714

THE AND OCEANIA:

NEW DIMENSIONS IN THE COLD REFRAIN

William O. Miller

Introduction. Stretching from thc in common. They were organized, if at west coasts of the Americas to thc Asian all, into small, fragmented, premodern mainland lies the earth's most formi­ , with no effective capacity to dable water barrier-·the Pacific Ocean. resist domination hy any power inter­ This mammoth body of water comprises ested in exercising it. 1 two-thirds of the ocean area of the The resulting scramble for hegemony world and a full one-third of the earth's culminated in the late lUOO's in large surface. Interspersed throughout this island groupings gradually becoming vast area are literally thousands of subject to the colonial administration of islands, divided generally into the island one or another of the Western powers. chains of Melanesia, Micronesia, and Since that time, as national powers have Polynesia. Sincc Wcstern man has navi­ ebbed and flowed, or con­ gated these waters, these islands of trol over most of these islands has Oceania have becn sought after jealously undergone frequent change. This is par­ by the world's powers--first for the ticularly true of the isb.nds of Micro­ pleasure and sojourn they offered, then nesia which have been under the suc­ for their wcalth, and finalJy for their cessive control of Spain, Germany, strategic . The peoples of thcse Japan, and now the . islands were extremely divcrse in racial These Pacific outposts became, in the haekground, culture, and social customs early days of World War II, "foosteps,,2 and groupings. They had only one thing for a militaristic Japanese expansion 715 southward toward Australia, and Lhey prcsent an analysis of the CommiLtee's formed "a series of great spider webs aCLiviLies, which are seen to refleet an 'made to order' as one Japanese admiral effective conversion hy the Soviet said, to caLch any unwary nics LhaL tried IJnion of the international yearning for Lo crm;s the Pacifi(:. ,,3 Lall~r they ~.~rvcd ~('lf-(ldenllillali()11 of pcoples illlo all LllI~ f;:IIIIC pllrpOf;I\ for the llnill,(1 ~tat($ ullrdcntilll!: eold w'lr .1s-,,;lIIlt 011 W(!stern and its Allies in their successful efforts presence in the Pacific Ocean area. The to choke off the exposed extensions of ohjective of this assault is felt to be: Japanese military power, and they pro­ first, thc denial to the Western Powers, vided successive rungs in the U.S. ladder principally the United States, of the use constructed for assault on imperial of these island areas; and second, to Japan. make them ripe for Communist political The strategic significance of Oceania subversion and ultimately for Commu­ is a fact of modern history which nist exploitation. underscores Admiral l\']ahan's classic analysis of the dependence on strategi­ International Concern for Dependent cally located land hases for the effecLive Peoples: An Historical Sketch: exercise of seapower.4 Located as they a. The Covenant of the League of are, athwart the maritime lines of com­ Nations_ From the timid beginnings of munication from the Western Hemi­ article 22 of the Covenant of the League sphere to Southeast , these islands of Nations, the efforts of the interna­ have once-and could again--provide tional community to bring ahout a operaLing bases from which the.sealanes universal application of the principle of supporting the projcction of power into self-determination of peoples have this area could be severed. assumed an ever-expanding scope. It will Such obvious strategic considerations he remembered that in the aftermath of have not gone unnoted in the Soviet the problem of the disposi­ Union, whose respresentatives are cur­ tion of former enemy colonial posses­ rently making significant efforts to re­ sions was resolved by the creation of the create in the Pacific groupings of small, League Mandate system under which fragmented politics, with no effective thcse tcrriLorics were theoretically taken capacity to resist domination by a under internaLional contro\. Such terri­ stronger power which is willing to risk tories whose peoples were" . _ . not yet adverse world opinion to exercise it--to ahle to stand by themselves under the create, once again, the very situation sLrenuous conditions of the modern which existed in this area in the latl\ world" were entrusted to the tutClage of 19th cenLury. The modality of Lhe "more advanccd nations" who were Soviet approach is not the traditional willing to accept the "sacred trust of exercise of military power, but rather a civilization" and to provide for their sustained political assault on Western "well-being and development." hegemony through the medium of the Whatever defects may have existed in United Nations and its "Committee on this system, and there were many,S it the Situation with regard to the Imple­ mllst he said Lhat the very creation of a mentation of the Declaration on the scheme of even tenuous international Granting of Independence to Colonial conLrol over colonial areas represented a Countries and Peoples," commonly dramatic departure from prior practices. known as the "Special CommiLtel\ of It assumes even greaLer significance TWI'nty-follr. " whcn it is re(:ogllizcd that Lhis was a This paper will traee the historical voluntary act on the parL of the WesLern anLCCl\(ltmts of the "Special CommiLLee nations whose past policies had heen to of Twenty-four," and it will thereafter ex Lend their own individual imperial 716 control over widely dispersed colonial powers.12 To be placed under this possessions.6 While it may be true that system were the territories formerly the international control of the League held under League Mandate, those was of the colonial powcrs' own dcsign, detached from enemy control as a result it did signal the hcginnings of a reform of World War II, and those territories movcmcnt under which the entire inter­ which might be voluntarily placed undcr national community would seek to over­ the system by any of the. colonial see the transformation of dependent powers.13 Only 10 of the formerly peoples toward self-determina~ion. mandated territories plus Somalilancl were placed under Trusteeship Council h. The Charter of the United Na­ supervision.14 In the Pacific area these tions. The Second World War gave addi­ included the Trust Territory of the tional impetus to international concern Pacific Islands, formerly mandated to over the problems of dependent Japan but now under the administration peoples. Particularly was this true in the of the United States; the Trust Territory United States where almost all respon­ of New Guinea under Australian admin­ sible officials, including the President, istration; and Western Samoa and Nauru were of the view that the days of under New Zealand and Australian were past and that in the administration, respectively. new postwar order there should be a comprehensive trusteeship system em­ Specific trusteeship agreements were bracing all dependent people.7 Al­ entered into wiLh the adminisLering though no such all-pervasive system powers stating specifically the terms developed, there were significant ad­ under which the trust was to be exer­ vances made toward more effective cised. The Trusteeship Couneil was in­ international supervIsIOn. Again, it vested with significant powers to over­ seems important to note that these steps see the exercise of these trust agree­ were taken by the victorious mandatory ments. It was given authority to con­ and colonial powers on their own initia­ sider reports to be submitted regularly tive and despite strong opposition of by the administering powers, to receive somes because of their recognition of and examine petitions from inhabitants "the right of all people to choose the of the territories, and to conduct visits form of under which they to and inspections of the territories will live ... ,,9 themselves. 15 This for dependent It seems important to note at this peoples was to be structured on two juncture that through the operation of basic concepts: first, an expanded and this system all of the original trust im proved in ternational trusteeship territories, with the exception of New system with a view toward the ultimate Guinea and the Trust Territory of the "self-government or independence" of Pacific Islands, had gained their inde­ the trust territpries;Io. and second, a pendence by early 1968. declaration by the colonial powers of (2) The Charter Declaration of the their duties toward, and the rights of, Rights of Dependent Peoples. While the the dependent peoples of all territories U.N. trusteeship system was essentially who "have not yet attained a full an improved version of the League measure of self government. ,,11 Mandates, the truly "striking innova­ (1) The Trusteeship System. The tion ,,16 in this area affected by the newly created trusteeship system func­ charter was the provisions of chapter Xl tioned under an institutionalized Trus­ and, more specifically, the provisions of teeship Council composed equally of article 73. In this article the members of administering and nonadministering the United Nations, including those 717 administering dependent territories, tering powers but, rather, wcre former committed themselves to the proposi­ enemy territories of relatively recent tion that the "interests of the inhabi­ acquisition. Also, it is obvious that the tants of these territories are para­ machinery of the charter gave the inter­ mount," and acceptcd as national community as a whole a rather significant influence over these terri­ •.. a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost .•• the well­ tories through the powers legislated to being of the inhabitants ..• to develop the Trusteeship Council. self government, to take due account In the first 15 years of the United of the political aspirations of the Nations' operations, some 34 dependent peoples, and to assist them in the territories, including eight trusteeship progressive development of their free and 22 nontrusteeship territories, had political institutions, according to the 1 particular circumstances of each terri­ gained their independence. 7 Neverthe­ tory and its people .... less, there remained at the end of 1960, 64 dependent territories under the The administering powers further agreed 1 to transmit regularly to the Secretary administration of colonial powers. II General statistical reports on the eco­ While, therefore, there had been major nomic, social, and educational condi­ progress toward decolonization, it is tions in their respective dependent terri­ quite apparent that with respect to the tories. non trusteeship dependencies the prog­ ress was measurably slower than was the The covenant's "sacred trust" was case with those under Trusteeship Coun­ thus proclaimed to embrace not only cil supervision. It was to speed up this the people of former enemy territories process that the United Nations, aug­ but, indeed, to embrace the people of mented in 1960 with the admission to all dependent territories. The colonial membership of 17 ex-colonial states, powers had stated their formal recogni­ took such significant action that this tion of the principle that their own, year must be described as the watershed long-held colonial possessions were now in the. "rising tide of decolonization."1 9 wards of the In a dramatic address before the as a whole and that the objective of General Assembly on 23 September their administrations, at least in the eyes 1960, Nikita S. Khrushchev, Chairman of the international community, was to of the Council of Ministers of the provide these people with such assis­ U.S.S.R., stated that the time had come tance as might be required for their for the "complete and final abolition of ultimate exercise of the right of self­ the colonial system in all its forms and dctermination. Significantly absent, manifestations," and he submitted for howcver, was any institutionalized the consideration of the General As­ system to oversee the exercise of this sembly a draft declaration calling for "sacred trust" with respect to any of the granting of immediate independence the non trusteeship territories. to all trust and nonself-governing terri­ c. The "Magna Carta" of Anti­ tories.20 A modified Soviet proposal colonialism As noted above, the United later submitted proclaimed that in the Nations trusteeship system has func­ colonial territories "the swish of the tioned so effectively that all but two of overseer's lash is heard ... [that] the original 11 trust territories have now ... heads fall under the executioner's gaincd thdr indcpendcm:c. Many ex­ axe," that all colonial counlries Illllst he planations ('0111" hI: givml for this, not /.,'Tantell their int!epen"cnee forthwith the Irast of which could be that the "and that all foreign hases in territories involved were not long-term states must be e1iminated.,,2 1 Through­ historical possessions of the adminis- out the debates whieh followed, Soviet 718

spokesmen continued this type of vitri­ rights, is contrary to the Charter of thc olic attack on all forms of "Western United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world and colonialism," giving particular and stri­ co-operation. dent verbal attention. to the subject of 2. All people havc thc right to self­ Western military bases in foreign coun­ determination; by virtue of that right tries and Western military alliances. they freely determine their political Western spokesmen answered these status and freely pursue their eco­ attacks by accusing the , nomic, social and cultural develop­ itself, of adopting a new form of co­ ment. lonialism which "had been imposed by 3. Inadequacy of political, economic, force on people who had been free for social or educational preparedness centuries." They also made a specific should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence. point of stating their recognition of the aspirations of all people who did not 4. All armed action or repressive presently enjoy a full measure of self­ measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease ••• government and expressed a profound regret that the Soviet Union would 5. Immediate steps shall be taken ... to transfer all powers to undertake to "pervert for its own pur­ the peoples of these territories, with­ poses the deef and genuine desires" of out any conditions or reservations, these peoples. 2 in accordance with their freely ex­ Recognizing the urgent need for a pressed will and desire, •.• in ordcr to enable them to enjoy complete resolution more moderate in tone than independence and freedom. that submitted by the Soviet Union, and perhaps recognizing also the urgent need 6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national to attempt to remove U.N. decoloniza­ unity and the territorial integrity of tion efforts from the center of the a country is incompatible with the East-West struggle where it had purposes and principles of the been cast by the Soviets, 43 Afro-Asian Charter of the United Nations. nations collaborated in drafting a com­ 7. All States shall observe faithfully promise resolution on this subject. This and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the resolution was submitted to the General Universal Declaration of Human Assembly by Cambodia, and it was Rights, and the present Declaration adopted on 19 December ]960, as on thc basis of equality, respect for General Assembly Resolution the sovereign rights of all peoples ISI4(XV), by a vote of 89 to 0 with and their territorial integrity. nine nations, including all of the West­ Without a single dissenting vote, the ern colonial powers, abstaining.23 General Assembly thus proclaimed what This declaration has been variously must be regarded as an overwhelming described as a "capstone to the U.N.'s international consensus that the era of efforts to supervise colonial regimes, ,,24 colonialism was past and that all of its as a kind of anticolonialism "magna remnants must give way to the right of carta,"25 and as "almost an amendment all people to self-determination. to the charter.',26 Certainly, all of these descriptions are accurate, since the reso­ While it is true that the General lution itse!e 7 speaks in broader and yet Assembly is not a lawmaking hody, that more definite terms than has any similar it can only recommend and not legis­ document in history. In its operative late, the overwhelming majority by paragraphs it declared: which this resolution was adopted and 1. The subjection of peoples to alien the fact that not even the colonial domination and exploitation consti­ powers against whom it was primarily tutcs a denial of fundamental human directed dared vote against it indicate 719 the persuasive moral force that underlay siderable -discussions repeating the acri­ it. Thus it must be said that, technical mony of the 1960 debates, was adopted legal arguments notwithstanding, the by an ovcrwhclming vote of 97 to 0 international community regards it as a with only four abstentions. morally, and perhaps legally, defensible Resolution 1654(XVI) of 27 Novem­ proposition that all peoples have a right ber 1961 reaffirmed the provisions of to self-determination, which "demands the declaration and called upon all the speediest possible ending of all states to take action "without further colonial relationships, and condemns delay" to implement it. The resolution uLLerly any extension or reestablishment also established a special committee of of colonial rule.,,2 s 17 members, to be appointed by the The political lessons long taught by President of the General Assembly, to Western philosophers and statesmen had inquire into the situation regarding thus come back full circle, and the implementation of the declaration and former pupils, now possessed of or­ to make appropriate recommendations ganized moral and political strength in and suggestions.3o In 1963, with the an international setting, were reminding addition to its competence of matters their former tutors in forceful terms of involving the trust territories, this com­ the lessons learned. It does seem ironic, mittee became the only U.N. body however, that the Western nations have under the General Assembly which was appeared to abdicate their leading role concerned generally with all nonself- in this effort to their cold war adver­ govermng• terri•• tones. 31 saries in the Soviet Union. In early 1962 the President of the d. The Committee of Twenty-four. General Assembly appointed the follow­ Seizing the initiative again in the next ing states as members of the Special session of the General Assembly, the Committee: Australia, Cambodia, Ethi­ Soviet Union on 26 September 1961 opia, , Italy, Madagascar, Mali, complained that, despite the 1960 Poland, Syria, Tanganyika, Tunisia, the declaration, some 88 territories still U.S.S.R., the , the remained under colonial domination, United States, Uruguay, Venezuela, and that no steps had been taken to transfer Yugoslavia.32 At the 17th session of the administration to the indigenous General Assemhly, the membership of peoples, and that, further, "the colonial­ the Committee 'yas expanded to a total ist powers' network of bases on foreign of 24 by the addition of Bulgaria, Chile, soil was being used to hamper the , Iran, Iraq, Ivory Coast, and 3 liberation of colonial peoples and jeop­ Sierra Leone. 3 ardize the independence of newly inde­ With this composition it takes little pendent countries." The Soviets again imagination to envisage the philosophy submitted a draft resolution for con­ which the Committee was to adopt and sideration,29 and, again, it was vitriolic the course of action it was to follow. It and vituperative in tone. It called, in does seem worthy of note that the part, for the final and unconditional Committee, from its outset, was liquidation of colonialism by not later weighed heavily against those powers than the end of 1962 and for the which administered dependent terri­ establishment of a special commission tories. Of the 24 Committee members, to inquire into the situation with regard 12 were ex-colonial territories, four to the implemenLlItion of the 1900 were Soviet oriented, and only three declaration. A compromise n:solution a d ministering powers--Austmlia, the was again proposed hy a grouping of United Kingdom, and the United States Afro-Asian states, which, after con- -were members. New Zealand, which at 720 the time continued to administer the though these differed in detail one from Cook Islands and Niue and Tokelau the other, the same general thread ran Islands, was not even represented; nor through them all--the Committee's insis­ were and Portugal, both of tence that progress toward self-deter­ whom continued to administer several mination in all of the territories was too dependent territories. slow and that the people of each of these areas should he given the earliest The Committee of Twenty-four and opportunity to express their wishes with the Pacific Islands. regard to their future status "in accor­ a. Initial Consideration-Conflict with dance with well established democratic the Trusteeship Council. As would be expected from the membership of the proccsses under United Nations super­ Special Committee, it gave its initial vision." The reports were generally attention to the African depcndent ter­ accompanied by reservations from the ritories, and it would be fair to say that administering powers who felt either the problems of these African depen­ that they did not accurately reflect the dencies have continued to be forcmost conditions in the territory, that pro­ in the Committee's considerations. Be­ posed visits to some of the territories ginning in 1964, however, with the were outside the Committee's compe­ formation of special subcommittees34 tence, or that progress toward self-deter­ to study and report on nonself-govern­ mination was entirely consistent with the needs and desires of the local ing territories in specific geographical 36 areas, the Committee significantly populations. broadened its activities. It was in this Two aspects of the 1964 Committee year that it first began to study elosely reports deserve speeial consideration: the Pacific Island dependencies. Some (1) the apparent conflict between the 16 Pacific Island areas were con­ Trusteeship Council and the heavily 3s sidered. These areas were dispersed oriented anticolonialism of the Special throughout the central and western Committee; and (2) the growing deter­ Pacific, both above and below the equa­ mination of the Special Committee that tor, and comprised literally thousands complete independence must he the of islands--from Pitcairn with a land area goal sought for all dependent peoples, of only 4 square miles and a population regardless of their own needs or of their of only 126, to Papua and New Guinea possible future independent viability. with land areas of over 180,000 square Concerning the first of these, the miles and a combined population in Trusteeship Council's reports to the excess of 2 million. The Committee's General Assembly, while urging the task was further complicated by the fact administering powcrs to continue their that these island areas were adminis­ efforts leading toward self-determina­ tered by six separate administering tion in their respective territories, did powers--the United Kingdom, the express general satisfaction with the United States, Australia, New Zealand, political procedures being implemented 3 France, and· Portugal. in each of them. 7 With respect to the The Committee met almost continu­ U.S.-administered Trust Territory of the ously during 1964, considering most of Pacific Islands, the Council took special the nonself-governing territories in the note of the report of its visiting mission Pacific in some detail. Reports were that "no fully maturcd opinions" had submitted to the General Assembly yet developed in the territory concern­ covering each of the territories COIl­ ing its political future. Further, it ex­ sidered, and recommendations were pressed the hope that the "future Con­ made concerning each territory. AI- gress of Micronesia would direct its 721 attention to all the possibilitic:s--from Decemher 1960, only 1 day after the indcpendencc to all other options-­ 1960 declaration was adopted, the which lay open for the future of the Gencral Assembly adopted Resolution Terri tory. ,,3 g 1541(XV), which provides in pertinent The Trusteeship Council's reports parts as follows: 41 "A Non-Self-Govern­ werc in marked constrast to the findings ing Territory ean be said to have of the Committee of Twenty-four that reached a full measure of self-govern­ the progress toward self-determination ment hy: (a) Emergence as a sovereign in the Trust Territory of the Pacific independent ; (b) Free association Islands "did not fully meet the require­ with an independent state; or (c) Inte­ ments of the Charter" and of the 1960 gration with an independent state." By declaration and that progress in New ignoring this resolution in its entirety Guinea and Nauru "had been slow and and by consistently reiterating only the adequate steps had not yet heen theme of the 1960 declaration, the taken.,,39 Committee clearly indicated an un­ Another area of conflict arose in the willingness to accept any status short of Special Committee's proposal to send its "complete independence" as a satis­ own visiting mission to the Trust Terri­ factory conclusion of the self-determi­ tory of the Pacific Islands. A strenuous nation process. That such a proposition U.S. ohjection was voiced to such a visit would not he permitted to prcvail over since it was considered that visiting the freely expressed desires of a local missions to trust territories were fhe population for political association with peculiar province ~f the Trusteeship its administering power fortunately was Council and, were, hence, outside the demonstrated hy the 1965 resolution of competence of the Special Committee. the General Assembly, GA RES This objection was overruled by the 2064(XX), approving the results of a Committee by what has now hecome an plebiscite in which the Cook Islanders almost characteristic voting pattern of elected free association with New Zea­ 16 to 5 with 2 abstentions.4o land rather than complete indepen­ 42 It is worth noting, also, that in its dence. 1964 report on the Trust Territory of Another questionable acti~ty of the the Pacific Islands, the Trusteeship Committee, which first hecame ap­ Council expressed an approval of several parent in 1964, is its announced deter­ possibilities of an ultimate status for a mination to carry another of the decla­ extending from ration's principles to extreme lengths, "independence to all other options_" that no reason-smallness, isolation, in­ The Special Committee, on the other adequate political, economic, social, or hand, had from the beginning stead­ educational preparation--should impede fastly opted for complete independence the granting of independence. In its as the only acceptahle goal. While this 1964 reports on the small island terri­ may not he readily apparent on the face tories, the Committee' declared that, of the Committee's reports, it does regardless of their size, the "provisions become clear when one notes that the of the Declaration were fully applicable Committee consistently refers only to to ... [them] ... and that appropriate the 1960 declaration which speaks in measures to this end should he taken terms of "complete independence." The without delay." two bodic$ congis(('ntly i~norc(1 one Thc absurd sitlllltion which this ~()rt anothl'r, 1I11I11,,'rhal's more pertincnt the of thillkin~ clIn bring IIlIout ill illustrated (;cncrlIl Assembly Resolution which by the fact thaL ill Jalluary 196B Lhc proclaims the Assembly's understanding Territory of Nauru, with a land area of of the term "self-determination." On 15 only 8 square miles and a tolal popula- 722 tion of only 4000 persons, became an respect to all the three remaining trust independent, sovereign state.43 territories, the Trusteeship Council arrain indicated general satisfaction with b • h. Renewed conflict and the Military the progress heing made. In COlIlllIg to Bases Issue. The Committee's 1965 these conclusions, the Council had proceedings brought forth once again spccifically rejected Soviet proposals what was now becoming a familiar which would have condemned the refrain. The Soviet Union, supported by administering powers' discharge of their its Communist friends and by most of trusts.46 The Spccial Committce, how­ the former colonial states, continued ~o ever, reported to the General Assembly urge and condemn the slowness of the in almost the same critical terms which pace toward independence, and for the had been rejected by the Trusteeship first time the Soviet Union specifically Council. The voting strength of the went on record as opposing any s_ort. of anticolonialist bloc in the General As­ merger between the admmistenng sembly was clearly illustrated by the powers and their dependent terri­ 44 resolutions adopted in which, on two of tories. · More significantly, however, 4 these territories, 7 the General As­ the U.S.S.R. used the Committee as a sembly only took note of the conclu­ vehicle to continue its cold war assault sions of the Trusteeship Council while on Western military bases on foreign affirmatively endorsing "the recommen­ soil, and particularly to condemn those dations and conclusions of the Special located in dependent territories. As a Committee. " result of the Committee's recommenda­ This vote left little doubt that, at tions, a draft resolution was adopted by least as far as the General Assembly was the General Assembly's Fourth Commit­ concerned, the Special Committee, with tee which stated that the existence of its strong anticolonialist bias reflecting military bases in dependent territories that of the General Assembly, would "constituted an obstacle to the freedom thereafter be considered the U.N.'s prin­ and independence of these territories" cipal anticolonialist tool, regardless of and called upon the administering the provisions of the charter. powers to dismantle them. When pre­ This has certainly been the case sincc sented to the General Assembly, al­ 1965. A procedure seems to have been though these provisions received a 48 to adopted under which subcommittees, 37 affirmative vote, they were held to without even "token representation" of have been rejected since they did not the administering powers, will provide receive the two-thirds majority required critical reports to the Committee which for an "important question," which the will then, almost in haec verba, endorse President of the Assembly considered the subcommittee's criticism and for­ them to be. This procedural ruling was ward it to the General Assembly which to obtain for less than 1 month, how­ will do likewise. This has resulted in ever, and on 20 December 1965 a U.S. General Assembly resolutions during objection based on this point was over­ both 1966 and 196748 which have, in ruled; and by a simple majority the ever more strident , condemned General Assembly adopted Resolution the "negative attitude" of the adminis­ 2105(XX), requesting the "colonial tering powers and their "repression of Powers to dismantle their military bases colonial peoples"; reasserted that co­ in colonial Territories and to refrain lonialism is "incompatible with the ' I . ,>4 5 f rom esta bl IS Hng new ones. Charter"; rciterated that "the cstablish­ The conflict betwccn the Special ment of military basis and installations Committee and the Trusteeship Council in these territories is incompatihle with becamc more obvious in 1965. With the purposes and principles of the 723

Charter ... and of General Assembly tion, contending that their obligation to Resolution lS14(XV)"; requested that provide on their territories existing military installations be dis­ was subject to security limitations and mantled; and, finally, deplored the re­ that the subcommittee had no right to fusal of the administering powcrs to ask for this type of information from admit Committee missions to the dcpcn­ them. As might be expected, this dent territories and requested that such brought forth a rash of criticism of the missions be accepted. Western Powers who, it was said, had the temerity to "challenge the Commit­ c. Conversion of the Anticolonialist tees' right to information" and whose Cause into a Second Cold War: the real purpose was to use their military Military Bases Issue Crystallized. Both bases "against freedom loving the Committee and the Gencral Assem­ people. ,,53 bly debates which preceded the above Although no more specific condem­ resolutions demonstrate that the former nation of military bases in the Pacific colonial states, to which "no issue territories emerged from the Commit­ exceeds in importance their commit­ tee's 1967 sessions than the relatively ment to securing a speedy and complete mild recommendation that the military end of Western colonialism,'>4 9 have activity of the United States on Guam permitted themselves to be drawn by should be reduced,S 4 the mere fact that the U.S.S.R. into vituperative attacks on this recommendation was macIe, based the Western states and particularly on as it was on Sovict complaints that the United States. Thus, their initial Guam was being used as a base for U.S. reluctance to enter this "second cold aggression in Vietnam, lends credence to war"s 0 has long since passed. The de­ the proposition that the force of a clear bates on the military bases issue provide majority of the Committee's members clear evidence of this. At the beginning has been enlisted in the Soviet cold war of its 1967 sessions the Committee camp. heard the Soviet Representative, sup­ ported by many other members, con­ d. CriSis. The Committee's continued demn the existence of military bases in insistence on immediate implementation all dependent territories and state that of the 1960 declaration and their con­ "the utilization of military bases on tinued rejection of any attempls by the Guam ... showed that they created an administering powers to demonstrate obstacle to independence. ,,5 1 The that progress toward self-determination Soviet Union also used the Committee in their respective territories was in the forum in 1967 to urge that the United best interests of lhc local populalion led States should be requested to dismantle the U.S. Representative to complain its military bases in the Trust Territory bitterly in early 196855 about what of the Pacific Islands, the provisions of were termed "serious defects in the the strategic trusteeship agreement not­ Committee's methods of work." He 5 2 withstanding. stated that the stereotyped and persis­ In May of 1967 letters were dis­ tent call for immediate independence patched to each of the administering was improper since "it was doubtful if powers asking for information on their independence was feasible" for all of military activities in the territories them. He also "deplored the break­ under their administration. In July and down" in communicalions within the August 1967 replies were recdved from Committcc which frequcntly led to the Australia, New Zealand, the United exclusion of Representalives of the Kingdom, and the United States. NOIH~ administering powers when resolutions were willing to provide such informa- were being drafted which were of par- 724 ticular concern to them. He ended his Representative of Mali echoed the Com­ presentation with the startling an­ munist line by arguing that the "subtle nouncement that attempts" to restrict the Committee's ... lIn} view of the Committee's activities were "only an extension of the methods of work and the difficulties desperate ... [dcath throes] ... offcn­ they have created for his delegation, sivc unleashed hy the coalition of re­ the United States questioned whether any purpose would be achieved by actionary neo-colonialist and imperialist further participation in the work of the forces. ,,5 8 Committee and was considering with­ With these stinging and bitter accusa­ drawal. After consulting with other tions at the beginning of the 1968 delegations, however, his delegation Committee sessions, the Communist had decided to defer its decision on states, with support from the former that question. colonial states, gave warning that they The United Kingdom also made intended to utilize the anticolonialist strong complaints about the Commit­ cause to its full measure in their cold tee's methods of work and provided war attacks on the United States. It suggestions for their change as well as soon became clear, viewing the matter for changes in the Committee's organi­ 56 from strictly a Pacific Ocean perspec­ zation. tive, that the Soviet Union had now The ensuing debates saw, not an launched a full-scale offensive against attempt by the Committee to structure the U.S. military bases in the Pacific its activities with a purpose of achieving which were being used so effectively to more progress towards its goal by dip­ support the extension of U.S. power lomatic means, but, rather, a strident into Southeast Asia and which ob­ renewal of cold war invective. The viously could be used in the future to Soviet Representative caustically at­ support a continued and strong U.S. tacked the United States as "relentlessly presence throughout the Pacific. The undermining the efforts of the United U.S. bases on Guam drew particularly Nations to end ... [and] extensive condemnation. It was con­ ... attempting to crush the people of tended that they were typical examples Vietnam under the force of arms." He of how the existence of military installa­ accused the United States of occupying tions were having a negative effect "not for many years "a number of Territories only on the liberation of their people in the Pacific ... and transforming them but also on internation'al relations in into air and naval bases and instruments general," and that they were being used of its struggle against dependent "for intervention and aggression against peoples.,,57 Syria said that the United the people of Viet-Nam. "S 9 Guam was States and the United Kingdom were described as "nothing but a vast military trying to "ridicule the Committee and base .... [whose] ... population had discredit it." Yugoslavia and India con­ been indueted into the foreign tended that the real difficulty was not army,,,60 and the United States was the Committee's methods, but the re­ accused of using the islands of the Trust fusal on the part of the administering Terrilory of the Pacific Islands as missile powers to cooperate. Bulgaria and and airbases and of planning a further Poland supported these criticisms and expansion of its military activities in added their own charges of "perpetu­ that area. Australia was attacked for ating the colonialist yoke," "ruthless what was said to be "military prepara- foreign exploitation," and the use of tions ... [in Papua and New these small territories "as sites for mili­ Guinea] ... for the conduct of the ag- tary bases" through which to further gressive war in Viet-Nam and for the their aggressive purposes. Finally, the direct induction of indigenous soldiers 725 into that war.,,6 1 colonial m~mbers of the Committee will During these 1968 proccedings the come to see how their desire for the Representative of the Soviet Union self-determination of all peoples is being spelled out succinctly what lay behind capitalized upon and lIsed by the Com­ the Soviet offensive. In one of his most JIIunist stutcs und that they will not biting attacks to date, he said on 25 permit the Committee's reports and June 1968:62 recommendations to be further utilized The infonnation before the Committee as a source of international support of showed that the strategie signifieance Communist cold war objectives. Itdoes of small Territories, especially islands, seem obvious, however, that the ma­ had increased, because they could be jority of the Committee has permitted used for supporting far.reaching m~­ tary operations. That was particularly its purpose to be converted from that of true of the island of Guam, a United an international overseer of the self­ States in the Pacific Ocean, determination process into that of a which had been turncd into a military forum for propaganda ilssaults on the fortress ..• [Tlhe military headquar­ ters of the region, an American Naval U.S. presence in Southeast Asia and in base at Apra Harbour, the Agana naval the Pacific Ocean area in general. air station and the Anderson Air Force Whether or not the United States will, Base were on Guam. Some 38,500 or should, continue to participate in the servicemen and their dependents had Committee's work in the face of such been attached to these bases in 1967. The Anderson Air Force Base was the unreasoning assaults is a matter which staging point from which the B-52 will have to be given careful considera­ bombcrs wcre used for the aggressive tion before the 1969 sessions begin. war against the Viet-Namese people who wcre battling for their freedom Conclusion. There is no question but and independence ••. and Guam was that the yearning of the world's peoples being used ••. for Polaris submarines for control over their own political which were patrolling Chinese waters. destinies is a fact of 20th century life This should have made it crystal clear, which must be intelligently dealt with even to those who would not see it by the present administering powers, before, that the Soviets' true purpose is the dependent peoples themselvcs, and the conversion of the U.No's efforts the international community as a whole. toward self-determination into one of There also seems to be little doubt that its principal cold war weapons. To the activities by the United Nations, to deprive the United States of the stra­ date, both in the Trusteeship Council tegic island bases from which its power and in the Special Committee of Twen­ can be effectively projected in aid of a ty-four, have given considerable momen­ small nation under Communist pressure tum to the self-determination process. or attack would be a major cold war The independence of Nauru and the victory indeed. U.S. announcement of a planned 1972 At the time of this writing no results plebiscite in the Trust Territory of the of the Committee's studies on military Pacific Islands63 are only the most activities in the dependent territories recent evidence of the effect of inter­ have been announced. It seems likely, national pressure through these U.N. however, that it will once again con­ organs. What seems to be lacking in the demn the administering powers and that process, however, at least as viewed by a it will once again resolve that their majority of the members of the United military activities in these territories Nations, is the realization that the con­ hinder progress towards self-determina­ tinued insistence on "complete inde­ tion and that they should cease. It is pendence" as the only acceptable goal only to be hoped that the former of the self-determination process can, 726 and undoubtedly will, lead to the same the time and the opportunity to develop type of fragmented, nonviable, political their political maturity, self-determina­ picture in the Pacific as that which tion in these small island territories will created world tensions in the 19th and follow the lead of the Cook Islanders--a first half of the 20th century. Certainly free association with the administering the anticolonialists are right when they power which leaves the population in describe the struggle for colonial em­ complete control over its internal pires as a source of world conflict which processes but which continues the can lead to war, -and if this type of responsibility of the administering conflict is to be avoided in the future, it power over external affairs. seems essential that conditions should There is a very distinct danger exist­ not be re-created which could lead to ing, however, in the failure of the former this same type of instability and strug­ colonial members of the United Nations, gle. and more specifically those on the Com­ This is not to say that the peoples of mittee of Twenty-four, to discern the real any particular Pacific Island territory interests of the peoples of the Pacific should not be enabled to opt for com­ Island dependencies. These nations have plete freedom, unassociated with any been led to commit their voice and their stronger power, if it is their desire to do vote to the Soviet cold war cause, a cause so. It is to say that these people should which, although using self-determination not be pushed into such an option if it as a banner, perverts that banner into a· is really not in their best interests. weapon through which it can attack the The smallness, the isolation, and the very nations that gave self-determination lack of adequate economic resources to its start. make them self supporting, clearly dic­ A crucial diplomatic problem for the tate for almost all of these areas some United States today, and indeed for the sort of association-at least economic people of the Pacific Island depen­ and defensive-with a stronger power dencies themselves, is to prevent this which can provide continuing assistance type of Communist distortion to so to them. As political opinion in these hasten the self-determination process in areas matures, it should become obvious the Pacific so as to resull in long-term, to the people that such an association, serious disadvantage to the local peoples rather than complete freedom, will be by the re-creation of conditions which most conducive to their long-term inter­ will make them ripe for a new scramble ests. It is therefore considered that given for hegemony.

FOOTNOTES

1. Douglas L. Oliver, The Pacific Islands (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1961). 2. James B. Crowley, lapan's Quest for Autonomy (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1966), p. 297. 3. Samuel E. l\lorison, Strategy and Compromise (Boston: Little. Brown, 1958). p. 86. 4. Harold II. Sprout and Margaret T. Sprout, Toward a New Order of Sea Power (Princeton: Princeton University Press. 1940). chap. 1. 5. For example, see discussions in Leland M. Goodrich, The United Nations (New York: Crowell, 1959), p. 294-96; and Inis L. Claude, Jr., Swords into Plowshares (New York: Random House, 1956), p. 346-48. 6. Goodrich, p. 297. 7. G.S. Windass, "Power Polities and Ideals; the Principle of Self Determination," , October 1966, p. 177. 8. Claude, p. 349, where appears a discussion of Winston Churchill's disagreement at Yalta with the proposed trusteeship system. 727

9. "The Atlantic Charter," see Armin Rapporport, Sources in American (New York: Macmillian,1966), p. 264. 10. Charter of the United Nations, art. 76. 11. Ibid., art. 73. 12. Ibid., art. 86. 13. Ibid., art. 77. 14. United Nations, General Assembly, The United Nations and Decolonization (New York: 1965), p. 2. IS. Charter, arts. 86,87. 16. Claude, p. 3S6. 17. United Nations, Yearbook of the United Nations 1960 (New York: Columbia University Press, 1960), p. 47. 18. The United Nations and Decolonization, p. 9. 19. David A. Kay, "The Politics of Decolonization: the New Nations and the United Nations Political Process," International Organization, Fall 1967, p. 786. 20. United Nations, General Assembly, Official Records: Plenary Meetings, A/4S02, lSth session (New York: 23 September 1960), v. I, pt. I, p. 74. 21. United Nations, General Assembly, Official Records A/4S02, lSth session, agenda item 87, corr.l (New York: 23 September 1960), annex v. II. 22. United Nations Yearbook 1960, p. 4S. 23. Ibid., p. 48. 24. Harold K. Jacobson, "The UN and Colonialism," David A. Kay, ed., The United Nations Political System (New York: Wiley, 1967), p. 314. 2S. United ·Nations, General Assembly, Special Committee ... on the Granting of Indepen­ dence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, Summary Record, A/AC.I09/SRS76 (New York: 13 March 1968), p.17. 26. Rupert Emerson, ;'Colonialism, Political Development and the UN," Norman J. Padelford and Leland M. Goodrich, eds., The United Nations in the Balance (New York: Praeger, 1965), p. 129. 27. United Nations Yearbook 1960, p. 48-S0. 28. Rupert Emerson, Self Determination Revisited in the Era of Decolonization (Cambridge: Harvard University, Center for International Affairs, 1964), p. 3. 29. United Nations Yearbook 1961, p.4S. 30. Ibid., p. S6. 31. United Nations Yearbook 1963, p. 44l. 32. United Nations Yearbook 1960, p. S1. 33. United Nations Yearbook 1962, p. 60. 34. The three subcommittees were established in 1964, generally for and the eastern , Asia and the Pacific Ocean, and the Atlantic and Caribbean areas. The United Nations and Decolonization, p. 10. 3S. The following territories were brought under study:

Territory Adm. Power Area (sq. mi.) Population

Timor Portugal 7,332 SOO,OOO Brunei United Kingdom 2,226 104,000 Fiji United Kingdom 7,OS5 400,000 Cook Island New Zealand 93 18,SOO Niue New Zcaland 100 4,900 Tokelau Ncw Zealand 4 1,900 Nauru Australia 8 -t.,OOO Papua Australia 87,S40 SOO,OOO New Guinea Australia 93,000 1,SOO,000 American Samoa United States 76 20,000 Guam United States 209 SO,OOO Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands United States 687 90,000 New Hebridcs United Kingdom/France 5,700 60,000 Gilbcrt/Ellice United Kingdom 369 47,000 Solomons United Kingdom 11,SOO 130,000 Pitcairn United Kingdom 2 126 728 36. United Nations Yearbook 1964, p. 422-434. 37. Ibid., p. 403-410. 38. Ibid., p. 409. 39.1bid., p. 430. 40. Ibid., p. 429. 41. United Nations Yearbook 1960, p. 509. 42. United NatioTl$ Yearbook 1965, .p. 574. 43. "Trust Territory of Nauru," UN Monthly Chronicle, January 1968, p. 81. 44. United Nations Yearbook 1965, p. 588. 45. Ibid., p. 554. 46. Ibid" p. 538, 542, 546. 47. Ibid., p. 539, 543. 48. United Nations Yearbook 1966, p. 558, 594; "Text of Rcsolution A/RES/2326(XXII)," UN Monthly Chronicle, January 1968, p. 77; "Territories Not Considcred Scparatcly," UN Monthly Chronicle, January 1968, p. 83. 49. Kay, "The Politics of Decolonization," p. 787. 50. Marc Lee, The United Nations and World Realities (Oxford: Pergamon Press, 1965), p. 103. 51. "Special Committee of Twenty-four," UN Monthly Chronicle, March 1967, p. 20-23. 52. United Nations, General Assembly, Special Committee, Summary Record, A/AC.1091 SR.564 (New York: 2 January 1968), p. 10. 53. United Nations, General Assembly, Special Committee, Subcommittee I, Summary Record, A/AC.I09fSC.2/SR44 (New York: 24 November 1967), p. 9-10. 54. United Nations, General Assembly, Special Committee, Summary Record, A/AC.1091 SR.563 (New York: 2 January 1968), p. 3. 55. United Nations, General Assembly, Special Committee, Summary Record, A/AC.1091 SR.574 (New York: 3 April 1968), p. 5-7. 56. United Nations, General Assembly, Special Committee, Summary Record, A/AC.1091 SR.576 (New York: 13 March 1968), p. 2-7. 57. See note 55, supra. 58. United Nations, General Assembly, Special Committee, Summary Record, A/AC.1091 SR.577 (New York: 15 March 1968), p. 9. 59. United Nations, General Assembly, Special Committee, Subcommittee I, Summary Record, A/AC.I09/SC.2/SR55 (New York: 27 August 1968), p. 59. 60. Ibid., p. 56. 61. United Nations, Gcneral Assembly, Special Committee, Subcommittee I, Summary Record, A/AC.109/SR.47-56 (New York: 27 August 1968 ), p. 48. 62. Ibid. 63. "Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands," The Department of State Bulletin, 26 August 1968. p. 225. ----tp----