Canberra

Commentary

From our Canberra Correspondent!

Australian fears for the futi of an independent state of W( New Guinea were voiced for t first time by the Minister for E temal Affairs, Sir Garfu Barwick, in his Parliament statement in March on t

Netherlands-Indonesian disput

SIR GARFIELD set out Austral objections to both the “crai programme which the Dutch nounced in November, 1960, and the later plan of September, 1961 Hitherto, the Government has b( guarded in pronouncements on Du policies.

These were Sir Garfield’s criticisi On the 1960 “10-year” plan stimulate economic, political j social development and setting 1! as the limit of the term in which inhabitants could exercise s determination: “This involved an celerated timetable which we wo not feel justified in applying to > own NG territory.

“We aim to endow the people P-NG with a reasonable develo] economy and unified society wl they take political control of tl affairs.”

On the September, 1961, plan “internationalise” the administrate “This appeared to presage a shoi period of preparation for s> government and the attainment independence.

“It might well represent notice t the Netherlands was preparing to c much earlier than had been envisag “The implications were wider tl those of the 1960 programme— more so if Indonesian goodwill i concurrence were not forthcoming, Then Sir Garfield delivered punch-line.

This was the thought which pears to have crystallised Austral Government thinking in the sut change of attitudes to the NT problem.

“The full implications of a defen bss and economically unstable st of NNG in such circumstances coi net be left out of account,” he sa He did not expand this guarc expression of Australian fears, 1 the overtones were clear.

What if an independent NNG I

et up? It had no prospect of iconomically viable; its people be politically immature, its next-door neighbour would lurt, resentful—and ambitious nesia, which, in such an ; of mind could fall prey to ndishments of Communist im m. a situation had some of the ts of another Katanga. 3arfield pointed out that the had to withdraw this proposal UN in the face of flat Indo opposition. idded: “Perhaps the most sig circumstances was that no country supported the Nether /as quite clear that no resolu opposition to the Indonesian )f view was likely to receive jport of the Asian members, bout that support no effective on could be carried.”

Garfield said that Australia lot delude itself that the UN ; same as in 1945. nations lately emerged from 1 rule were strongly influenced t experience. uch circumstances, the prin of self-determination were apt regarded as competitive with :eds and urgencies of anti lism. ;re is a growing tendency to hat sanctions may be imposed name of anti-colonialism—and o resort to armed force for rpose of ‘liberation’,” he said, ndonesian threats of force, Sir d was specific. : Government still entertains w that armed conflict in con with this dispute would be etrimental to the best interests itralia,” he said, ether or not the conflict ex to involve the Communist —but particularly if it did— inflict would both in the short the long run inure for the of those powers and result spread of Communism in areas 3 our shores.” jarfield emphasised that Aus wanted self-determination in he uttered a warning to the sians and the Dutch: “The ate aspirations of the Papuans een so far aroused that . . . ispirations are likely now to with increasing strength until r of their satisfaction.” the people of P-NG, Sir Gar idled out what stand Australia take in the event of hostilities, have territorial rights which

we will defend to the utmost,” he said.

“In that proper task we would ex pect—and have no reason to doubt— that we will receive the full assistance and support of our great allies.

“The quite different situation in NNG will be obvious.” * * * When the debate resumed, Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Arthur Calwell accused the Government of clumsily allowing the NNG situation to drift “to the brink of war”. His claim that the Government had abandoned the principal of self determination was angrily denied by the Prime Minister, Mr. Menzies.

Mr. Menzies said that Mr. Calwell had not suggested any alternative except to claim that the dispute should go to UN. There, the Soviet would exercise the veto. ❖ * * Plans that P-NG should become the eighth State of Australia will pose constitutional headaches if they

should ever reach fruition.

Mr. L. R. Johnson (Labour, NSW) forecast a few of them in the House of Representatives when he asked Territories Minister Paul Hasluck whether in such a situation he favoured complete equality between the indigenous people and Australians in the mainland States.

Would this equality extend to social services, electoral franchise and freedom of movement through Aus tralia? he asked.

The Minister admitted that such problems would arise.

The articulate people of P-NG believed that they should undertake self-government on terms which would allow them to remain in close association with Australia, They had hit upon the idea of the Territory becoming one of the States.

The proposition would have to be carefully considered by Australia, as well as by P-NG when the time for negotiation between the two com munities arrived.