Ng’S Irresponsible

Critics

Red Crocodile Tears Over Natives

CAPTIOUS criticism of Australian activities in Papua-New Guinea recently have aroused resentment in both official and non-official circles.

It is difficult to follow proceedings in the United Nations and its Committees. Apparently, Australia’s official reports on Papua and New Guinea have been tabled in these places, whereupon irresponsible and ill-informed gentlemen from the Communist nations and from small and unimportant countries have launched all sorts of strange criticisms upon Australia, and other Powers administering Trustee Territories. The line generally taken is that we are guilty of the monstrous sin of “Colonialism”, and are callously “ex ploiting” the natives.

It is all part of the propaganda let loose upon the world since the end of the war by two classes of people— Communists who will use any method available to discredit Western countries and create confusion in the minds of their people; and reformers of an erratic type —the word “rat bags” best describes them —who imagine that they have a special mission to save the downtrodden coloured races from the cruelties and exploitation of Capitalist whites.

On October 20, before a plenary session of the United Nations, Mr.

R. G. Casey, Australian Minister, defended the Western nations against charges of this character, showed that such propaganda was designed for purely political purposes, and then carried the war into the enemy camp.

“Their specious plea is designed to identify Communism with nationalist aspirations. But for these people Communism offers only the kiss of death—the mortgaging of freedom before freedom itself is attained.

Fortunately, nationalist leaders have been forewarned. While Colonial powers have, since the war, brought to nationhood an important number of countries —many represented here t O -day—the Soviet Union. has

destroyed the independence of no less than seven nations.”

A few days later, on October 29, before another section of UNO, Mr.

W. D. Forsyth, representing Aus tralia, made a similar outspoken speech, denouncing the machinations of the Soviet spokesmen and defend ing—by figures and proven facts— Australia’s record in Papua-NG.

Bishop Strong Again

Such attacks by Red emissaries are to be expected; but it came as a shock to the Australian public to learn that the Anglican Bishop of New Guinea, Right Rev. P. N.

Strong, at the opening of the Mission Conference in Moresby on November 10, declared that some commercial interests were riding roughshod over the natives of Papua-New Guinea; that they brushed aside reminders of the natives’ war work as “senti mentality”; that subversive organisa tions existed among the natives; and that “these elements will become stronger if private enterprise is allowed to pursue its policy of native exploitation”. He also said that we should face another Kenya in N.

Guinea if these things were permitted.

On the invitation of leading Aus tralian newspapers and broadcasters, the editor of the PIM commented upon Bishop Strong’s statements. He said that the latter were “ir responsible, dangerous and absurd”, and that he was amazed that Bishop Strong should in this way align him self with those irresponsible Com munist critics who had been making such a nuisance of themselves at the Trusteeship Council. He said that the suggestion that Europeans were exploiting natives in New Guinea was silly and that the charge that another Kenya might develop against Aus tralia in the Pacific Territories was simply fantastic.

Nevertheless, the reverend gentle man will find his views quoted with gusto in Pravda and Isvestia.