Australia and the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonisation

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorNamaliu, Rabi Langanaien_US
dc.date.accessioned2024-08-15T16:33:48Z
dc.date.available2024-08-15T16:33:48Z
dc.date.copyright1973en_US
dc.date.issued1973
dc.degree.departmentDepartment of History
dc.degree.levelMaster of Arts M.A.en
dc.description.abstractTopic: Australia and the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonisation As an Administering Power and founding member, Australia has been intimately involved with the process of decolonisation since the formative years of the United Nations. Not only has she been responsible for the admini­stration of four external territories but also in accordance with Chapters XI, XII and XIII of the Charter, she has been held accountable for the transmission of information on the political, economic, social and educational advancement of these territories towards the goal of independence . Furthermore, Australia has been active in a super­visory role. As an Administering Power administering two trust territories, Nauru and New Guinea, she has been and still is a member of the Trusteeship Council. She was also a member of the U. N. Special Committee on Information from Non-Self-Governing Territories from its inception in 1946 until it was dissolved in 1962. It was to this Committee that she was required to submit information on her other two external territories, Papua and Cocos Islands. More recently Australia was a member of the U.N. Special Committee on De-colonization created in 1962 to implement the Declaration on Independence for Colonial Countries and Peoples adopted by the General Assembly as resolution 1514(XV) in 1960. The primary purpose of this study is to examine Australia's participation in the Special Committee On De­-colonisation not only as a member but as an Administering Power with specific reference to Papua and New Guinea. On January 28, 1969, the Australian Ambassador to the United Nations, Mr. Patrick Shaw, informed the Secretary ­General of the intended resignation of his country from the Special Committee on Decolonisation, Mr. Shaw stated that Australia would continue to furnish information to the General Assembly and Trustee hip Council in accordance with obligations under the Charter and would attend meetings of the Special Committee on invitation but would give informa­tion to the Special Committee only when asked. What did this reflect? This study concludes that Australia's resignation can be attributed to two factors• the criticisms of and ideo­logical differences with the anti-colonial critics who were dominant in the Special Committee. However, not all criti­cism: from the Committee were ill-conceived and unfounded; some were valid and constructive. But when there was little or no official acknowledgement in the Committee's reports of the progress being achieved in the development of Papua and New Guinea, it was understandable that the Administering Power should fervently defend hr policies and feel resentment for uninformed and irresponsible remarks. Indeed, the Australian government took measures during the period under study that would drastically alter the tempo of advancement in practically all fields in the Territory. Although both the Administering Powers and the U.N. Visiting Missions to New Guinea testified to these developments in their reports, the conclusions reached by the Special Committee in its resolutions invariably stated that progress was still "slow". Consequently, although Australia was not the first member to resign from the Special Committee, it is significant that it was the first Administering Power to do so. As such, the decision had important implications for the role the Administering Powers would play in the Special Committee with regard to the implementation of resolution 1514(XV). Although the Special Committee had little direct influence on Australian policies, it did spur on the process of decolonisation in Papua and New Guinea. Most members were concerned about an increased participation in the poli­tical process by indigenous people through fully representative political institutions. Similarly, there was the concern that the economy was still largely controlled by expatriates. In social advancement, many members were concerned for the total elimination of racial discrimination in the Territory while education was seen a the key to providing the skilled and trained personnel necessary to sustain a viable and independent nation in Papua and New Guinea. But by urging "the speedy end to colonialism in all its forms and manifestations," often in the most uncompromising terms, the Special Committee alienated the membership of one of the less intransigent and more co-operative of the Administering Powers.en
dc.format.extent209 pages
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/1828/19132
dc.rightsAvailable to the World Wide Weben_US
dc.titleAustralia and the United Nations Special Committee on Decolonisationen_US
dc.typeThesisen_US

Files

Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
NAMALIU_Rabbie_MA_1973_1233897.pdf
Size:
59.64 MB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Download

Collections

Electronic Theses and Dissertations (ETD)
 
University of Victoria Libraries

We acknowledge and respect the Lək̓ʷəŋən (Songhees and Esquimalt) Peoples on whose territory the university stands, and the Lək̓ʷəŋən and W̱SÁNEĆ Peoples whose historical relationships with the land continue to this day.