Canberra, 3 April 1967
Confidential
United Nations Committee of Twenty-Four on Decolonisation: visiting mission to Australian territories
The Chairman of Sub-Committee II (Pacific Territories) of the Committee of Twenty-Four is consulting the representatives of countries administering territories in the Pacific to see if they are now prepared to receive visits from the Committee of Twenty-Four to the Territories for which they are responsible. This submission seeks your direction on the form of the Australian reply.
2. In 1966 the Sub-Committee authorised its Chairman to make a similar approach. The Minister for External Affairs and the Minister for Territories discussed this matter at that time and
‘were of one mind in trying to avoid a visit to Papua and New Guinea by the U.N. Committee of Twenty-Four, and we also agreed that it would not serve our purpose to declare bluntly our outright opposition to a visit but that we should use every means at our disposal either to prevent such a visit or to delay it as long as possible’.
Ministerial Note of 2nd June, 1966.
3. The Australian representative made the following reply to the Sub-Committee—
‘My delegation agrees that in certain circumstances visiting missions can be of value. We are doubtful, however, whether this applies to Committee of Twenty-Four visiting missions to Australian Territories which have been the subject of intense scrutiny by the United Nations over a period of a good many years so that the United Nations has become very familiar with all aspects of development there. A part of this scrutiny has, of course, been by visiting missions from the Trusteeship Council with all of whom we have enjoyed cordial and, we believe, mutually beneficial relations. Nevertheless, the attitude of my Government is conditioned in important part by the fact that, just as an administering authority has responsibilities in the Territories for which it is responsible, so also it has rights—and among these is the right to accept or not to accept a visiting mission.
My Government can give no agreement in vacuo to accept a mission and would have to consider at any time in relation to any specific request such factors as the appropriateness of any particular time proposed, the convenience of the Australian Government, the convenience of the Territory administration and the composition of any Mission that might be proposed. These considerations, at any given time, would no doubt be conditioned also by particular views which my Government might have in relation, for example, to United Nations finances involved in any particular proposals and whether duplication and/or overlapping of United Nations effort was involved.
My Government cannot therefore at this stage give any commitment that it will be able to respond to a request to receive a visiting mission, but my Delegation would, of course be prepared to transmit to its Government any specific request that might be put forward by the Committee or Sub-Committee at any particular time’.
4. The other Governments administering Territories in the Pacific made the following replies:—
The British representative said that the despatch of visiting missions to the Territories administered by the United Kingdom raised difficult questions of principle and he could not encourage the Sub-Committee to expect that his Government’s existing position would change. His Delegation was, however, prepared to transmit to the United Kingdom Government any particular request concerning the sending of such a mission to a specific Territory, although this could not be regarded as implying any commitment that such a request would be accepted.
The United States Representative said that, if the Sub-Committee proposed a visiting mission to Guam and American Samoa in 1966, the United States Government would probably not think that the situation warranted such a journey; the Territories administered by the United States were advancing rapidly towards self-government and should not present a pressing priority for the Special Committee in arranging its crowded work agenda for the year.
The New Zealand Permanent Representative to the United Nations informed the Sub-Committee that his Government had no objection to such a mission, although it considered that any visit by a United Nations mission to the Tokelau Islands and Niue should be undertaken only as a part of a more comprehensive tour of the area.
France did not reply.
5. As this matter will be raised at the quadripartite talks to be held in Washington from the 5th to 7th April between representatives from Britain, the United States, New Zealand and Australia, we had considered delaying our reply until after the conclusion of the talks. Britain and the United States also considered delaying their replies, but now think that the delay cannot be justified. Moreover, New Zealand has already written to the SubCommittee (on 23rd March, 1967) repeating its reply of 1966. The United States and Britain intend to reply in the next few days in the same terms as they did, respectively, in 1966, although the United States reply may be strengthened to dispel a misconception that it would be prepared to accept visiting missions.
6. The Australian paper on ‘Australian Pacific Territories: United Nations Aspects’, to be discussed at the Quadrapartite Talks includes, inter alia, an outline of our present attitude towards visiting missions from the Committee of Twenty-Four.
‘It is Australia’s view that it would be beneficial if a consistent policy were adopted by the administering powers in the South Pacific region towards the question of visiting missions. All have an interest in preventing the exacerbation of political difficulties or communal friction which such visits might cause. It would be easier for one administering power to refuse to accept such visits if the others did likewise; or if some visits were accepted it might be possible to ensure that they took place on terms which would help to ensure that their capacity for mischief was limited. A co–ordinated approach would strengthen the ability of all to resist pressure from communist and other extremist members of the Committee of Twenty-Four. This approach should be firmly based on the avoidance, in present circumstances, of any visit by a mission from the Committee of Twenty-Four’.
7. The Australian Mission to the United Nations, New York has recommended that the following reply be given.
‘The Australian Government believes, that in certain circumstances, visiting missions can be of value.
The Australian administration of Papua/New Guinea and Nauru is already the subject of detailed and regular examination by the Trusteeship Council and the General Assembly. Visiting missions from the Trusteeship Council make an extensive visit to the Territories every three years. In accordance with this practice a Trusteeship Council mission will visit the Australian Territories early next year. In addition to the information available in the records and findings of the Trusteeship Council and its visiting missions the Australian Government provides supplementary information on the Territories for which it is responsible in accordance with its charter obligations. In these circumstances, the Australian Government believes that a visit to the Australian Territories by the Committee of Twenty-Four would not be warranted’.
8. The Department of Territories has made strong representations with a view to having the first sentence (‘The Australian Government believes, that in certain circumstances, visiting missions can be of value‘) omitted. We would see no objection to deleting this sentence, particularly in view of the hardening attitude of Britain and the United States towards visiting missions to the Pacific Territories.
9. It is recommended that the Australian representative on the committee of Twenty-Four be authorised to reply to the Chairman of Sub-Committee II in the terms proposed in paragraph 7 above but with the deletion of the first sentence.2
[NAA: A 1838, 909/8/2 part 3]
1 Acting Minister for External Affairs.
2 Gorton endorsed the recommendation on 3 April.