Sir: The gist of Mr Clarke's contention (Spectator, October 25)
appears to be that the Banabans are very like the_ Gilbertese and that for this reason Banaban assets must be shared with the Gilbertese. It should be said that the Gilbertese Chief Minister (September 27) was claiming considerably more than a mere similarity, namely that the Banabans are more like the Gilbertese than some Gilbertese are.
As Mr Clarke refers to Sir Arthur Grimble as his authority, perhaps Sir Arthur should be allowed the last word on this aspect of the dispute. In his Colony Annual Report for 1924-26, he speaks of "Ocean Island, of which the inhabitants are of a racial type and speak a language closely allied to the Gilbertese". They are, in other words, similar. They are not the same.
A similarity between two peoples is not normally regarded as entitling the one to the assets of the other, any more than does the argument of need. Over thirty million Egyptians have much in common, culturally and ethnically, with their two-million-odd Libyan neighbours; but I have yet to hear it propounded that Egypt has a right to Libyan oil, however much greater her need for it may be. Such as entitlement in our present world of nation states derives from sovereignty alone.
The Gilbertese claim to sovereignty
over Ocean Island rests solely on the fact of Britain's incorporation of Ocean Island into the Gilbert and Ellice Islands Colony. The Revd Rotan's contention, as I understand it, (Spectator, August 23) is that the Banabans were entirely independent of the Gilbertese before being colonised by Britain, and that they were lumped in with the Gilberts for Britain's administrative and financial convenience without their consent. They now want their independence back rather than allow their island to become a Gilbertese possession. That Is the matter at issue, and it is one of the few constitutional matters outside these shores which is still for Britain alone to. decide.
Michael Wolf 41 Lansdowne Road, London W 11
Previous page
