STRICT EM4BARGO: UNTIL THE PRIME MINISTER BEGINS TO SPEAK AT
APPROXIMATELY 1.0 Pm.
STATW~ NT BY THE PRIME MINISTER, RT. HON. R. G. MENZIES QGC., M. P.,
iN THIE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ON TUESDAY7 24th FEBRUARY, 1959
INDONESIA AND ' JEST NEWi GUINEA
What has been our policy?
1. 14e recognise Dutch sovereignty of tUest New Guinea;
we have supported and continue to support this sovereignty.
2. We say that if sovereignty is to be changed it must
be by legal methods, i. e. by some means which international law
accepts and recognises.
3. We have in the United Nations taken up the position
that Indonesian submissions on this Netherlands territory are
neither in substance nor in form within the effective jurisdiction
of the political organisation of the United Nations; that it is
not the function of the Genc-ral Assembly to interpret agreements
nor to pass judgments on questions of ' territorial sovereignty.
This did not and does not exclude a reference by the parties to
the International Court.
4. We have advocated and still advocate the reference
to the International Court of the Indonesian claim to sovereignty.
The Dutch have previously expressed their willingness; Indonesia
has refused. We have always maintained that the paramount
interest ultimately is that of the indigenous population. This
view recog. 7nises sovereignty, but looks to the future in terms of
self-determination. The same goes for Australian New Guinea and
Pa pua,
Has there been any change?
NO. On two occasions during Dr. Subandrio's very welcome
visit I had the opportunity of stating Australia's position. I
will put to the House that position in substantially the terms in
which, as Prime Minister, I stated it to Dr. Subandrio.
ie are and always have been of opinion that the
Netherlands has sovereignty over ', est New Guinea. If,
as you clearly do, you dispute this, the matter should
be determined by a lawful process, i. e. either by
adjudication or by agreement arrived at in free discussion.
" de are certainly not prepared to urge the Dutch to
negotiate. You have made it clear publicly in
Australia that your conception of a negotiation is
that it should lead to and work out the conditions of
a transfer of sovereignty. Under these circumstances,
for us to urge the Dutch to negotiate would be to take
up the position that we desire to see the sovereignty
changed. This would be a clear reversal of our policy,
and we will not do it. Je will therefore not
advocate a negotiation.
w 2.
But should Indonesia and the Netherlands come
to some agreement in the future about sovereignty,
we will recognise and respect it, just as we expect
our own sovereignty to be recognised.
This is not to say that we are not deeply
concerned with the future of the indigenous populations
of New Guinea. UJe are most concerned. Ie are
developing our own portions of New Guinea alonga lines
which will, we hope, in due course, lead to selfdetermination.
W1e expect similar policies in West
New Guinea.
Ile would desire that Indonesia should publicly
affirm that force will not be resorted to in order to
establish territorial claims. This principle is vital
to Australia and her owm security.
de would think it a tragedy if our differences on
the matter of . Vest New Guinea and the Netherlands should
impair the development of sensible friendship and mutual
understanding between our two countries. Indonesia is
our nearest neighbour of great population; we both
have much to gain from peace; we are not disposed to fall
into war with each other; in your search for democratic
government and administration, your dangers, like ours,
come from undemocratic and aggressive world movements.
You will find Australians an instinctively friendly
people, clear in their views about New Guinea, for
vividly remembered historic reasons, an tl givul
disturbed by your treatment of Dutch assets. But if we
can isolate these matters of difference and see them
dealt with in a lawful way, there is no reason why we
should not live as friendly neighbours, with mutual
assistance and tolerance, with common hopes and interests.
The joint communique of the two Ministers was designed
to give effect to these propositions.
Uhat are the complaints? Dr. Evatt must face up to some specific questions.
1. Does he regard a disputed territorial claim as unfit
for adjudication in the International Court, the supreme
adjudicating organ of the United Nations? For, though he
says there is " nothing to decide" the fact is that
Indonesia does claim, as against the Dutch, sovereignty
over West New Guinea. There is thus a clear justiciable
issue.
2. Suppose Indonesia decided to accept the jurisdiction
of the Court, would Dr. Evatt deny that jurisdiction?
If so, why?
3. If the Court decided the issue of sovereignty in
favour of Indonesia, would Dr. Evatt ( in my place)
repudiate the decision, or accept it?
Should he accept, how would the case differ from a
transfer of sovereignty freely agreed upon between the two parties
principal. Can the Court do by judgment what the parties cannot do
by free agreement or settlement?
Should he reject the decision, what would he do to
make his rejection effective? Would he move the United Nations
to overrule the Court? igould he quarrel with both the Dutch and
the Indonesians, each of whom had, 21 hyp : he. s, accepted the
jurisdiction of the Court? Would he really think that the United
Nations would vote to overrule the Court?
But pursue the matter further.
Dr. Subandrio is reported to have named the Labour
government of Australia, chiefly moved on this matter by Dr. Evatt
himself, as " the midwife" of the new Indonesian Republic.
Suppose the Dutch had, at the hand-over, included
' Jest New Guinea with Java and Sumatra and the rest of the Netherlands
East Indies in the transfer, would Dr. Evatt, as midwife, have
refused to deliver the additional child?
What could or would the Labour government have done
had W4est New Guinea been included?
And if the Dutch at some future time, exercising
their own judgment ( and we are clear that any decision must be
made freely and no under threat or duress) were to decide to
add West New Guinea to the transfer, notwithstanding, the fact that
we recognise and clearly support their claim to sovereignty, what
could or would an Australian government do, except recognise the
new sovereignty as lawful?
It is said that we have changed our policy. I venture
to assert that it is the Labour Party which has changed its policy.
On Wednesday last, Dr. Evatt said:
" The Minister seems to suppose that, if sovereignty
over West New Guinea resides in the Netherlands, it
can be transferred at the will of the Nethcrlands
to Indonesia, and that will be the end of the matter.
But it is not.'"
But in 1949, Dr. Evatt's government thought the
matter one between Indonesia and the Netherlands. Thus, on October
7, 1949, in answer to a question by Mr. Falkinder, Dr. Evatt, as
Minister, said
" Sovereignty of Dutch New Guinea is in the Netherlands,
and it is for the Netherlands to say whether Dutch New
Guinea shall come into the agreement. From our point
of view the relationship of Dutch New Guinea with the
Indonesian Republic and the future government of the
territories concerned are matters primarily for the
Dutch and Indonesian governments. I repeat that our
interest is that there should be a peaceful settlement
of that question."
The whole of this controversy appears to have sprung
from a mis-interpretation of the words " would not oppose such an
agreement." These words have been twisted to mean that Australia
will actually encourage the making of such an agreement. This is
not our attitude, as we made crystal clear to Dr. Subandrio in
the statements I have already recalled. It just could not be our
attitude. For years we have not only accepted and supported Dutch
sovereignty, but have also supported the Netherlands in the United
Nations. So clearly have we contemplated a continuance of Dutch
administration that, as rocently as November 6th 1957 the
Australian and Netherlands Governments publicly Aefineci the jointly
agreed principles being followed in respect of their New Guinea
territories.
p These principles included a declaration of the basic
importance of the interesta and inalienable rights of the indigenous
inhabitants; and the need for co-operation in policy and administration,
having regard to the geographical and ethnological association
between the two sections of New Guinea. The two governments agreed
that they would continue and strengthen their co-operation. In
conclusion, they said:
" In so doing 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. " 1
Nothing that we have said or done modifies or
contradicts this joint declaration in any way.
If honourable members will look at the relevant
paragraph of the recent communique they will see that our nonopposition,
or, as I would prefer to say, our recognition, is to
attach only if and after an agreement is reached " 1between the
Netherlands and Indonesia as parties principal, arrived at by
peaceful processes and in accordance with internationally accepted
principles." 1 It seems to have been overlooked by some that this
communique contains at least three other statements about New Guinea
which are of significance for Australia.
The first is that it is now on record in this joint
document, which will be studied in Indonesia, that Australia not
only recognises Netherlands sovereignty but also recognises in
respect of New Guinea thJ principles of self-determination.
The second is that we have stipulated that any
agreement should accord with " internationally accepted principles".
Those principles are in some important ways expressed in the Charter
of the United Nations. They certainly include a recognition of the
duties to native peoples arid their ultimate right of self-determination,
( As Mr. Joske pointed out to the House on Thursday last,
one of the international principles, binding on Indonesia, the
Netherlands, and Australia as member nations of the United Nations,
is expressed in Article 73 of the Charter. We think that under that
article all the inhabitants of New Guinea, W4est or East, whoever has
the responsibility of administration, have interests declared to be
paramount. These, as I have said, are referred to in the joint
communique, and were emphasised by us in the discussions,)
The third is that Indonesia expressly renounces the
use of force to sustain its claim to West New Guinea. In view of
some threats and rumours of threats, we attach great importance to
this statement as no doubt will other powers concerned in the peace
of South East Asia, and the South-West Pacific.
There is another aspect of this matter to which I
would wish to make a brief reference.
We have stated that we will not put pressure on either
of the parties to come to any new arrangement. It should however,
be understood that we are not forgetting our special relations w-ith
the Netherlands, our joint declaration of November 1957, and the
importance we attach to the development of the indigenous inhabitants
of New Guinea as a whole. We therefore have a lively and continuing
interest in the result of any negotiations should the Netherlands,
freely decide to engage in them. We would therefore naturally
expect to have our voice heard on the matters which affect the future
of New Guinea.
We are not aware of any Netherlands intention to
negotiate, but clearly any negotiation would relate to a variety
of aspects of the future of West New Guinea and its inhabitants.
Conclusion It is, I think, unfortunate that our friendly and
frank, but civilised talks, with a ncar and significant neighbour
should have given rise, hure and there, to such intemperate
forebodings. My own government has a clear record of friendly
association with the Dutch, with whom we have, and will, expand as
opportunity offers, the administrative contacts to which I have
referred in respect of our various sections of New Guinea. We
have made it plain that the Dutch will most certainly be under no
pressure from us either to negotiate or withdraw. But it would
be offensive to them to suggest that they are not their own masters
in these as in other things.
We have equally made it clear to Indonesia that,
apart from our firmly-hield views on the Dutch issues we desire
friendship, understanding and peace. We think that the recent
talks advanced these desires.
Before I finish, I would like to reiterate Australia's
genuine interest in the welfare of the young and growing nation of
Indonesia. We were all impressed by the visit which we have just
had from Dr. Subandrio indicatin,-, as it did, his Government's real
desire for co-operation. Wie were impressed by Dr. Subandrio
himself, personally and as the representative of a very significant
neighbour, whose scores of millions of people live so close to us,
and whose good will is so important for our own future. I am bound
to say that his friendly, w. ell-informed, and intelligent approach
to us and his explanations of Indonesian problems, have done nothing
but good in clearing the air of misconceptions which may have
existed in some minds. Should ill-considered criticisms of the
outcome of his visit damage the relations strengthened by this
visit, it would be a stop backwards. I hope that there will be an
end to doubts and fears now that our position has been made clear.
With the compliments of
Hugh Dash,
Press Secretary to the Prime Minister,
C; AIBZRA I A. C. T.