Canberra, 17 August 1966
Confidential
Visits by Soviet representatives to Papua New Guinea
On a record of conversation (copy attached at Annex 1)1 on this subject you commented:
‘The Secretary. Is it a fact that the Soviet Ambassador is not permitted to visit P.N.G.? I would have thought that we should encourage him to go there rather than keep him out. Please let me know what the position is.’
Background
2. It has been a long-established practice on the part of all Administering States to oppose the inclusion of a Soviet representative in any United Nations Visiting Mission to Trust Territories, and Australia has conformed with this.
3. The main reason for this has been the uncompromising and doctrinaire criticism of the administration of trust territories by the Russians, which has led to a belief among the Administering States that visits by Soviet representatives would only provide them with additional opportunities for mischief-making. Their criticism would undoubtedly continue to be destructive and one-sided, but they would be able to claim first-hand knowledge of the Territories. It has not been regarded as likely that such visits would temper Soviet criticism or assist in getting a more constructive or balanced approach by Soviet representatives in the Trusteeship Council, in the Fourth Committee or in the Committee of Twenty-Four.
4. Though Soviet representatives in the Trusteeship Council have sought inclusion in Visiting Missions to Trust Territories, they have not so far been successful in achieving this.
5. In March, 1964, Mr Yuri Yasnev, Pravda correspondent to Australia was denied entry to Papua New Guinea. Prior to seeking entry he had written a highly distorted account of conditions there. A copy of one of his articles is attached at Annex 2.2
6. As far as the records of the Department of Territories and of this Department show, no Soviet Ambassador, nor any member of the Embassy Staff, has sought permission to visit the Territory. This may be of course because they have assumed, in the light of their knowledge of the position in the Trusteeship Council, that they would be rebuffed.
7. Informal discussions on the possibility of a visit by the Soviet Ambassador to the Territory of Papua New Guinea have on occasion been held between departments concerned but no initiative regarding recommendations to Ministers has been taken because:
(i) no application has been made (contrary to the suggestion made in the attached record of conversation);
(ii) the view continued to be held that for any Soviet official to visit the Territory could pave the way for increased pressures for visits by the so-called Soviet ‘anti-colonialist experts’ on the Trusteeship Council or the Committee of Twenty-Four;
(iii) it could not be expected that visits by Soviet representatives would result in their giving a more balanced picture of conditions in the Territory or in leading to more constructive criticism of the administration or of Government policies.
8. It has been realized, however, that if the Soviet Ambassador made a request to visit the Territory, either on behalf of himself or a member of his diplomatic staff, a new position would be created. We have readily agreed to similar requests from other Embassies and a refusal would thus have the appearance of discrimination. Moreover it could be argued that the Ambassador would be inhibited by diplomatic practice from expressing strong criticisms of Australian policies and actions in Papua and New Guinea. Nevertheless we have not thought it desirable to take any initiative towards inviting the Soviet Ambassador to pay a visit.
9. Submitted for information.
[NAA: A 1838, 936/3/8/1 part 1]
1 29 July. In a discussion with Doig, Vladimir Beljaev, the First Secretary of the Soviet Embassy, said that Australia must have ‘something to hide’ in PNG because it would not permit a visit to the Territory by himself, his Ambassador [N.Y. Tarakanov], Soviet representatives in New York, or the Pravda correspondent (NAA: A1838, 936/3/8/ 1 part 1).
2 Not printed.