Torres talks
pp. 15-17 · Read in the full issue
break down
Papua New Guinea and Australia have failed to agree on a Torres Strait border treaty between the two countires, it was revealed at the end of January. Negotiations between the two governments had bogged down on three major Australian demands unacceptable to PNG.
In the National Parliament here the Foreign Minister, Sir Maori Kiki, accused Australia of having failed to discharge its moral obligations to a former colony.
The three Australian demands which have stonewalled the talks were disclosed in parliament by Sir Maori.
They are: • Within theimmediate Torres Strait zone, Australia wants the border to apply to the seabed only, and not to the sea, thus failing to rigidly differentiate fisheries management. • Australia is claiming sovereignty over eight uninhabited islands on the PNG side of a generally-agreed border (three inhabited islands also claimed by Australia are not in dispute). • Australiais claiming territorial seas of three nautical miles and fishing rights of 12 miles around the eight uninhabited islands on the PNG side of the border.
Sir Maori said his government was prepared, “To take the necessary action to protect ourinterests”. Hedid not elaborate on this comment, but his remarks are taken to mean that PNG is seriously considering an approach to the International Court of Justice.
For Australia, this would be an
embarrassing development in its
hitherto copybook transfer of powers and responsibilities to its former
colony.
Negotiations to define an international border between PNG and Australia began more than a year ago after PNG became independent.
Sir Maori reported agreement on a general borderline of about 1200 miles which will pass from Indonesia, through Torres Strait and into the Coral Sea.
It will run south of the three inhabited islands of Saibai, Boigu and Dauan, but they would be recognised as Australian enclaves.
Sir Maori also reported general agreement on establishing a protected zone for Australian and PNGislanders
in the region, and for safeguarding their rights. He said the border woulcf be an agreed sea borderfor most of its length, but Australia wanted only a seabed boundary in the immediate Torres Strait zone.
PNG could not accept this demand on the grounds that it would store up trouble for thefuture, and there was an immediate need for a clear definition regarding the waters.
The PNG Government was prepared to accept interim Australian sovereignty over the eight uninhabited islands, but would not accept Australia’s claim to all-time sovereignty. Australia’s concept of wanting a 12-mile fishing zone round the islands within PNG’s border was completely unacceptable.
“This is simply perpetuating the state of affairs that came about as a result of colonising action many years ago. Papua New Guinea cannot be expected to accept the situation where Australia has seajurisdiction on the basis of a few uninhabited islands a few miles off our coast”, he said.
Later, PNG’s Foreign Minister criticised the Queensland Premier, Mr Bjelke-Petersen for “continued and unwarranted interference" over the border controversy.
He said the border was entirely a matter for negotiation between the PNG Government and the Australian Government as representatives of their sovereign nations. The negotiations did not concern Mr Bjelke-Petersen, who had no standing in the matter.
Sir Maori added that one of the greatest errors being perpetuated by the Queensland Premier was that a border already existed and that it might be “shifted”. That was not true.
In international law, no border existed and the purpose of the negotiations with Australia was to define a border.