Many problems of New

The Month's Reading

Many problems of New Guinea’s boundaries

The days are past when the boundaries of Papua-New Guinea can be considered merely marks on a map. The growing awareness of New Guineans will ensure that the boundaries receive increased attention; and there are, in fact, seeds of dis sension in some of the boundaries.

>APUA-NEW GUINEA has four international borders, the most ;wsworthy in recent times being the le with Indonesian West New uinea or Irian. But there is a jundary with Queensland in the >uth, with the British Solomon lands Protectorate in the south-east id an internal boundary between e Australian territory of Papua and e trust territory of New Guinea.

In Search for New Guinea’s oundaries, Dr. Paul W. van de eur, of the Australian National niversity, whose research work on e territory’s boundaries with Indo ;sia and Queensland is already well lown, examines all the boundaries, staffs their history and points out issible trouble spots for the future.

Companion volume

Published as a companion volume id compiled by the author, is ocuments and Correspondence on ew Guinea’s Boundaries. Although e main work can easily be followed ithout the need for the companion ilume, those people interested in squiring the valuable information be found in Search for New uinea’s Boundaries will want to ive both books, despite the fairly gh total price. These books are ndmarks of New Guineana, and > pun intended.

Dr. van de Veur points out that ustralia has avoided boundary ouble in the past because of the ;cidents of history, which have put >th difficulties of terrain and good iends astride them. They are thus ore apparent than real.

The border between Papua and ew Guinea has been a cultural irrier, which might last the distance Australian stewardship in Papua ew Guinea, but which could cause ouble should New Guinea become

self-governing. The author is particu larly concerned at the fact that two electorates for the P-NG House of Assembly straddle the P-NG border; electors on the Papuan side being British subjects, and the others being Australian Protected Persons.

This particular situation will be resolved by 1968, because since work on the book was completed Australia has agreed to P-NG House of As sembly proposals that electorates not cross district boundaries.

Dr. van de Veur sees some un satisfactory features, too, with the division between Papua-New Guinea and the British Solomon Islands Protectorate, south of Bougainville, which is the result of a deal between Britain and Germany last century.

He warns that the future State of P-NG should be aware of the possible attraction that a self-governing Solomons could exercise on populous Bougainville. In the distant past there were suggestions that Bougainville and Buka be merged with the British Solomons. The author cannot find any published material of recent date

about such a merger, but no doubt there is material in British Govern ment files; for some British officials in recent years have been searching for a solution to the Solomons political problem, hoping it might still be found through some arrange ment with Bougainville, and perhaps even more populous New Britain.

Their approach has been no more than exploratory.

Dr. van de Veur spends the greatest portion of his book in examining the borders of the territory as they touch West New Guinea and Queensland, and it is from these two areas that he undoubtedly expects difficulties to arise,

Queensland border

Papua’s boundary with Queensland dates from last century, when the Australian colony feared German interest in New Guinea and roped in as much territory as it could, short of claiming Papua, which Britain would not allow it to do. Queens land thus took in all the offshore islands of Cape York, and all the Torres Strait islands to “within a bow shot of Papua”. Thus it became almost impossible to sail from Daru, in Western Papua, to Papua’s western border with the Dutch without pass ing through Queensland borders.

These Queensland waters also took in Papuan fishing grounds.

The precautions were misplaced, for Britain eventually took over Papua. Although Papua’s first admini

strator, Sir William MacGregor, sti realised there were seeds of trouble this border arrangement, and mi new proposals for revising boundary to give a fair share Papua, these, although approv were never made legal because federation of the Australian st; intervened. The odd arrangement t remains today.

Dr. van de Veur takes a gloc view of Australia’s chances of avc ing trouble along the border v Indonesia. He gives the history border incidents, in both Dutch i Indonesian times, and feels act demarcation is still a long way He points out that when the In nesians took over in West > Guinea they did not disagree with border delineation between Holl: and Australia—they merely sugges the need for a new survey. 1 approach immediately relegated the scrap heap all the work alre: done on the border, and put Indonesians in the position of be able to query the border’s posit at any time in the future.

Fly River bulge

The author’s special cause concern is with the southern half the border, at the Fly River bul He discusses the significance Article V of the convention betw< Britain and the Netherlands sigi at the Hague in 1895, which s simply, “Navigation on the Fly Ri is free for the subjects of b contracting powers excepting regards the carriage of warlike stc and no duty shall be posted on ot goods conveyed by that river”.

What does Article V mean? D it still apply?

Although questions have b< asked both in the P-NG House Assembly and Federal Parham in recent years (the position i posed in PIM as early as June, 19< no Australian official source clarified Article V.

For Dr. van de Veur the mean of the clause is not open to doi Free navigation, he says, was a fa common clause in international agi ments at that time, and Article V i designed to give free navigation the Fly River at any point, and might even be argued that it co apply to the Fly’s affluents, branc and outlets.

One presumes it does not apply Indonesia, because Article XXV the Netherlands-Indonesian agi ment of 1962 says that all previi agreements may be terminated adjusted. But who knows for su All-in-all, the facts presented Dr. van de Veur support the autht

intention that any government rhich engages in any further dilly llying” over the West New Guinea irder would “be foolhardy indeed”.

He adds: “Rumours always move about in »w Guinea. They are now rife in 5 border zone, and are not being untered by the [Australian] Admini •ation, which has retained an tonishing reluctance to publish the bts.

“In some instances this reticence s been due to its own lack of in rmation, but some is due to an grained bureaucratic fear of bulging information, and a ternalistic interpretation of the pacity of the ‘natives’ to under bid.

“The time has come, however, to proach the various problems as :iated with the Irian boundary in clear and open fashion, involying much as possible in the discussions d decisions those people who in the t too distant future will be the leritors of Australia’s accomplish es—and failures.”

Good advice, and overdue. —SI.

[Search For New Guinea’S

Lundaries. $6.30. Documents And

Rrespondence On New Guinea’S

iUNDARIES. $3.90. Both published by > Australian National University, nberra. Distributed by Jacaranda Press Australia, and Thomas C. Lothian in .)