TRUSTEESHIP POLICY

Press, Volume LXXXI, Issue 24599, 22 June 1945, Page 5

TRUSTEESHIP POLICY

N.Z.AUSTRALIAN CONTRIBUTION PRINCIPLES OF CANBERRA AGREEMENT (Official News Service) (Rec. 8 p.m.) SAN FRANCISCO, June 20. Some of the basic points of common policy in the administration of dependent territories, set out by the Governments of New Zealand and Australia in the Canberra agreement, are incorporated in the trusteeship proposals for the world organisation, finally approved in the committee stage at UNCIO last night Dr, H. V. Evatt (Australia) was able to claim that in the new general policy statement by UNCIO alone, no fewer than six of the proposals he had put forward had been incorporated. . ■ Both Mr Fraser, who is chairman of the committee, and Dr. Evatt, have expressed their gratification at the great advance tide draft shows in international policy towards the affairs of territories that have not yet reached self-govern-ment. ■ ‘ „•„ In effect, all the 50 United Nations have indicated through their delegates their willingness to accept the fundamental principle that was stated in the New Zealand and Australian declaration of 1944—that the doctrine of trusteeship is applicable in broad principle, to all colonial territories and that the main purpose of a trust Is the welfare of the native peoples and their economic, social, ana political development. This principle is the essence-of the declaration of general policy .that prefaces the trusteeship chapter of the Charter of the United Nations. . Speaking to a large gathering .of newspaper correspondents' this,afternoon, Mr Fraser, said: "We see m this document a good deal of what the Australian and New Zealand Governments agreed upon early, last year, and. embodied in .the Canberra agreement,, Recognition that the interests, of all dependent peoples, whether m‘mandates or colonies, are paramount, is of fundamental importance.- It is the basis, upon which the trusteeship organisation ft to be set up. and it is alsoaccepted as the basis of the general policy of all the nations concerned wards the administration of dependent territories. “It is most gratifying that there was complete co-operation among all those nations which have, of are likely to have, major responsibilities in the administration of dependent territories—the United Kingdom, the United States, France, the Netherlands, and Belgium —all of which have subscribed to this document and the principles it contains.” Question on Independence - . One questioner drew attention to the fact that eventual independence was still not directly stated in the declaration of general policy as an objective, beyond that of self-government Mr Fraser replied that the obligation to assist dependent peoples "in the progressive development of their tree political institutions” set no boundaries to their political advancement. In any case, speaking as a representatiye_oi one of the self-govenupg British Dominions. he could see no difference between "self-government and inde“Our experience has shown that selfgovernment itself implies the right ol self-determination and independence, he said. “Those of you who have been following this conference have surely had ample proof of the measure of independence the British Drooinums enjoy in our relationships with the United Kingdom. But we realise that our interdependence and our co-operation with the Mother Country and with other members of the Commonwealth is more important than ourtonstitutidnal independence. It is, m iaci, essential to our existence and our pro* important principle of the Canberra agreement embodied in the general trusteeship policy 18 recognition of the need for collaboration among “colonial" Powers, and for the pooling of information afs to the economic. social, and educational development of their dependent territories. The obligation to transmit statistical and technical information to the Secretary-General of the United Nations brings the position of colonial territories as closely as possible into line with that of mandates and other territories under the actual trusteeship system, on which annual reports are required to be made to the Trusteeship Council. Attaching much importance to this matter, Dr. Evatt told the committee that the statistics supplied would show the measure of progress made .in «uch matters as health, education, jmd labour conditions, and would lead to healthy competition among colonial Powers in advancing the welfare of native peoples. Tributes Exchanged Dr Evatt, who has been largely responsible for the strengthening of the declaration, remarked that the Australian and New Zealand Governments had long been in consultation on the trusteeship question, and many of the views and suggestions he had put forward had also been those of New Zealand. He said Mr Fraser had given a great deal of attention to the problems of dependent peoples, especially in the Pacific area. Warm tributes were exchanged between Mr Fraser and members of the committee after the declaration had been adopted unanimously. Recalling that the committee had begun its work without any basic joint proposals, Mr Fraser said it had ended by producing one of the most inspiring achievements of the conference—a document that was most valuable and important and would become historic. He expressed gratitude to the delegates for their spirit of co-operation, and made particular mention of the work of Commander Harold Stassen (United States) in conducting the negotiations that led to agreement on the trusteeship Charter. Commander Stassen said that Mr Fraser’s unusual presiding ability, every ready humour, and keen grasp of the subject, had been significant factors in the success ol the committee’s work.