Canberra, 8 October 1968
Notes on paper—Bougainville situation
1. The information contained in the paper 2 reinforces our opinion that CRA operations are merely a precipitating factor and NOT the cause of the BOUGAINVILLE dissention.
2. The similarities between the AMEl–DAMlEN secession move 3 and the beginnings of the HAHALIS Welfare Society4 are neither accidental nor coincidental. Both are considered to be examples of that type of Millenerian Movement described by WORSLEY5 as ‘clearly passing into an orthodox political movement’.
3. The major differences between the two situations are
(a) Where HAHALIS was a domestic affair well within the capacity of the Administration to resolve without attracting world wide publicity, the BOUGAINVILLE secession move is one which will do so unless it is handled with discretion and with apparent justice to the wishes of the people
(b) The BOUGAINVILLE movement is being conducted at a higher level of sophistication and because of the pressure of CRA—for higher stakes.
(c) The Roman Catholic church while not as yet supporting the move openly, undoubtedly is giving comfort and encouragement to its adherents.
(d) The HAHALIS movement was compact, almost unanimously supported and confined mainly to villages between which there was reasonably easy communication. The people who will be affected by BOUGAINVILLE secession are
(1) larger in number
(2) scattered
(3) divided in current attitude towards the movement
(4) NOT in close communication.
4. As we understand the current situation the following pertains
(a) PAUL LAPUN motion for a referendum will be debated in the House of Assembly in November.6
(b) LAPUN and his supporters are campaigning actively in BOUGAINVILLE.
(c) The movement is receiving active support from students in PORT MORESBY.
(d) The Administration is adopting a neutral attitude.
5. It is our opinion that the Administration should make immediate plans to play a more active part for the following reasons
(a) It must make it clear to the rest of the interested world that justice is at least appearing to be done to the wishes of the people.
(b) It MUST counter the propaganda of LAPUN et al by presenting to the people the facts—both economic and social—both pro and con secession in an apparently unbiased manner.
(c) It has a duty to the minority supporters of Administration policy to provide them with information which will reinforce their support and influence the fringe dwellers.
6. The most powerful instrument the Administration has is the BOUGAINVILLE radio. This it should use to mount a propaganda campaign—the OVERT purpose being to present the FACTS under the pretext of advancing the political education of the people and so enabling them to make a more enlightened decision (which it will do) but the COVERT purpose being to counter anti-Administration face to face propaganda by LAPUN, AMEI, DAMIEN et al.
7. We must stress that if the Australian Government wishes to counter the secession move it must support the Administration in an all-out campaign to solidify the support of the few friends the latter has in the region, to influence the waverers and to undermine the influence of its detractors.
8. While overtly this campaign MUST take the guise of WHITE propaganda, covertly it must be a no-holds-barred communication battle which should begin NOW. It would be unwise to wait until the issue has been debated in the House of Assembly. LAPUN has taken the initiative and has revealed his hand to the Administration—and the world.There is no reason why the Administration should continually play the role of ‘gentleman’.
9. We repeat our contention—CRA is a pawn. If the Administration does not use it, the secessionists will, and in its own long term interests CRA will ‘fence-sit’ until it has a reasonable indication of the probable reactions. 7
[NAA: A452, 1968/5430]
1 A.C.H. Campbell, position unidentified, DOET.
2 Not found. Document 243 indicates that this paper was written by D.N. Ashton (District Commissioner, Bougainville) and others. Ashton was appointed by Hay, who described him as ‘a rather nervous, tense chap and very inclined to be tough … I felt that at the time you needed some chap who was prepared to be fairly tough in the Bougainville situation which might have blown up at any stage’ (Hay interview, 1973–4, NLA: TRC 121/65, 3 :2/5).
3 According to the TIC reports, Damen Manukai (Damien Damen) was from Irang village and his ‘platform is to form an “Independent Government from the non-council areas in Bougainville” to negotiate direct with C.R.A., to stop its further expansion and to punish those who release land to or co-operate with them’ (MIS no. 7/68, 1 August 1968, NAA: A452, 1968/4036). With Anthony Ampei, Damen led a movement known as the Bougainville Landowners’ Association (see TIC paper no. 3/68, ‘Situation report on the Bougainville District’, 12 September 1968, NAA: A452, 1968/4999).
4 A TIC report of 1968 commented: ‘The Society of approximately 700 members was formed in February 1960, with the object of advancing, by all means possible, the interests of the Hahalis, Ielelina and Hanahan villagers. The activities of the Society soon degenerated into a cargo cult in which there was no longer any semblance of individual ownership’ (loc. cit.).
5 A footnote here reads: ‘Worsley, PM. Millenarian Movements in Melanesia, South Pacific, Sep-Oct 1957’.
6 See footnote I, Document 223.
7 A marginal note indicates that Warwick Smith sent the paper to Barnes, who read it on 22 October.