The League and Colonial Government
Tanganyika and East African Federation
[The views expressed in signed articles on this page are those of the writers and not necessarily those of the Spectator.—En.
Spectator.]
THE Mandates Commission at its last meeting, in July, discussed the proposal of the Hilton Young Commission for "closer union" between Tanganyika, Kenya and Uganda ; but it was felt that no resolution could be accepted because Sir Samuel Wilson's Report had not yet been made available. That Report has now been published ; and it will presumably be discussed at the next meeting of the Mandates Commission in November. Meantime the British Government will probably arrive at some decision RS to the changes, if any, which should be made in the machinery of government in Eastern Africa. The largest of the three territories which will be affected is held under a mandate ; and this fact is important not only for the future of the mandatory system as a whole but also because of the principles of colonial government which the mandatory system is supposed to maintain. The problem of sovereignty in mandated territories need not be raised. The real issue lies much deeper down than the question of the juridical status of a territory. The basis of the mandate system is not juridical status but colonial policy. Not merely the League or the Mandates Commission but the British people is faced by a problem of colonial policy, the solution of which will affect not Tanganyika only but all African territories.
TIIE Two REPORTS.
The issue is most clearly seen by contrasting the proposals of the Hilton Young Commission with the new proposals of Sir Samuel Wilson. The proposals of the Hilton Young Commission were made after a lengthy investigation of the conditions prevailing among all the inhabitants of the territories concerned ; and the governmental changes proposed implied a conviction that the existing system did not permit Colonial Office control to be effectual. Sir Samuel Wilson's proposals, on the other hand, are the results of a hurried visit to East Africa, where he was sent by Mr. Amery only to discover what governmental changes would be " acceptable " to those who had adversely criticized the proposals of the Hilton Young Commission.
The proposals of the two Reports are in fact absolutely contradictory in regard to "native policy," although super- ficially there may be some agreement between them with regard to the co-ordination of "economic services." It will be remembered that the Commission proposed the appoint- ment of a High Commissioner for all three territories, primarily in order to make the Colonial Secretary's responsibility for native policy more effectual. Sir Samuel Wilson proposes a High Commissioner, not for "native policy," but with "full control, legislative and administrative, of the essential economic services." Such a High Ccinunissioner would, in practice, not strengthen but weaken the Colonial Secretary's present control over native policy ; but the most astonishing feature of the proposal is that it seems to assume the possible separation of railway-building, road-making or customs- adjustment from "native policy." It is obviously quite im- possible to control "economic services" in East Africa without affecting at every step the native use of land and other native interests. Indeed, this was one of the reasons why the Hilton Young Commission, which was sent out to
consider `` economic " union, came back with the conviction that a unified native policy was more important than any such union. Sir Samuel Wilson's scheme would in practice affect native policy. But it may be said that this scheme 'Would leave control still in the hands of the Secretary of State, through the High Commissioner. So it would, if there were not certain other details in the scheme. The High Commissioner is to haVe a Council, not advisory as in the Hilton Young scheme, nor executive, but legislative, with a certain number of unofficial members ; and worse still—the
official members' votes are not to be controlled by the High Commissioner. That is to say, in his own Council the High Commissioner's policy may be opposed by vote of the official
members. But how can the High Commissioner maintain the Secretary of State's authority under such conditions ? And is native policy even in the mandated territory safe under such conditions ?
THE NEW SCHEME.
The details of the new scheme, however, are less important than the implied assurance that Colonial Office control over "native policy" should be left as it is, which involves a denial of the Hilton Young Commission's assertion that this control is both ineffectual and irritating in its present form. It would be most unfortunate if future policy in Africa were made a battle-ground between advocates of " settlers " and advocates of" natives," or if the proposals of the Hilton Young Commission were regarded as hostile to the interests of Europeans resident in East Africa. Similarly, it would be most unfortunate if Sir Samuel Wilson's report were made into a defence of European claims in Africa against the " sentimentalism " of reformers in Great Britain who know nothing of the actual life in Africa. The issue is not so simple. Good and evil are not so clearly distinguished. The most important issue raised by the Hilton Young Commission is the question of actual and operative control over native policy. Now control by a Secretary of State in London or a Minister in Paris or Brussels becomes weaker as soon as there are local " interests " in economic development which can exert local pressure on the administration. And this does not imply that " settlers " are wicked or sinister in their influence upon a local administration. A control exercised from a capital thousands of miles distant from Africa is likely to be irritating to those whose co-operation is necessary for making any native policy effectual : and for this reason the Hilton Young Commission proposed the removal, as it were, of the Secretary . of State to Africa. Their proposed High Commissioner was to strengthen the actual knowledge and power of the Secretary of State with regard to native policy, by making it easier for groups in the territories concerned to have direct approach to the source of policy. This should be much less irritating to local European communities than the system under which they believe themselves to be unjustly criticized in London, where policy affecting their future interests is decided. But it does involve, as indeed Sir Samuel Wilson's proposal was probably intended to involve, the refusal to leave the control of native policy to the very small local community of resident Europeans in an African territory.
THE REAL PROBLEM.
The problem, therefore, which we in Great Britain have to decide is not merely how to defend native interests in accordance with our pledges under the mandate system, but how to do so effectually in countries with European residents. It is not enough to say that we must apply the methods used in Nigeria, where there are no European residents, to Tanganyika or Kenya. It would be altogether fatal to adopt the proposals of Sir Samuel Wilson—more fatal because of what they imply than because of their ostensible features. Indeed, these proposals would involve a violation of our pledges under the mandate for Tanganyika. Those mem- bers on the Mandates Commission were wrong who said that the Hilton Young Commission's proposals violated the mandate, but the Mandates Commission may well be doubtful of Sir Samuel Wilson's proposals ; for they involve an actual, if unintentional, transfer of power over "native policy" to representatives of " interests" in those territories in which the influence of European residents is dominant. It should be quite possible to enlist support among the residents themselves for a Colonial Office control which is more effectual and at the same time more considerate of their views. The fundamental principle, however, cannot be sacrificed that neither ostensibly nor by implication can control of native policy be granted to any elected body in the territories concerned. This is not only involved in the mandate ; it is a principle of our own colonial policy, which we maintain even in territories in regard to which
Previous page
