mokil. I say this not only because I am very proud for my home atoll to have this honor but also because it seems to be very indicative of the progress made in the growth of representative government in my home district.

I am giving only examples from my home dis- trict of Ponape but the same pattern of gradual devel- opment toward the objective of self-government and self-improvement can be shown for all the other dis- tricts as well.

Despite these positive improvements, we still have many obstacles yet to overcome. Micronesia today is no longer an isolated world but is part of the world community. Most Micronesians, however, still think only in terms of local or district interest. We must educate ourselves to begin to think along broader terms—in territory-wide terms as well as in district terms. Through the programs initiated by the Ad- ministering Authority, people are beginning to see their problems in a wider and more realistic per- spective. People are realizing more and more that they have common interests and common goals. This fall, elected delegates from each district will again meet with the High Commissioner and his staff to discuss common problems. I am to be a delegate to this Inter-District Advisory Committee Meeting and I am looking forward to acquiring more first- hand information on the activities of the other dis- tricts.

I am returning home to Ponape after this Meet- ing and am definitely planning to work in education. In my opinion, further education is the most pressing

Wortp Arrairs, Faur, 1959

need in Micronesia today. I feel that educating the Micronesians so they will become more productive citizens and be able to assume fully the duties and responsibilities of their economic, political, social, and educational system. This is exactly what we are trying to accomplish.

I have great admiration for and agreement with a policy which does not disrupt the Micronesian cul- ture. You all know, however, that there are numer- ous aspects of our culture which were introduced from the other cultures. Today we are exposed to the rest of the world. We must, therefore, educate ourselves to meet the obligations imposed by this new status so that eventually we will be able to take care of our- selves as we are related to the rest of the peoples of the world.

There are other aspects in our Territory that need attention. I will briefly mention a few that appear to be important. Though we are turning out more and more competent persons for specialized fields, we still need many more qualified persons to take over the various specialized professions. I realize it will take time to achieve such training.

There are problems of transportation and commu- nication. The reports of the past Visiting Missions covered this to a great extent. Many Micronesians are still in need of being informed on the new me- chanics of democratic government and democratic living. This is where our school system and the com- munity development program play an especially im- portant role. There is the problem of overcoming the reluctance of the older Micronesians to accept modern agricultural methods.

We need to continue our support for the projects which have been started and have been increasingly successful in enabling us to better utilize our own economic resources. As you know, our resources are so limited that our economy will continue to need outside financial assistance and technical aid in order to build a well-balanced economy which will meet our increasing demands.

During the past two years many areas were dam- aved by typhoons. If it were not for the needed emergency aid and the long-range rehabilitation pro- gram granted us by our Administering Authority, many people would not have survived the destruc- tion.

On the other hand, even though we lack the know- ledge and experience found in your