STATEMENT BY THE PRIME MINISTER, THE RT. HON.
R. G. MENZIES, IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ON THURSDAY. 27TH APRIL,. 1961.-
WEST NEW GUINEA
We have had. a brief, but-. most-interesting, visit from
General Nasution, the Indonesian Minister for National Security
and C. G. S. He met Ministers for discussion, while subsequently
I had two long talks, at each of which Mr. Townley was present.
In the result, though no new policies were exprassed,
both General Nasution and I thought that there was a
considerable clarification of points of view, and further
elucidation of the facts..
The discussions throughout were conducted, as one would
expect, in an atmosphere of the utmost good will and of mutual
respect. Our two countries are neighbours and friends, with
very great interests in common; our interest in peace, in
security, in resisting communism. The one matter of difference
of opinion relates to West New Guinea. And even there, as I
have been able to point out to the General, Australia's
interest in New Guinea as an island derives from our desire to
see the economic and social progress of its inhabitants, and
from our natural interest in the character of its political
future. It 1i rn interest, which has been emphasised by the
significance of New Guinea to us in two wars, and more
particularly in the second. It doo5 nort arive from
hostility to Indonesia, for thcre is no such hostility in
Australia. Having made these general remarks, I think i. t dno to
this House and to our distinguished visitor that I should state
in summary form and, I hope, with complete fairness, the
Indonesian point of view as explained to us, and the
Australian point of view as explained by us. I put it in this
way, though at all stages it was made clear that, in the dispute
or difference between the Neotherlands and Indonesia, Australia
is neither a party principal nor a self-appointed arbitrator,
but is a naturally interested noighbour.
As General Nasution explained it, thn Indonesian
position is that its claim to West New Guinca is not legal, but
political and historical, West New Guinea having been part of the
Netherlands East Indies. He claimed that Jeo'st New Guinea was
part of Indonesia before the establishment of the Netherlands
East Indies. It is because of this, he said, that Indonesia
will not take the matter to the International Court a
procedure which Australia has constantly advocated, and which
the Netherlands is willing to adopt.
We dwelt on this matter for some time. I once more
made it clear that Australia attached great importance to
sovereignty, in a world in which new sovereignties are being
created and independent rights maintained. I said that we
recognised Dutch sovereignty in West New Guinea ( with all that
such recognition involved) and that we could not reasonably or
successfully be asked to reverse this recognition. If the
matter went to the International Court, I said, and the
judgment went for Indonesia, we would of course respect that
judgment. General Nasution said that he understood our argument
on that point, but added that one consequence of it should be
that, in any discussions between the Netherlands and
Indonesia about West New Guinea, Australia should be strictly
neutral, and should not support and encourage the Dutch either
generally or in the United Nations. This indeed, as he made
clear, was the great thing that he wanted to establish with us.
I therefore reiterated that, as we had said at the time of Dr.
Subandrio's visit, we desired three things
1. That there should be no recourse to armed force, whether
by major or minor operations by armed
infiltrations) to give effect to Indonesia's
territorial claim.
2. That any negotiations between Indonesia and the
Netherlands should be voluntary and free of any threat
or duress.
3. That any agreement made as a result of negotiations so
conducted would be fully respected by Australia.
I went on to explain what we were doing in our section
of New Guinea in pursuit of our long-held goal of improvement
of living standards, education, and health to a point where the
population could freely determine its own future. I will refer
to this again, a little later. I said that the Dutch were
pursuing broadly similar policies, with the same objective.
The General enquired as to whether Australia did not
have some military arrangement with the Netherlands in respect
of West New Guinea. I said we had no such arrangement, either
directly or indirectly, and that whatever might be rumoured or
suggested to the contrary had no foundation. The only
agreement related to administrative consultation on common
problems and for the forwarding of self-determination in New
Guinea. That agreem nt was published when it was made on
November 6, 1957. I recall to Hon. members the principles set
out in that agreement as follows
1. The Netherlands and Australian Governments base their
policies with regard to the territories of New Guinea,
for which they are responsible, on the interests and
inalienable rights of their inhabitants in conformity
with the provisions and the spirit of the United
Nations Charter.
2. The territories of Netherlands New Guinea, the
Australian Trust Territory of New Guinea, and Papua,
are geographically and ethnologically related and
future development of their respective populations
must benefit from co-operation in policy and
administration.
3. The Australian and Netherlands Governments are
therefore pursuing, and will continue to pursue,
policies directed towards the political, economic,
social and educational advancement of the peoples in
their territories in a manner which recognizes this
ethnological and geographical affinity.
4. At the same time, the two Governments will continue,
and strengthen, the co-operation at present existing
between their respective administrations in the
territories. In so -c'ing the two Governments are determined to
promote an uninterrupted development of this process
until such time as the inhabitants of the territories
concerned will be in a position to determine their own
future.
At the same time, I said, not only Australia but other
nations could not but be disturbed by any use of force, since
even limited hostilities, whether in New Guinea or Laos or
elsewhere, could have unforeseen and deplorable consequences. We
were therefore glad to have the General's renewed assurances that
force would not be used. I will refer to this again, a little
later. I took the opportunity of asking about the infiltrations
which were reported to have occurred along the West New Guinea
coast. The General replied that there had been some
infiltrations some of those concerned being armed; that such
cases were not due to any policy of the Central GovCrnnent, but
arose from some unavoidable lack of control in particular areas;
and that there had been some infiltration in reverse from West
New Guinea to the eastern islands of Indonesia, inspired he
said, by the Dutch for the purpose of fomenting disaffection in
those islands. In answer to a question, he agreed that there
was no suggestion that the Dutch were contemplating any form of
conquest, but maintained that their actions were a form of
subversion. I have stated without coiment these remarks by the
General, so that the House nay have a balanced picture of our
discussions. To conclude this phase of ry report, I should refer to
two other aspects of the matter.
As has been frequently pointed out in this House, the
native inhabitants of New Guinea have no ethnological
association with Indonesia. General Nasution retorts to this
that there are several distinct ethnic groups in Indonesia, and
yet they are within one political structure, and that Malayan
is widely spoken in West New Guinea.
In answer to this we have pointed out that the indigenous
inhabitants of the island of New Guinea have more in common, both
ethnologically and otherwise, than any of them have with the
various races of Indonesia, anr: that this is a factor which
should not be ignored.
But General Nasution adds to this another point. In
answer to our enphasis upon ulti-iato self-determination for both
sections of New Guinea ho contends that West New Guinea ahould be
( and, as he would say, is) part of Indonesia, and that there is
no nore reason for conceding self-deternination to West New
Guinea than to any other racial group or geographical area in
Indonesia. This neant that Indonesia rejected the idea of selfdetermination
for the people of West New Guinea. It was further
made clear that the only form of trusteeship acceptable to
Indonesia would not be one under the Charter of the United
Nations, but would be one for the purpose of transferring West
New Guinea to Indonesia after a brief intervening period,
Having roeard to this view, I carefully developed our
views on self-deturnination, and now record then for the House.
In our own New Guinea territories, our policy is, by
steady degrees and up to the linits of our financial and
administrative capacity, to promote the advancement of jthe
people so that ultimately they will choose for themselves
their own constitution and their future relationship with
us. We will respect their choice whatever it nay be. This,
for us, is not a new policy. We have pursued it for years.
It arises from our sense of responsibility, a responsibility
which cannot be suddenly or prematurely abandoned if our
trusteeship is to be honourably performed.
Having regard to these undoubted facts, Indonesia cannot
reasonably expect Australia to take, nor will Australia
take, an initiative in a procedure designed to lead to a
handing over of sovereignty and the abandonment of the
right of self-deternination in the trritory concerned.
That was, and is, the reason why Australia is most
definitely not prepared to put pressure on the Netherlands
to negotiate for the transfer of sovereignty and the
abandonnent of self-deternination.
In other words, we recognise Dutch sovereignty, we deal
with the Netherlands as a sovereign power, and we approve of
the policy of ultimate self-determination which has been
adopted by the Netherlands in relation to West New Guinea.
If this is regarded by Indonesia as partisanship, we point
out that it favours the recognition of sovereignty and the
objective of self-determination, to both of which Australia
is inevitably attached.
But on such matters the Netherlands, as the sovereign
power, will nake, quite freely, its own decisions. Those
decisions will be recognised and respected by us.
We are on most friendly terns with the Dutch, as,
renenbering the last war, we ought to be. We are also
close to and friendly with Indonesia. What Australia has
done in the United Nations when the West New Guinea item
has cone up there, is to support sovereignty and doncstic
jurisdiction. Sovereignty is basic for Australia nc loss
than to others, including Indonesia. None of this is
hostile to Indonesia, and it ought not to be thought so,
Before I conclude, I return to the matter of military
involvement. I repeat, in the rost categorical terms, that
Australia has no military conmitnent with the Netherlands in
relation to West Now Guinea, lirect or indLirect. But armned
conflict in that country, whether arising fron mass invasion or
limited guerilla episodes created by armed infiltration, would
present Australia, in cor. ion with other countries, with a grave
problem. Any such conflict could certainly not be ignored by
the United Nations. It would engage the attention, helpful or
otherwise, of the great powers. It would threaten world peace,
and could well bring disaster to South-East Asia by its
encouragement of Conmunist activity and intervention.
It is therefore necessary to nake our position quite
clear. We stand for peaceful negotiation at all tines,
provided that such negotiation is conducted without the threat
of force of any shape or kind.
I have stated our recognition of Dutch sovereignty, and
our approval of the Dutch policy of self-detormination. We
have entered into no military cor. nitment beyond those involved
in the Charter of the United Nations. But if nilitary
conflicts, groat or snall, arose out of these differences, new
and grave problens , wuldar ise for many nations, including our
own. It is for this reason that the runewed assurances of
peaceful pursuit of Indonesia's clains, made by General Nasution,
are of such profound importance and international value.
Before I conclude this section of my statenent I would
like to say that we were all impressed by General Nasution's
frankness and personality. I an sure that he and his wife
enjoyed their visit to Australia. Every opportunity was given
to the General by the press, broadcasting and television
stations, to express his views. I know that he appreciated
this, as we do. He has left Australia after faithfully and
ably representing his own couhtry, with, I an certain, a
confidence in his own mind that, while his visit nay not have
changed our policies, it has certainly made a powerful
contribution to our common understanding and good will.
LAOS Since I last spoke to the House on Tuesday, llth
April, new and important developnents in the continuing crisis
in Laos have occurred.
In Moscow, negotiations have at last resulted in a
measure of agreement between the Soviet and the United Kingdom
Governnents as Co-Chairnea of the Geneva Conference of 1954
which settled the Indo-China conflict.
The United Kingdom Government has acted throughout
these negotiations in close consultation with its friends. We
hope and believe that the Soviet Government did likewise, for
the value of the new agreement will lepend largely on its being
respected by other conbers of the Commnnunist Bloc.
The arrangements agreed upon are, in brief, that
the Co-Chairmen should call for a cease-fire in Laos
which should be arranged by the Laotian combatants
themselves. This call was issued on 24th April;
the Indian Government, as Chairman of the International
Control Commission for Las, was invited to reconvene that
Commission in Now Delhi. The Connission is to report to
the Co-Chairomn and to receive instructions from then on
the Commission's functions in controlling the cease-fire.
( The Indian High CoJnissionor in Australia, Mr, Sen, has
been chosen by his Government to repr.. ent it as Chc-rman
on this Commission. do welcome tiis, f. r. Mr. Sen has a
close knowledge of Laos, and a wide understanding of the
problems involved.)
an international conference on Laos should be
convened in Geneva on 12th May.
Invitations have already been issued for the proposed
international conference which will be attended by 14 nations
Those will comprise
The nine nations who net in Geneva in 1954
Communist China, United Kingdom, United States, France.
Laos, Cambodia anl North and South Vietnam).
The three-nation members of the International Con.: r: o
Commission ( India, Canada and Poland).
The other two nations who border on Laos ( Thailand and
Burma).
( Pending the establishment of a Government of Laos which is
accepted by both sides, it will be for the conference to
determine how Laos : hould be represented at the conference
I make the following observations.
6.
First, no explicit condition has been recorded by the
Co-Chairnen that the cease-fire must take place prior to the
convening of the international conference. Arrangements for the
negotiation of a cease-fire are placed in effect in the hands of
the various Laotian elements. I believe that the representatives
of the Laotian Government, headed by Prince Boun Oum which I
should add is regarded as the constitutional government of Laos
by the Australian Government as well as by the Governments of
the United Kingdon, United States and other countries will
co-operate actively in making the necessary practical arrangements
for an immediate cease-fire. We can only hope that other
Laotian elements will adopt a similar attitude.
Both the United States and United Kingdom Governments
have made it clear that they will not be prepared to attend the
proposed international conference until they are satisfied that
a cease-fire has in fact occurred in Laos. The point has great
importance. It is out of the question to confer on ways and
means of ensuring the future independence and neutrality of Laos
a policy of non-interference by Western powers and Coxrmunist
powers alike if fighting is contihuing in Laos and new
military threats are added to the recent series of offensive
operations by the Pathet Lao. Those operations have won
important and increasingly dangerous gains for the insurgents.
They have been supported by the Soviet air lift of arms into
Laos and by overland transport of supplies from Connunist North
Vietnam as well as by some military personnel from North
Vietnam. Both Luang Prabang and Vientiane the two capitals
are now threatened by these offensive operations. The most
important of then occurred simultaneously with the final stages
of the recent negotiations in Moscow.
Second, the Australian Government has long been
determined to support genuine negotiations of a peaceful
solution of the Laotian problem. At the same time we have made
it clear by our recent association with the S. E. A. T. O.
corlunique of 29th March, that we are united with our Allies
also in our determination to prevent armed Comnunist doninf; tion
of Laos. This being cle-r, there is now . r better -rospec-of
coming to an agreement, by negotiation, on a solution which will
satisfy all legitimate interests and avoid ar. The comm. on
ground is the desire of the Laotian people, the iostern and
neutral powers and ( as we hope) the Corjunist powers, that Laos
should be a genuinely neutral State under a national government
representing all responsible opinion.
Third, the problem of Laos has not been solved. It
is an economically weak State, lacking social and political
cohesion. It will always be exposed to pressures, open and
clandestine, from its Cormunist neighbours. It will be the
task of the conference to try to devise ways of relieving it
from this pressure. The security of South-East Asia depends
on Laos being neutral and free from Conmunist or any other
domination. The next three or four weeks will rve:.. how r. ucco-
operation we can expect from the Ccmmunist powers in these
efforts to establish by peaceful negotiation the fri:.. Av. ork fo.
Laotian security, independence and neutrality.
4 eL
7.
SIERRA LEONE I draw the attention of the House to the fact that
Sierra Leone, one of the oldest British territories in West
Africa, will attain its formal independence today, 27th April.
Sierra Leone last year declared its intention of applying for
membership of the Commonwealth and at the Prime Ministers'
Conference last month, ww elcomed its entry, subject to the
usual constitutional processes. These processes are now
complete and I have received a message from Sir Miltrn Margai,
Prime Minister of Sierra Leone expressing appreciation for the
acceptance of Sierra Leone as a full member of the Cormonwealth.
Australia is represented at the independence
celebrations in Freetown this week, at which H. R. H. the Duke of
Kent is representing Her Majesty. Lord Casey, who, as Minister
for External Affairs, had so much to . o with developing our
relations with newly independent countries in Asia and Africa,
kindly agreed to attend on our behalf. He is accompanied by Mr.
D. O. Hay, our High Coriissioner designate to Canada, who is on
his way to his new posting.
Sierra Leone is not a large country, but by no means an
unimportant one. The cmrse of its constituti.. nal development
towards independence has been smooth and peaceful, in full
agreement and co-operation with the United Kingdon. It will be
a valuable addition to the Commonwealth group in West Africa.
In the past, Australia has had little contact with Sierra Leone,
but we look forward to the development of close and friendly
relations within the brotherhood of the Commonwealth, and will
be glad to offer the new nation any assistance within our
capacity. I feel sure that all Honourable members will join me
in extending a warn welcome to our nJwest Commonwealth mrber
and in expressing our sincere good wishes for the future welfare
and prosperity of Sierra Leone and its people.