Canberra, 30 August 1967
Confidential
1968 Visiting Mission to Australian Trust Territories
Please refer to your memorandum of 23rd August, 1967, and its attachment2 concerning suggestions, relayed through the Australian Mission to the United Nations, that the United Nations Visiting Mission’s visit to New Guinea be so arranged as to allow Mission members to observe some part of the elections to the House of Assembly to be held in February/March, 1968.
2. We appreciate fully the pressures under which the T.P.N.G. Administration will be labouring during the polling period and that the arrival of the Visiting Mission would represent an additional heavy administrative burden. However, we feel that the points made to our Mission in New York by friendly delegations are valid. We also see merit in their own observations that the Mission’s presence would help in some way towards what has been established as our wish to see the authority of the Trusteeship Council sustained and in resisting the Committee of Twenty-four’s pressures to have Visiting Missions of that body go to dependent territories. We also feel that a decision which did not allow for some observation of these elections would be misconstrued in the United Nations no matter how valid our reasons for it might be.
3. It is appreciated that the ‘whispering vote’ could draw criticism from the Liberian member, and subsequently in the General Assembly. This can surely be defended in the circumstances of New Guinea, and we would expect it to be treated in an understanding and reasonable manner by the other members of the Mission.
4. I am attaching a draft telegram to New York in which we would agree that the Mission should see something of the elections. This draft provides for a visit first to Nauru and we note that this accords with a wish expressed by the French Mission in New York because it would allow more time to complete the Mission’s report before the Trusteeship Council meets.
5. We cannot see that the Mission could aim at arriving in New Guinea to observe the elections in towns on February 17th. It is suggested that it arrive towards the end of the election period when the itinerary could no doubt be adjusted to allow for observations at some centres. This telegram would ensure that the points in paragraphs 1 to 3 of the Administrator’s message were fully noted, particularly that the Mission should not engage in any activities that could be construed as interfering in the elections.
6. I would be glad of your advice as soon as possible as to whether you could agree to a telegram along these lines, and if so, whether the draft attached3 would appear to serve these purposes. Please advise also whether you would suggest any amendments to it.4
[NAA: A452, 1967/4226]
1 J.D. Petherbridge, Political Affairs Section, UN Branch, DEA.
2 Document 140.
3 Not printed.
4 A marginal note of 30 August by P.J. Galvin (OIC, International Relations Section, DOT) for Ballard read: ‘Leaving aside the practical problems of moving the Mission about, are we satisfied that there will be anything worthwhile to see? They will certainly be able to see the counting, and some voting, but probably little electioneering … If we are satisfied that such a programme will allow the Mission to see “something of the elections”, I propose that we accept the E.A. view and agree to the draft cable’ (NAA: A452, 1967/4226). In another marginal note of the same day, Galvin noted that he had discussed the matter with Ballard and that an amended draft had been sent to DEA. The substance of Document 142 was conveyed to New York shortly thereafter: the cable argued that the difficulties of hosting the mission during polling were ‘outweighed by the possible misconstruing of some of our reasons for preferring a later visit’, and a visit for the last week of polling was suggested. However, the UN was to be told that the mission ‘cannot expect to receive .the “red carpet” treatment’; that the mission would have to avoid the perception of interfering with the elections; that the opportunity of meeting indigenous leaders and officials would be limited; and that the mission would be expected to desist from public comments on the election or constitutional change. The substance of paragraph three above was also conveyed, with the supplementary comment that the whispering vote was ‘likely to become particularly apparent to the mission if it watches elections in the more primitive areas. Yet we think it would be more useful if the mission did see elections in these areas … There is also some concern that the visiting mission and the United Nations generally could become an issue in the elections between the new parties and distort the results, particularly if the Liberian member were improper enough to engage in public comment. This is an additional reason why we suggest that the mission arrive only for the last week or so of the polling period’ (cablegram 782, DEA to UNNY, 30 August 1967, NAA: A6366, UN 1967/06T).