Canberra, 7 June 1968
Australian compliance with General Assembly de-colonisation resolutions
The purpose of this submission is to seek your approval for a reply to a formal request from the United Nations Secretary-General for us to furnish information relating to the steps taken and/or envisaged to implement General Assembly resolutions on decolonisation.
2. Since 1960 when the General Assembly adopted the Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples (Resolution 1514 (XV)),1 the Assembly has adopted a number of resolutions condemning the continuation of colonial administrations and calling for early independence for the remaining dependencies and trust territories. Last year the Assembly adopted Resolution 2326 (XXII), which asked the Committee of Twenty-four to examine the ‘compliance’ of Member States with Resolution 1514 (XV) and to report thereon to the next session of the Assembly. A copy of Resolution 1514 (XV) and of Resolution 2326, neither of which Australia supported, are attached (Annex A and Annex B).2 In April this year the Working Group of the Committee of Twenty-four, presumably in pursuance of Resolution 2326, decided to include a separate item on its agenda entitled ‘Compliance of Member States with the Declaration and other relevant resolutions on the question of decolonisation, particularly those relating to Territories under Portuguese administration, Southern Rhodesia and South West Africa’. At the meeting of the Group, the Australian, British and American representatives questioned the need for a separate item on ‘compliance’, but were as usual over-ruled by the majority. Subsequently on 24th April the Secretary-General sent a note to our Permanent Mission in which he asked for information relating to the steps taken and/or envisaged by Australia in ‘implementation’ of relevant General Assembly resolutions (on decolonisation). A copy of the Secretary-General’s note is attached (Annex C).3
3. It is clear from the wording of Resolution 2326 (XXII), the Committee of Twenty-four’s agenda item, and the Secretary-General’s note, that the prime targets of the sponsors are the governments of Portugal, South Africa and Southern Rhodesia. This being the case we can be confident that the Committee, and consequently the Assembly, will give scant, if any, consideration to any material provided by administering authorities in response to the Secretary-General’s requests. We would therefore see little advantage to be gained out of providing the Secretary-General with an {exhaustive} statement on our position. We understand that British and American officials in New York share this view. At the same time we believe it would be unwise for us to ignore the note, or to confine our reply to a challenge of the right of the Assembly or the Committee to consider this matter. We therefore wish to propose a reply aimed at asserting the legitimacy and bona fides of our present position without arousing undue antagonism amongst anti-colonial members.
4. Our Permanent Mission has recommended a reply to the Secretary-General along the following lines:
‘The Permanent Representative of Australia to the United Nations presents his compliments to the Secretary-General of the United Nations and has the honour to refer to the latter’s note No.TR.200 dated 24th April 1968 regarding operative paragraph 16 of the General Assembly resolution 2326 (XXII) of 16th December 1967.
‘It is necessary to reaffirm in response to the Secretary-General’s request that “member states furnish not later than June 1968 information relating to the steps taken and/or envisaged by them in implementation of the relevant General Assembly resolutions” on decolonisation that in respect of the territories under its administration, Australia complies fully with its obligations under the United Nations Charter as shown by the detailed information on these territories which it regularly supplies to the appropriate organs of the United Nations.
‘With regard to the question of “compliance” with relevant resolutions as expressed in paragraph 16 of General Assembly resolution 2326 (XXII), which the Australian delegation did not support, it is necessary to reaffirm that resolutions of the General Assembly of the character referred to have recommendatory force only, and do not entail binding obligations on member states.
‘In regard to territories under the administration of states other than Australia, the Australian delegation makes known its attitude by its statements in the Plenary and Committee discussions of the situation in these territories, and by its votes and explanations of vote on the relevant resolutions.’
5. We believe that the draft reply proposed by the Mission is satisfactory except that it gives the appearance of avoiding a statement of policy in respect of the future of our dependent territories. As such a statement was made in respect of Papua and New Guinea by the Governor-General when opening Parliament last March, and repeated when he opened the Second House of Assembly in Port Moresby earlier this month,4 we believe there would be advantage for us in repeating some of his words about developing the Territory for independence. Copies of both speeches are attached (Annexes D and E).5 Then bearing in mind the reference to ‘the freely expressed will and desire’ of the peoples in resolution 1514 (XV), we believe it would be appropriate to mention the known views of the people in the Territory. These proposals could be met by including the following penultimate paragraph in the above draft:
‘The Australian Representative would nevertheless draw the attention of the Secretary-General to the remarks of His Excellency the Governor-General on the occasion of the Opening of the Second Session of the Twenty-Sixth Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia in March this year, when he said:
“The destiny of Papua and New Guinea is to become a self-governing country developed for independence if and when it is clearly demonstrated by the majority of the indigenous population that this is what they wish. My Government’s basic policy for Papua and New Guinea is therefore to develop it for self-determination.”
‘These same remarks were again stated by His Excellency the Governor-General when opening the Second House of Assembly for the Territory of Papua and New Guinea on 4th June this year. The Representative would also take this opportunity to remind the Secretary-General that the Trusteeship Council sends periodic Visiting Missions to the Trust Territory of New Guinea, and that these Missions also visit the Territory of Papua. A Mission has just completed a visit to the Territory and its Report is available to Members of the General Assembly in addition to the Members of the Trusteeship Council. Included in the Report is a sentence which says that “although there was a general feeling that they accepted self-government or independence as their ultimate goal, the people of the Territory made it unmistakably clear to the Mission that they were not ready and certainly did not want it now”.’
6. It is recommended that you approve a reply being sent to the Secretary-General in accordance with paragraphs 4 and 5 above.6
[NAA: A1838, 935/2/5 part 1]
1 See footnote, Document 14.
2 Not printed.
3 Not printed.
4 See editorial note ‘Territories: changes to the department and portfolio’ and footnote I, Document 200.
5 Not printed.
6 Hasluck approved the recommendation on 7 June. A copy of the reply, dated 29 June, can be found in NAA: A1838, 935/2/5 part 1.