WEEKLY HOME STUDY PACKAGE 8 - TERM 2 - WEEK 3 (23/08/21 – 27/08/21) Subject History Year/ Level 13C Strand: 1: Change And Continuity In The Pacific& Beyond Sub -Strand: 13.1 : Decolonisation Content Learning Outcome: 1.3.1 Describe The Incidents And Events Which Led To Decolonisation Lesson objective(s) Identify key events in Vanuatu’s colonial history Describe the role played by foreign governments LESSON NOTES DECOLONISATION Vanuatu An archipelago of 83 islands, close to the Solomon Islands north, and close to New Caledonia South. On the east it borders the Coral Sea with Papua New Guinea and Australia, and to the west a large ocean gap separates Vanuatu from Fiji and Rotuma. The largest island is Espiritu Santo. The capital, Port Vila, is on Efate Island. The word Vanuatu means “Our Land Forever” in one of Vanuatu’s Melanesian languages. Today Vanuatu is home to a diverse population of roughly 266,937. Its official languages are English French and Bislama. 70% of the population is Protestant (with the largest proportion, 25%, belonging to the Presbyterian Church). The flag of Vanuatu, chosen at the time of independence, represents key ideas and characteristics of the people and the nation. The Vanuatu archipelago is a chain of islands in the shape of a Y, so this is represented on the flag by the black horizontal Y. The yellow line inside the black “Y” is symbolic of sunshine and Christianity; the green is symbolic of the fertile lands (arable land and forest areas), red symbolic of the blood shed for freedom and; Black represents the Melanesian people that originally settled the islands 3500 years ago. In the black triangle there is a boar tusk and two crossed fern leaves, a symbol of prosperity. Map of Vanuatu 1 Prior to independence, Vanuatu was known as the “New Hebrides”, a name given to the island group by its British colonial masters. The colonial history of Vanuatu is unique because it had two colonial rulers simultaneously. This arrangement was called a condominium, and it allowed the British and French to share control of the islands. Condominium/Pandemonium The New Hebrides had a short colonial history, Being ruled by France and Britain jointly only from 1906 to 1980, a mere 74 years. It was an experiment in Empire, an attempt by France and Britain to administer the archipelago, but without allowing the other power to gain an ascendency. The idea of joint rule by foreign powers had already been tried briefly (and failed) in the Pacific, when Germany, Britain and the USA established a joint administration in Samoa from 1889-1899. This was called a “Tripartite administration”, or Tri-dominium. The New Hebrides was a condominium which allowed the British and French to share control of the territory. The Anglo-French Condominium was formally established in 1906 to give the two countries joint administrative power, which meant the official introduction of: Two languages Two police forces Two education systems A law court was created, With one British judge, one French judge, and a neutral European judge. This power sharing arrangement was often complicated and confusing for both the European and indigenous residents. This is why it was sometimes called a “pandemonium”. Missionaries and traders from Britain and France competed with one another in these islands to earn the favour of the indigenous peoples. Due to this unusual colonial administration system, The New Hebrides had a slightly different path to independence compared to other Pacific nations as it had to be decolonised or given its independence by two foreign powers at the same time. Unlike other Pacific nations, Vanuatu also faced two separate rebellions or breakaway, secessionist movements, on Espirito Santo Island and Tanna island, just as it was about to gain independence. The Decolonisation Process In 1957, Sir Alan Burns, an experienced Governor of several British colonies wrote “In Defence of Colonies: British Colonial Territories in International Affairs, (he also wrote a book, Fiji, in 1963). Burns argued there were four conditions for gaining independence; i. A large population, ii. Financial resources and economic prosperity and the ability to attract foreign investment, iii. A number of “trustworthy and well educated” citizens who could maintain democracy, and iv. A method to protect minorities. Burns declared if all these conditions existed then a colony was “fitted for independence”. In Vanuatu, in 1957 none of these conditions existed. Burn’s opinions were published three years before the United Nations declared in 1960 that all colonial people had the right to be free and independent. Four years after Burns wrote “In defence of Colonies”, the Current Affairs Bulletin asked in1961, “What is the fate of these surviving remnants of Empire? Are they also to be freed in due course? When and on what terms? If not, why not?” In 1960, Britain had told Fiji it was leaving and Fiji should prepare for independence – which occurred ten years later. Vanuatu had a similar warning in 1971, and although France and Britain differed on the procedure for withdrawal (with France opposed to decolonisation and Independence), nine years later Vanuatu gained independence. 2 Fr Walter Lini, the first Prime Minister, recalled that in the 1970s “it was sad for us to see that the British were hastening Fiji to independence and ready to do so in the Gilberts and the Solomons but not in the New Hebrides”. Lini recalled that “we encouraged civil disobedience against the government …we were certainly risking imprisonment and worse.” Opposition to Independence Nagriamel was a political movement initially based in the northern islands of the New Hebrides during the late 1970s. Nagriamel called for a focus on the traditional, village- centered way of life for the ni-Vanuatu people. The leader was Jimmy Stevens and his compound in the Fanafo area of upland Espiritu Santo had the appearance of a cult. Nagriamel believed that the New Hebrides was not ready for independence and the pace of change caused by modernization. Many French settlers who wanted the continuation of colonial rule were also pro-Nagriamel. As the independence movement gathered momentum in the 1970s, i. Nagriamel sought to delay the end of the British/French condominium. ii. It obtained financial support from discredited USA organizations and overseas land and financial investors. iii. Nagriamel declared a separate nation on the island of Santo on the eve of Vanuatu's independence in 1980 But the government led by the Vanua'aku Party took action, and soldiers provided by Papua New Guinea quickly quashed Nagriamel's short-lived 'Republic of Vemerana' and arrested its leader Jimmy Stevens. Independence 1980 In the preparations for the transfer of power from the two colonial powers to the new independent nation of Vanuatu, the French insisted that the French Flag could never be seen being lowered. It was taken down 24 hours before the actual handover at midnight on 30thJuly 1980. The British Resident Commissioner, who had already seen the act of decolonisation in Uganda, noted that for Britain, “I was determined that come what may, the Union Jack would come down with dignity”. The British Resident Commissioner noted that “in the middle of all their worries about their divided nation and their concerns for the future” the Vanuatu people thoroughly enjoyed and had fun on their first day of Independence. The French had not openly campaigned against independence but they reluctantly withdrew. On the night before French officials departed, they shredded and burnt files at the Embassy. Some files were recovered by researchers, and they revealed there was indeed a clear French policy of delaying or preventing independence. In the 1960s, opinion on the future of the New Hebrides was mostly critical of the chances of success as an independent nation. The Current Affairs Bulletin declared in 1969 that: Once the change from primitive to modern government has begun it cannot rest until it has made the full revolution. We have no half-way stage, so the wheel must either speed up or fall back. Which will it be? The Current Affairs Bulletin declared that “a system designed to meet the needs of 60 years ago (the Condominium agreement of 1906) is not readily adaptable to today’s need to build the islanders into one nation and prepare them by experience and instruction for self-government. The answer in the New Hebrides was that events did speed up, with rapid transfers to self- government, then responsible government, the writing of a constitution and finally full independence. Despite doubts in the 1960s, the outcome in 1980-2015 has been 35 years of unity, not withstanding some serious political upheavals and leadership squabbles. Summary The Decolonisation process in Vanuatu was rapid, starting in the early 1970s with returning overseas students and a worldwide climate of granting freedom to former colonial subjects, driven by UN resolutions and the Cold War. Decolonisation was completed with only a very brief period of preparation or tutelage by Britain and France. The Current Affairs Bulletin had suggested in 1969 that “no one could precisely say that it is possible to define precisely the point at which the period of tutelage has served its purpose and should end with the grant of full independence.” 3 Activity 1. Why did France and Britain depart so rapidly and without preparation in the New Hebrides? (2 marks) ___________________________________________________________________________________________