UNO TRUSTEESHIP

Greymouth Evening Star, 6 December 1946, Page 4

UNO TRUSTEESHIP

PROPOSALS MADE FOR NEW GUINEA REPLY TO CRITICISM NEW YORK, December 4. A strong protest against “attempts to discredit Australia’s administration of NevOGuinea” was made by Professor K. H. Bailey (Australia) in the United Nations sub-committee which is discussing trustee agreements. Professor Bailey said Australia for 20 years had carried out the task to the satisfaction of the world and the native inhabitants, as their loyalty during the Japanese invasion vividly demonstrated. He objected particularly to allegations by the Jugoslav, Russian, and

Byelorussian delegates that the subcommittee did not know what the Australian administration was doing or how it intended to proceed. He added that those who made such statements simply had not bothered to study the wealth of information with which the sub-committee had been supplied. Professor Bailey spoke during a debate on a Byelorussian proposal for the insertion in the New Guinea agreement of a new article requiring Australia to develop free organs of representation for the people of New Guinea and to take all appropriate measures for their political development under the direction of the Trusteeship Council. Mr Vlahov (Jugoslavia) accused Australia of having drafted the agreement hastily, saying it was “the worst of all the agreements submitted.” He called Professor Bailey obstinate for refusing to accept

Byelorussia’s “reasonable constructive proposals.” Australia received support from Britain, Canada, New Zealand, and the United Spates. Mr C. G. R. McKay (New Zealand) described the Byelorussian proposal as an “unreal elaboration of trusteeship not in keeping with conditions in New Guinea.” The Byelorussian proposal was defeated by nine votes to six. The Australian Associated Preps says that one reason why the Byelorussian proposal was resisted by Australia and all the other trusteeship countries was the implication hidden in it that the development of trust territories should be carried out under the direction of the Trusteeshipu Council. In effect, this would implement the Indian proposal, which had already been defeated, to make all trust territories subject to the Trusteeship Council’s direct control.