Canberra, 4 September 1967
Mr Shaw, Australian Ambassador to the U.N., New York, called on the Minister prior to returning to New York after a period of leave and consultations in Australia.
Indigenous advisers
• Mr Shaw, expressing regret at his inability to visit the T.P.N.G. during his stay, because of illness, stated that first hand experience was important at the U.N. He instanced the effectiveness of the indigenous advisers.
• Although they needed some personal nursing in adjusting to New York, they added a first hand touch to Australia’s presentation.
• U.N. representatives were less likely to be insultingly critical of the advisers—perhaps because they were indigenes and coloured; and because of their official local status which might place them as leaders of an independent state in the future.
• The Minister said he was pleased to learn that the policy of sending indigenous advisers had been successful but cautioned that there was a limit to the number of suitable people from which to choose: the point may have been reached of sending people who had been before; future choice may be limited to the proposed ‘Ministerial Members’.
• Mr Shaw confirmed that the selection of the advisers was important: they should be capable of expressing themselves sincerely, if not sophisticatedly, in English; of taking part in corridor and social debate; and must appear to be leaders and not stooges, even if this meant their expressing some minor independence from Australian policy.1
United Nations criticism
• The Minister asked Mr Shaw how seriously the heavy criticism we receive from the Russians, for example, was taken at the United Nations.
• Mr Shaw said that the constant anti-colonial criticism by the professional critics who are unlikely themselves to be influenced by us was not worrying in itself, even if annoying. In framing replies to critics, greater consideration is given to influencing the moderate groups.
• He accepted as a fact of life at the U.N. that Australia will be invariably in a minority on anti-colonial questions. It was important for international reasons and for home consumption to keep the minority respectable in size and composition.
• The Minister mentioned that he intended to distribute to Members of Parliament a summary of extracts from the transcript of the Trusteeship Council meeting, to demonstrate the expressed views of the indigenous advisers on things like ‘Target Dates’. He felt that the highly publicised views of groups like the Pangu Pati did not reflect the will of the mass of the people in the Territory who were against rapid change.
• The Minister said he felt that time was on our side with New Guinea, that people were wary of Indonesia, that the independence movement internationally was slowing down, and that recent Soviet failures to make ground in Africa and from the Middle East conflict would help us.
• Mr Shaw said that anti-colonial feeling at the U.N. had not changed, but pointed out that New Guinea and Nauru are not world issues. The Russian attacks on us there are not significant overall; their man concerned is not one of their top flight men.2 The Russians are responsible to a point—they do not want another Congo involvement. He doubted, for their own long term interests, that they would support, say, the sending of a U.N. force to Rhodesia.
[ matter omitted ]
General
• Mr Shaw reiterated that the task at the United Nations in relation to the Territories was to show sincerity to the moderate groups and that in this the indigenous advisers were helpful.
• He felt that the U.N. was not so much important for its resolutions but as a means of conducting inter-Governmental relations.
[NAA: A452, 1967/6093]
1 A note of 11 September to Warwick Smith from Malvina Degens (his private secretary) indicates that Barnes later commented, ‘I think the point made by Mr. Shaw in para. 5 … will be important for future selections’ (NAA: A452, 1967/6093).
2 Presumably, N.T. Fedorenko, Union of Soviet Socialist Republics (USSR) Ambassador to the UN.