ABORIGINAL LAND RIGHTS AND AUSTRALIA'S SOVEREIGNTY

The following information was published by the Australian League of Rights in the May 1984 edition of the Intelligence Survey, in an effort to warn the Australian people what, and who, were behind the push for 'land rights' for the Aboriginal folk. Australians continued about their everyday affairs not recognising the dangers to our national sovereignty. Twenty six years later it is a different situation, the Aboriginal folk are now realising they were used for a far different agenda.

The screws are being tightened as we are forced tighter and tighter in the New World Order vice.....

The Commonwealth Government, under the zealous hand of Aboriginal Affairs Minister Clyde Holding, has embarked on a policy for "Aboriginal Land-Rights" which will not only take it into a constitutional minefield, but will, if taken as far as possible, threaten the Australian continent with a type of balkanisation into racial "ghettos", and also compromise Australia's Federal system, its communiatlons, its defence and its relative lack of racial disharmony.

To achieve this package of disasters the Government will rely not so much on the considered constitutional will of the Australian people - a process amply provided for in the Constitution itself - as on a series of premises derived by the United Nations Organisation and its agencies. These premises, or, as High Court Justice Wilson described them in 1982,"international arrangements", will be imposed on all Australians, including the Aboriginals, by a radical mis-use of Section 51(29) of the Constitution, which gives the Common wealth Government power over "external affairs".

If this policy is consummated, the ultimate decision on what happens inside Australia will be determined not by elected parliaments within constitutional limits, interpreted where necessary by a High Court which uses the expressed will of the Australian people as its criterion. It will be determined by the International Court of Justice, which sits in the Peace Palace in the Hague, which is owned by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace.

The World Almanac, 1983, described the International Court in these words:
"The International Court of Justice is the principal judicial-organ of the United Nations. All members are ipso facto parties to the statute of the Court, as are three non-members - Liechtenstein, San Marino and Switzerland. Other states may become parties to the Court's Statute. The jurisdiction of the Court comprises cases which the parties submit to it and matters especially provided for in the Charter or in treaties.
The Court gives advisory opinions and renders judgements. Its decisions are only binding between the parties concerned and in respect to a particular dispute. If any party to a case fails to heed a judgment, the other party may have recourse to the Security Council. The 15 judges are elected for nine-year terms by the General Assembly and the Security Council. Retiring judges are eligible for re-election.
The Court remains permanently in session, except during vacations. All questions are decided by majority. The Court sits in The Hague, Netherlands.

"Judges: 9-year term in office, ending in 1988:
Robert Ago, Italy. Stephen M. Schwebel, U.S. AbdullahAli, Egypt. Platon D. Morozov, USSR. Jose Sette Caniara, Brazil.
9-year term in office, ending 1985:
Tasliin Olawala Elias, Nigeria. Hermann Mosier, W. Germany. Shigeru Oda, Japan. Abdullah Fikri Al-Khani, Syria. Manfred Lachs, Poland.
9-year term ending in 1982:
Isaac Forster, Senegal. Andre Gros, France. Jose Maria Ruda, Argentina. Nagendre Singh, India."
Only one judge of the 15 listed by the World Almanac is from a Common Law country.

ABORIGINAL CALL

The West Australian (August 22, 1983) carried the following rticle, under the heading "ABORIGINAL CALL TO ADOPT U.N. POLICY":
"The Federal Government would be urged to ratify a United Nations agreement and make Aborigines' rights an international issue, an Aboriginal spokesman said yesterday in his return from Geneva. Mr. Paul Coe, one of a four-man delegation to a meeting of a working party of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights, said that the delegation would attempt to meet the Prime Minister, Mr. Hawke, and the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, Mr. Holding, next week. He said that Australia had signed U.N. Convention 107, which guarantees self-determination and and rights to indigenous peoples in all signatory nations, but had not ratified it. The delegation would ask for immediate ratification and an assurance that Aboriginal rights would be respected in all States. The Franklin Dam decision had put paid to arguments that this could not be done because of states' rights, Mr. Coe said. The delegation said in its submission to the U.N. working party: 'We consider that violations of human rights by wealthy countries such as Australia are especially reprehensible! The submission dealt with wide-ranging Aboriginal discontent, from StateGovernment inaction on racism to health care, employment, education, mining, land rights and social justice, and quoted from a World Council of Churches report compiled in 1981. The U.N. has no direct say in the internal policies of member nations, but it can exert significant moral pressure on governments seeking a good international image. The group's submission condemned mining as the major single threat to Aboriginal communities across Australia." (emphasis added)
The background to this submission requires the attention of all thinking Australians.

MAKARRATA TREATY COMMITTEE

In April 1979 the second gathering of the National Aboriginal Conference passed a resolution demanding a "treaty" between the Aboriginals and the Commonwealth Government. In the same month an Aboriginal Treaty Committee, with solely white participation, was formed under the chairmanship of Dr. H.C. Coombs. This committee placed a large advertisement in the National Times (week ending August 25, 1979) calling for a "Treaty within Australia between Australians. . ."

The NAC's Makarrata started from the premise "That the aboriginal people were the prior owners of the Australian continent, and the Aboriginal people enter this agreement and negotiate with the Australian Government as an equal party. The Makarrata seeks compensation for the losses of the Aboriginal people. The compensation is sought in kind and cash. The losses are primarily of land and culture. . ."

Its demands were not modest. It sought agreement: "That the teaching of aboriginal culture in Australian schools be compulsory, with the priviso that certain traditional and ceremonial aspects not be taught.

Compensation in kind: being the return of specific lands, these being (a) Aboriginal sacred sites; (b) Existing land occupied by the tribal people; (c) Freehold title of all that land upon which aboriginal people presently live, including inviolate rights to the fishing and hunting associated with such lands...

Compensation in cash: to recover losses which are not recoverable in kind, paid at the annual rate of 1-1 V percent of the GNP...
That the tribal lands and their sacred sites be totally non-negotiable, to remain so permanently, and that tribal laws should likewise remain.
The reservation of several seats in Commonwealth, State and Local Qovernments...
The recognition of National Aborigines Day as a national holiday; the identification of places of significant aboriginal happenings or struggles and the honouring of aboriginal heroes...
The compulsory employment in government and quasi-government agencies of a fixed proportion of aboriginal people, irrespective of their established skills

In July 1980 this list of demands was submitted to the Commonwealth Government, with the request that it be included as part of a Makarrata Treaty to be concluded between the Commonwealth and the Aboriginal people. On March 3rd, 1981 the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs (at that time Senator Baume) replied. The Senate Report "Two Hundred Years Later" describes his reply thus: (p. 17)
"In his letter, the Minister stated the 'general basis upon which the Government is prepared to pursue the Makarrata concept'. First, he noted that the Government is prepared to acknowledge prior Aboriginal occupation of Australia. However, in pursuing the development of the Makarrata concept the Government wished it to be clear that any agreement '. . . must reflect the special place of Aboriginal and Torres Strait Island people within Australian society as part of one Australian nation'. Accordingly, the Minister pointed out, the Government '. . . cannot legitimately negotiate anything which might be regarded as a "treaty", implying as it does an internationally recognised agreement between two nations ... The Minister then reminded the NAC that in any discussions on the Makarrata the Commonwealth Government was not prepared to act unilaterally in areas where the States have an interest. By way of an example, the Minister suggested that the question of land rights would have to be negotiated directly with the States as well as with the Commonwealth. . ."

In fact, without repudiating the Constitution and the Federal system, the Minister, at that time, could say nothing else. Although radical claims that the 1967 constitutional referendum allowing the Commonwealth to make laws for Aborigines entitled the Federal Government to enact land-rights legislation, there was, in fact, no legal decision or precedent nullifying State sovereignty over land and land usage. The controversial and dangerous decisions on "external affairs" and "racial discrimination" brought down by the High Court in the Koowarta and Franklin Dam cases were yet to come.

OTHER IDEAS

Dr. Coombs' Makarrata Treaty Committee, however, had other ideas. From its inception it was quite clear the Committee was not interested in any amicable agreement between Aborigines and Australian governments within an exclusively domestic situation, however satisfactory it might prove. The whole emphasis of the Committee - and seemingly its whole 'raison d'etre' during its 4^1/2 years of existence - was to place Aboriginal affairs firmly within the context of international law - which sums up the real issue at stake - surmounting the interests of a small minority of Australians, important though they obviously are.

The real issue is whether Australia, as a sovereign nation, determines its own domestic future through elected parliaments acting within constitutional guidelines wholly determined, and only changeable by the Australian people; or by the decisions of United Nations agencies which are imposed on Australians whether they like it or not.

With this issue in mind, the Makarrata Treaty Committee has acted NOT in a creative, but in a destructive role. In doing so it has - and this is obvious in reading its material and its newsletters - presumed on the idealism and the ill-informed good intentions of quite a few of its participants. The high-sounding belief that their actions on behalf of Aborigines - without considering the effects on other Australians or the sovereignty of Australia - is wholly justified rings out on every page of the Committee's material. It is a classic example of well-intentioned but uninformed do-gooders providing a front behind which hard-nosed revolutionaries work to produce a totally different result.

THE ARGUMENT

A basic provision of the United Nations Charter states that the UN should not interfere in the domestic affairs of member states. Legal interpretation can, however, change black into white. The most obvious example is the question of 'apartheid' in South Africa. Whatever one's opinion, it is obviously a domestic issue. A strong opponent of South Africa, Amelia C. Leiss, acknowledged this fact when saying: Clearly, there are few things more "essentially within the domestic jurisdiction" of a state than its relationship to its own citizens, its constitutional form, and its laws, and administrative and judicial procedures. Yet these are the features of the present South African system that are under assault and that a majority of the UN insist must be changed . .
(Amelia C. Leiss (Editor) Apartheid and United Nations Collective Measures: An Analysis - New York, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1965.)

Clarence Manion, former Dean of Notre Dame Law School, pointed out the implications:
"Our slavish support of the United Nations' illegal interference in the domestic affairs of independent nations has made us an accessory to crimes committed against our own allies in the cold war and turned over the management of our foreign policy to the direction of the UN General Assembly - a revolutionary body that now runs the United Nations in defiance of its own Charter . . ." (Clarence Manion, The Conservative American - New York, Devin-Adair, 1965).

The United States foresaw the problem of international treaties much earlier. John Foster Dulles, addressing an American Bar Association meeting on April 12, 1952, said:
The treaty-making power is an extraordinary power, liable to abuse. Treaties make international law and also they make domestic law. Under our Constitution treaties become the supreme law of the land. They are indeed more supreme than ordinary laws, for congressional laws are invalid if they do not conforn to the Constitution, whereas treaty laws can over-ride the Constitution. Treaties, for example, can take powers away from Congress and give them to the President; they can take powers from the State and give them to the Federal Government or to some international body, and they can cut across the rights given the people by the constitutional Bill of Rights . .

DR EVATT'S ROLE

The United States argument occurred only shortly after Australia's war-time Attorney-General, Dr. H.V. Evatt, had devoted considerable attention to the possibility of using intenational treaties to circumvent the Australian Constitution. Evatt was, of course, a doctrinaire socialist in the same mould as his later proteges Lionel Murphy and Senator Gareth Evans.
Writing of Evatt's thinking, former Governor-General Sir Paul Hasluck, in his memoirs Diplomatic Witness wrote:
". . . He started to take a strong interest in the idea that the acceptance of an obligation under an international agreement would give the Australian Government the constitutional power to fulfill the obligation... He seemed to have no fear of international compulsion on Australia in matters hitherto the subject of domestic policy so long as an international agreement strengthened the case for central power in the Australian Commonwealth. Finally, this produced the argument that the "external affairs" powers to make an agreement carried with it the power necessary to put the agreement into effect . . ."

Evatt subsequently left Australia to work in the fledgling United Nations, already seen by many international socialists as a future world government. He had been deputy leader of the Australian delegation to the San Francisco Conference in 1945, at which the Soviet agent Alger Hiss was Acting Secretary-General. Evatt himself became President of the UN in 1948.

There was already some legal validity for Sir Paul Hasluck's view. During the course of a High Court case in 1936 (Rex V Burgess, 1936, 55 C.L.R. 608, H.C.) Australia's Chief Justice, J. Dixon, had said:
". . . It seems an extreme view that merely because the Executive Government undertakes with some other country that the conduct of persons in Australia shall be regulated in a particular way, the legislature thereby obtains a power to enact that regulation although it relates to a matter of internal concern which, apart from the obligation undertaken by the Executive, could not be considered as a matter of external affairs . ."

The position has been reversed to such an extent that those who agree with Dixon's views - and this includes Australia's current Chief Justice, Sir Harry Gibbs - are themselves often labelled 'extreme'.

SENATE COMMITTEE

In October 1981 the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs began an inquiry into "... the feasibility, whether by way of constitutional amendment or other legal means, of securing a compact or 'Makarrata' between the Commonwealth Government and Aboriginal Australians . . ."

The. Committee included, at that time, Senators Alan Missen, Gareth Evans, Noel Crichton-Browne, Robert Hill, Susan Ryan and Michael Tate. After the 1983 change of government, Senators Evans, Ryan and Crichton-Browne were replaced by Senators Bolkus, Robert Cook, and Austin Lewis. Its report was finally tabled half way through 1983.

It is quite clear that the Committee was preoccupied not with reaching a legal and binding agreement between two groups of Australians acting within the provisions of Australia's constitutional sovereignty; but the bulk of the evidence provided and considered, and the recommendations of the Committee, were predicated on finding a formula acceptable to the United Nations and binding in international law. In fact, it was a tacit assumption by the Committee from the start that Australia's internal arrangements should be decided in conformity with external legal provisions.
The main legal recommendation of the Committee was as follows:
"The Government should, in consultation with the Aboriginal people, give consideration as the preferred method of legal implementation of a compact, to the insertion within the Constitution of a provision along the lines of Section 105A; which would confer a broad power on the Commonwealth to enter into a compact with representatives of the Aboriginal people. Such a provision would contain a non-exclusive list of those matters which would form an important part of the terms of the compact, expressing in broad language the types of subjects to be dealt with . . ."

There followed to other recommendations reinforcing the National Aboriginal Conference as the body to sign as the party speaking for Aborigines. Why had the word "treaty" been exchanged for the Committee's word "compact"?

"CONQUEST" or "SETTLEMENT"?

The Committee took the views that the term "treaty" had to conform with the 1969 Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, which defines a treaty "as an agreement whereby two or more States establish, or seek to establish, a relationship between themselves governed by international law. . ." To be parties to a treaty "they must be sovereign entities possessing international personality" and ". . . must intend to act under international law. .

Because, under current international definitions, the Aboriginals do not meet the criteria required to be regarded as a "sovereign entity possessing international personality" the Committee saw this as "the major impediment to the conclusion of an international law treaty between the Aboriginal people and the Commonwealth of Australia. . ."

To be regarded internationally as a "sovereign entity", however, does not necessarily depend on the current position in 1983. It would be enough to show that the Aboriginal peoples were, at one time a "sovereign entity" subsequently deprived of their sovereignty by another "sovereign entity" - to whit, the first white settlers. As things stand at present, the Senate Committee ran into two legal problems; firstly, that Britain's original mode of acquisition of Australia depended the terra nullius doctrine (i.e 'a piece of territory not under the sovereignty of any state'). This has been reinforced by an Australian High Court decision in 1970, and prior to Federation in a Privy Council decision in 1889. Both cases determined that Australia was "settled" rather than "conquered".

Secondly, as the Commonwealth Government did not exist at the time of first settlement, it is not in a legal position to determine the issue of sovereignty at that time. Such a decision could only be made by the British Parliament.

THE COMPACT

Due to these legal technicalities, the Committee opted for a constitutional compact, suggesting the insertion into the Constitution of a section similar to the 1927 Financial Agreement (Section 105A). This, the Committee suggested, could be done in one of two ways: Either the full text of the proposed compact to be submitted to the Australian people in a referendum; or the submission of an 'enabling section' to the people, asking their consent to empower the Government to draw up a suitable compact - in effect a 'carte blanche' to the Government to draw up whatever it felt suitable. The Committee preferred the second alternative.

The dangers of such a proposal are enormous; the Government would be asking for the constitutional power to enact any provision it thought suitable, irrespective of the effects on other sections of the Constitution. No discussion or agreement with the States would be legally necessary. The implications are horrendous.

COMMITTEE WINDS UP

Shortly after this Senate Report was tabled, the Makarrata Treaty Committee wound up, its role to be taken over by a task force set up by the Government itself. In the final issue of the Aboriginal Treaty News (No. 9) some of the enormous implications became apparent. Dr. Coombs, in his editorial, wrote: ". . . We plan therefore to give what help we can to ensure a comprehensive Aboriginal participation and to bring under review important legal, constitutional and political developments in the international context . . ."
Dr. Coombs announced the campaign would conclude with the publication of a book which "will also explore the kind of provisions which emerging international covenants under active UN consideration would require an acceptable treaty to include. . ."

Professor Russell Barsh, of the University of Washington, Seattle (a guest speaker at a Conference on international law and indigenous peoples in Canberra in November '83 pointed out that ILO (International Labor Organisation) Convention 107 was the only UN Convention expressly dealing with indigenous people. Former Prime Minister Gough Whitlam had already cited this Convention in a speech at the University of NSW, October 31, 1981 in these words: "After the 1967 referendum the Federal Parliament had the spontaneous and unilateral power to pass laws to ratify treaties affecting Aborigines, like ILO Convention 107..."
Significantly, ILO Convention 107 deals with the rights of indigenous AND OTHER tribal groups.

Professor Barsh drew attention to a 1982 submission to the Commission on Human Rights currently under consideration. This submission ". . . requires administering states to show how and when they lawfully annexed or assumed control over an aggrieved group. If no lawful incorporation, such as by treaty or immigration, can be shown, it is to be presumed that the group is a separate people that has yet to exercise its right of self-determination . . ." (Emphasis added).

Douglas Sanders, Professor of Law, University of British Columbia, said:". .'. The World Council of Indigenous Peoples, the International Indian Treaty Council and the Indian Law Resource Centre have each obtained non-governmental organisation status with the Economic and Social Council of the United Nations. They are thus accredited lobbying organisations, with limited rights of participation in United Nations conferences and activities . . ."

Professor Sanders pointed out that international legal opinion now rejected the status of "occupation by settlement" - Australia's' current status. ". . . By this view indigenous peoples lacked any system of law and, for that reason, posed no barrier to European colonialism. The lands could be treated as unoccupied. This ethnocentric analysis was common in practice, but, is no longer acceptable . . ." (Emphasis added).

He went on: ". . . The international organisations of indigenous peoples have focused on the principle of self-determination. At the first meeting of the Working Group on Indigenous populations in Geneva in August of 1982, the Indigenous Law Resource Centre presented a document entitled: "Principles for Guiding the Deliberations- of the Working Group on Indigenous Populations," the result of a meeting of various Indian leaders and legal consultants. The Principles included the following statement:
'Indigenous peoples qualify as peoples possessing a right of self-determination; hence, indigenous peoples have the right to self-determination, that is, to possess whatever degree of self-government in their territories the indigenous peoples may choose'.

INCREDIBLE STATEMENT...

Finally, the Aboriginal Treaty News contained a letter from Senator Michael The, Chairman of the Senate Standing Committee on Constitutional and Legal Affairs which produced the Report cited earlier. His remarks show a gratuitous and studied contempt of the Australian people Discussing the recommendation of his Committee, Senator Tate said:
". . . As far as implementation is concerned, the committee's preference is for a referendum, which would specifically give the Commonwealth Government the necessary power to conclude such a compact ... As I stated, this solution is the one preferred by the Committee, although we conclude in our report that the Commonwealth has the necessary constitutional power already. The appeal of the special power conferred by referendum lies in its symbolic endorsement by the Australian nation . . ." (Emphasis added).

In other words, Senator Tate only requires the referendum as a "symbolic" gesture! He claims he already has the power his government needs from the United Nations! What, then, if the Australian people voted "No"? Senator Tate probably couldn't care less; for his letter clearly shows that he places little credence in the idea that Australia's Constitution should only be changed with the consent of the Australian people - to whom the Constitution rightfully belongs. It just may be that the Australian people - including, of course, the first Australians, the Aboriginal people - have other ideas.

- - - - - -

THE UN - SACRED RED TROJAN ELEPHANT

With the Marxist strategists behind the Aboriginal land claims movement striving to help bring Australia increasingly under the control of the United Nations and its associated organisations, it is necessary that all Australians understand the history and real purpose of this international organisation.
- Intelligence Survey May, 1984 -

Nikita Khruschev once remarked of the West "We spit in their faces and they think it is dew!" Nothing could exemplify that statement more than the attitude of western politicians to the United Nations. Privately, many will concede that at best it is useless, and at worst it is a threat to western security. Such private acknowledgements, however, are muted under the glare of media scrutiny and the ever-present threat of "world opinion" - the latter largely being the collective "line" of the media themselves.

Occasionally, some public figure expresses a few doubts. The former Australian Ambassador to UNESCO, Owen Harries (succeeded by Gough Whitlam) in a report on January 10 of this year, trenchantly criticised that body for its anti-western sentiments and its financial profligacy. The American Ambassador to the UN, Mrs. Jeane Kirkpatrick; has alleged the UN is now a body promoting international socialism. Even the International Press Institute has condemned the moves by Third World countries and the USSR to create, through UNESCO, a "New World Information and Communication 'Order", which threatens traditional press freedoms.
The latest Australian to speak out is Senator David MacGibbon, who attended the UN General Assembly from September to December in 1983 as a parliamentary adviser. His criticism of the UN and some of its agencies is long over-due. Such critics negate their own case when they refuse to consider the obvious corollary - that it is, perhaps, time to re-examine the value of participation in a body which the evidence shows to be a conscious instrument of anti-western policy. That evidence is now overwhelming.

ORIGINS

The whole process which set up the United Nations at the end of the war, and drafted the UN Charter can be seen, in retrospect, as having large-scale Communist influence. The Secretary-General of the San Francisco Conference setting up the UN was the now famous - or infamous - Alger Hiss, who was subsequently exposed, and gaoled, as a Soviet Agent.
TIME Magazine (April 16, 1945) reported:
"The Secretary-General for the San Francisco Conference was named at Yalta but announced only last week - lanky, Harvard-trained Alger Hiss, one of the State Department's brighter young men ... At San Francisco, he and his Secretariat of 300 (mostly Americans) will have the drudging, thankless clerk's job of copying, translating and publishing, running the thousands of paperclip and pencil chores of an international meeting. But Alger Hiss will be an important figure there. As Secretary-General, managing the agenda, he will have a lot to say behind the scenes about who gets the breaks . ."

Something of Hiss's influence was described by the noted Australian diplomat Sir Raphael Cilento. Sir Raphael was appointed UNRRA Zone Director in 1945 for the British occupied zone in Germany. He saw at first hand the creation of the UN and was Director for the Division of Refugees in 1946 and for the Division of Social Activities from 1947-50.

He wrote in 1968 (Part of a Foreword to The Red Pattern of World Conquest, Eric Butler republished that year):
". . . It was a matter for astonishment when Alger Hiss presented himself in my Division (as he did in every other) with a general and particular letter instructing all Divisional Directors to make available to him all papers and information, classified or unclassified, to assist him to re-assess all appointees to determine their suitability for permanent employment or otherwise! I have no doubt that the criterion was ideological. His arrest, conviction and gaol sentence later, flushed out a host of open or secret supporters . . ." (Emphasis added).

THE CHARTER

Professor S. Dc Madariaga, the famous Spanish Liberal, has warned that: 'The United Nations Charter is in the main a translation of the Russian system into an international idiom and its adaption to an international community ... UNO bore upon its brow from the very beginning the mark of Moscow. . ."

Such a statement might sound melodramatic, were it not for the evidence. Alger Hiss was not only the acting secretary-general at the San Francisco Conference, but also served on the steering and executive committees which were charged with the responsibility of actually writing the new Charter.

Significantly, recent attempts to "white-wash" Hiss have denied this. They forget, however, that Hiss corroborated the fact himself during Congressional hearings in 1948, when he said: ". . . I did participate in the creation of the draft that was sent by President Roosevelt to Churchill and Stalin, which was the draft actually adopted at San Francisco. . ."

He had a famous Soviet colleague. During a Press Conference in 1958, Andrei Gromyko replied to a question:
"Believe me, I sit here as one who helped to draft the UN Charter, and I had a distinct part in drafting this part of the Charter with my own hands. . ."

The first Secretary-General of the UN, Trygve Lie, described the most important Assistant-Secretaryship in that body as that of Undersecretary for Political and Security Council Affairs, in these words:
". . . It is the function of this department to work permanently with the Security Council on any problem which may affect international peace. There is no territorial, military, or judicial dispute in the world that would not come to. . (this) department for documentation. When any member of the Security Council or of the Military Staff Committee needs any special data, he turns to this department for help. . "(In the cause of peace, Trygve Lie, The MacMillan Co., New York, 1954).

Amazingly, Lie reports in his book that the Americans agreed to this vital post being held by a Soviet national. Since that time, holders of that crucial post have been:
1946-49 Arkady Sobolev (USSR)
1949-53 Konstantin Zinchenko (USSR)
1953-54 Ilya Tchernychev (USSR)
1954-57 Dragoslav Protitch (Yugoslavia)
1958-60 Anatoly Dobrynin (USSR)
1960-62 George Arkadev (USSR)
1962-63 E.D. Kisilev (USSR)
1963-65 V.P. Suslov (USSR)
1965-68 Alexi E. Nesterenko (USSR)
1968-73 Leonid N. Kutakov (USSR)
1973-78 Arkady N. Shevchenko (USSR)
1978- Mikhail D. Sytenko (USSR)

IMPLICATIONS

The implications of such a list are obvious. All military operations conducted under the auspices of the United Nations are done so under the jurisdiction of these men. The problem was discernible during the Korean War. The post of Undersecretary for Political and Security Council Affairs at that time was Konstantin Zinchenko. The duties of his department were, in the words of the UN dodiment:
"Organisation of the Secretariat":
"To arrange for the provision to the Military Staff Committee of the services necessary for its due functioning;
"To assist in the negotiation of military agreements and the application of enforcement measures."

Alan Stang, in his book The Actor (Western Islands, 1968) says: "It seems at the time, Comrade Konstantin not only headed a Soviet spy ring, which was stealing secrets from the United States - but it was to him that UN Commander MacArthur was required to send his reports, which as chance would have it, wound up in the hands of the Communists in Korea.. ."

Stang goes on to illustrate the deep perplexity of American commanders at the disastrous orders to which they were subjected, and the obvious foreknowledge of the Communists to their tactics and strategy.

It should be remembered that Australian troops - the Sinai force - are currently serving in a UN peacekeeping force. It comes under the same jurisdiction. Foreign Affairs Minister Bill Hayden has yet to explain to the Australian people who is in control of our forces.

1953 EVIDENCE
In 1953 a former Czechoslovakian Army Intelligence Officer, Colonel Jan Bukar, testified before a Congressional Committee (May 13, 1953) that a General Bondarenko delivered a lecture at the Frunze Military Academy in Moscow and declared:
"From the rostrum of the United Nations, we shall convince the colonial and semi-colonial people to liberate themselves and to spread the Communist theory all over the world. We recognise the UN has no authority over the Soviet Union, but the United Nations serves to deflect the capitalists and warmongers in the Western World. . ."

His unwelcome evidence was corroborated four months later with the evidence before the same committee of Dr. Marek Stanislaw Korowicz, a member of the United Nations delegation from Poland, who defected and sought asylum in the US. Dr. Korowicz said:
". . . We were all indoctrinated strongly with the Russian master plan to reach the working masses of the various countries in the Western World over the heads of their governments... The organisation of the UN is considered as one of the most important platforms for Soviet propaganda in the world. I wish to underline the following comment: Not only Russia but its satellites attach a primary importance that the members of their bloc of satellite powers maintain their relations with the Western World. It is emphasised at all times that, in the acts of real democracy, socialist democracy, they should seek a direct channel over the heads of their governments to the great popular masses of the US and other western countries. The UN organisation offers a parliamentary platform to the Soviet politicians, and from this platform, they may preach to the populations of the entire world and do their subversive propaganda. . ."

FURTHER...

G. Edward Griffin, in his book The Fearful Master (Western Islands, 1964) gave further evidence:
". . . During the Korean War a New York grand jury accidently stumbled across evidence of Communist penetration into the American staff of the United Nations. One piece of evidence led to another and so alarmed the grand jury that it proceeded to conduct a full-scale inquiry into the matter. The publicity attracted a great deal of attention and prompted the Senate Committee on the Judiciary to initiate a parallel investigation of its own. Shortly after these investigations began, some two hundred Americans employed by the UN resigned, apparently to avoid testifying. (SISS hearings (September 24, 1953).
Those that did testify, however, provided more than ample evidence for the grand jury to issue the following presentment:
'This jury must, as a duty to the people of the United States, advise the court that startling evidence has disclosed infiltration into the UN of an overwhelmingly large group of disloyal US citizens, many of whom are closely associated with the international Communist movement. This group numbers scores of individuals, most of whom have long records of federal employment, and at the same time have been connected with persons and organisations subversive to this country. Their positions at the time we subpoenaed them were ones of trust and responsibility in the UN Secretariat and its specialised agencies'.

SENATE COMMITTEE FINDINGS

The Senate investigations produced exactly the same conclusions. Senator Eastland, chairman of the Committee, made the following statement at the conclusion of the hearings:
"I am appalled at the extensive evidence indicating that there is today in the UN among the American employees there, the greatest concentration of Communists that this Committee has ever encountered. Those American officials who have been called represent a substantial percentage of the people who are representing us in the UN... These people occupy high positions. They have very high salaries and almost all of these people have, in the past, been employees in the US Government in high and sensitive positions. I believe that the evidence shows that the security officers of our government knew, or at least had reason to know, that these people have been Communists for many years. In fact, some of these people have been the subject of charges before Congress before and during their employment with the UN. It is more than strange that such a condition existed in the government of the US, and it is certainly more than strange that these people should be transferred to the UN and charged to the American quota. . ." (emphasis added).

But, as a second report of the Committee showed six months later (March 22, '54) Alger Hiss - as Australia's Sir Raphael Cilento has shown - was "unofficially" influential in the employment of 494 persons by the United Nations on its initial staff.

COMMUNIST ELECTED

The year 1967 saw, for the first time, a top Communist elected to the Presidency of the United Nations. Emery Barcs, writing in Sydney's Daily Telegraph (Sept. 21, 1967) said:
"For the first time in the 22 years of its history the United Nations General Assembly has elected a President from behind the Iron Curtain. He is the photogenic, dapper and suave Rumanian Foreign Minister, Corneliu Manescu . . .Manescu is one of the toughest members of the Rumanian Communist leadership ... In 1948 when the Communists grabbed power in Rumania, he emerged as a lieutenant-general, and held the post of Deputy Minister of Defence until 1955, when he switched to the Economic Planning Committee as its Deputy Head. In 1960 Manescu became Chief of the Political Department of the Foreign Ministry, but was dispatched as Ambassador to Hungary in the same year . . . In March 1965... Nicolae Ceausescu, not only kept Manescu as Foreign Minister, but also saw to it that his friend of many years was appointed to the Communist Party's Central Committee . . ."
Two years later, Manescu was President of the United Nations.

In 1970, one Australian parliamentarian could hold his silence no longer. Perhaps the fact that Senator Turnbull was an independent, and therefore immune to the plums of ministerial office, enabled him to be more honest than his colleagues. The Australian (December 4, 1970) reported:
"The United Nations was temple of inefficiency, extravagance and hypocrisy, a Federal M.P. said yesterday. Senator R.J.D. Turnbull, (Ind. Tas.) was speaking on his return to Australia at the end of a term as parliamentary observer with the Australian mission at the UN. The United Nations is a temple to Parkinson's Law, where extravagance worships at its shrines and hypocrisy at its altars", he said.
"The symbol for peace at the UN has become somnolent, if not already dead . . At all times one is aware that those who shout for peace are building up huge armaments and exporting weapons to other countries. Justice, of course, has long flown out and been replaced by political expediency. . . It has also become a theatre where small countries can strut the stage of self-importance while arrogantly expecting financial assistance from the very countries they denigrate: . . As far as the Australian delegation is concerned. . . there are so many people in the Australian delegation with so many jobs and with such little result, beyond assisting the Law of Parkinson . ."

On the same day as Senator Turnbull's statement, the Daily Telegraph reported: "United Nations delegates, in an unprecedented incident, scuffled with each other in the General Assembly's social committee yesterday. Involved in the disturbance were the delegates of France, Uruguay and Saudi Arabia. The chairman, Mme. Maria Groza of Rumania, burst into tears after trying vainly to maintain order. Other delegates moved in to separate the scuffling diplomats, and UN security guards had to be called."

INTERNATIONAL HEDONISM

The "extravagance and hypocrisy" Senator Turnbull referred to was exposed in four feature articles run by the Sunday Telegraph (Sydney) in March 1972. On March 5, it said:
"The United Nations, which is practically bankrupt, is the excuse for the largest number of social events in history. There are over 2,000 UN parties each year costing directly and indirectly, $10 million a year. That's $192,307.69 a week.
This correspondent... made this staggering estimate (with an accountant's help) after speaking, among others, to UN, US and city officials, caterers, real estate brokers, dress designers, restauranteurs, butlers and high-priced hookers who specialise in diplomats. Mrs. John S. Loeb, New York Commissioner for the United Nations, told me:
'The various UN missions spend vast fortunes on entertainment. One party given the other day by Sierra Leone cost $12,000'. (Sierra Leone is an African tribal country with a per capita income of $125 a year). How the money goes! About 200 massive cocktail parties are given annually at the UN itself, averaging 383 guests per. That's 76,000 guests at everything considered, $8 perhead . . .

Another article exposed the UN call-girl industry: ". . . The Swedish General, Carl van Horn, who held important UN posts in New York, Africa and the Middle East, has written about "enterprising States enlisting appreciative sympathy among the delegates by politically sponsored call-girl operations. It is plain (at the UN) that for some nations who want to make friends and influence people, girls are a careful adjunct to financial and technological aid to ... under-developed nations . . ."

IMPORTANT DEFECTION

In 1978 a Soviet official holding the most important post in the UN defected to the West. The evidence and the warnings he brought with him should have confirmed all the evidence accumulated over the years. But, apart from some uneasy shifting, the West did nothing. The defector was Mr. Arkady Shevchenko, who, as we have seen in the list quoted earlier, was Undersecretary for Political and Security Council Affairs from 1973-78. On his defection, he was immediately replaced by another Soviet official, Mikhail Sytenko. The Weekend Australian (September 29-30, 1979) reported:
"Russia is primarily interested in the United Nations as a means of gathering information about the United States, the other Western countries and China, according to Mr. Arkady Shevchenko, a former Undersecretary-General of the world body, who defected in New York last year. In a BBC interview he said:
"The UN is the tallest observation tower in the world for the intelligence activities of the Soviet Union".

He said the Soviet Union also used the UN for "recruiting people of other countries, either to become KGB informants, or to work with the KGB". Mr. Shevchenko described New York as the first and Geneva the second most important base for all Soviet intelligence operations. Western intelligence officers are said to accept Mr. Shevchenko's insistance that he was not a member of the KGB. But they believe his senior vantage point in the UN makes him a reliable witness of Soviet intelligence activities there. Mr. Shevchenko named Victor Lessiovski, a special assistant to the UN Secretary-General Dr. Waldheim, as a professional KGB officer .

(NOTE: The same Victor Lessiovski has been "on the job" for a long time. John Barron's brilliant book KGB: The Secret Work of Soviet Secret Agents (New York, Readers Digest Press, 1974) contained this passage:
"Former Secretary General U Thant for years had a personal adviser named Viktor Mechislavovich Lessiovsky, who, unbeknown to him (sic) was a KGB officer. U Thant states that he first met Lessiovsky in the early 1 950s when he was Burmese Minister for Information and the Russian was stationed at the Soviet Embassy in Rangoon. The two became so well acquainted that U Thant gave Lessiovsky's baby daughter a Burmese name ." - Author).

SHEVCHENKO'S EVIDENCE

The Weekend Australian continued: ". . . He (Shevchenko) also claimed an assistant in his own office at the UN was a KGB officer who tried to use the office for meetings of KGB personnel in the UN Secretariat, to examine UN documents and to code cables. He said Mr. Geli Kneprovsky, the recently appointed head of personnel at the Geneva headquarters of the UN was "a high-level KGB officer" and that the Soviet Union exerted heavy pressure on Dr. Waldheim to secure this appointment, which gives Mr. Kneprovsky access to confidential personal files on UN staff, including many foreign nationals of interest to the Soviet Union. It would be a "fair guess" that Soviet intelligence officers hold about half the 300 administrative and interpretors' jobs occupied by Russians at the UN.

As a result of Shevchenko's defection, the London Daily Telegraph (April 30, 1978) reported:
". . . The SundayTelegraph has conducted its own investigation into the flagrant abuse of the United Nations, and here, for the first time, we disclose the names of the most important of those agents, their posts and the way in which they operate. In New York: There are about 700 Russian officials and of these nearly 200 are members of the KGB or GRU which deal with military intelligence. One of the most notorious KGB officers there is Vasily Samsonovich Bogatyrev. He began his career in the late 1940's with the World Federation of Democratic Youth, a communist-front organisation. He was later posted to London as First Secretary at the Russian Embassy, and from there he went to Kinshasa, a post which ended abruptly in 1971 when he was expelled for spying. Others in New York are Nikolai Bogaty, who works with the UN Development Programme and who was expelled from Yemen in 1960 for subverting Yemenis to commit sabotage, and Sergei Ivanko, who has the key job of Director of Policy Co-ordination in the Office of Personnel Services. In Paris, which houses the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) there is a particularly strong KGB presence. The Russians are involved from two directions. Firstly, there is the permanent delegation of 21 officials, and secondly there are 69 who work for UNESCO as international civil servants.
Our investigation in Paris showed that 30 percent of the delegation and the officials are "fiche" - entered on the card index of the DST, the French Secret Service, as Russian Agents. The most blatant of these is Sergei Koudriatsev, who was the Soviet permanent representative at UNESCO but is better known for his involvement in the atomic spy-ring in Canada during the war. He later served as Soviet Ambassador to Cuba, where he supervised the organisation of subversion in Latin America... In Vienna there are two important UN organisations: the International Atomic Energy Agency and the International Development Organisation (UNIDO).
About 110 Russians are posted to the Soviet Mission to the United Nations, or are employed in the agencies. Of these some 40 are either full members of the KGB or officials co-opted to help the spies. The KGB even have an officer in the Division of Human Rights. He is Yuri Reshtov. His task is to neutralise allegations of abuses of human rights in the Soviet bloc. . ."

UNESCO

Dealing with UNESCO and Sergei Koudriatsev, the Daily Telegraph continued:
". . . When, he arrived in Paris it might well have been thought that his KGB past was so well known that he must have given up his espionage activities. However, it was later reported that 'Monsieur Leon', as he was known, was running four agents among the Soviet staff of UNESC. Another UNESCO spy who was expelled was Vladimir Rybatchenko. He was caught in a police trap last year as he attempted to take delivery of documents he believed to be the blueprints of a new type of computer, the PROPAL II - due to go into service with the French Government...
Even with Koudriatsev and Rybatchenko gone, UNESCO's staff list is studded with KGB officers.
Among them: Roman Belorussets, Yuro Kochubev, Yuri Krivtsov, Alexi Shultsev, even a husband-and-wife team, Victor and Galina Fomenko. They all work at UNESCO for Soviet Intelligence. .. ."

With this background, is it any wonder that the US announced at the end of 1983 that it would leave UNESCO?
Apart from a consistent and venemous anti-western bias, UNESCO was responsible for the dangerous promotion of the "New World Information Order", which was put together after two years work by Mr. Sean MacBride, Nobel and Lenin Peace Prize recipient (News From UNESCO, Jan. 1980). UNESCO is also responsible for an increasing flow of education curriculum material which takes one line - the subtle denigration of national pride and love of country, in favour of world government and the New International Economic Order. Most of it is poisonous material.

Although this evidence has persuaded the US to withdraw temporarily from UNESCO, The Bulletin (Feb. 14, 1984) reported:
". . . The people connected with UNESCO think everything's fine with that decrepit organisation. Which makes it understandable that our Ambassador to UNESCO, Gough Whitlam, criticises the US for cutting down its contribution and thereby putting UNESCO's future in jeopardy. But it is not going to make Gough too popular with the International Press Institute, though he may become a hero in the Third World and its nutty representatives who have made such a shambles of UNESCO... "

Senator David MacGibbon confirmed much of the evidence. The Chronicle (Toowoomba, February 29, 1984) reported him as saying:
". . . Now that the Third World element and the Soviet group have taken over UNESCO, they are running it with open political objectives. The Paris headquarters of UNESCO take 80 percent of the funds which, are around $450 million a year and it is spent on the bureaucracy, not the needy. When 40 KGB operatives were expelled from France three were on the UNESCO staff and 8 with the Russian delegation. So there were 11 out of 40 agents actively involved with UNESCO. And the 3 KGB agents expelled were actually given a pay rise and are still on the UNESCO payroll... "

This, then, is the organisation into which Australia, along with other western nations, pours large sums of money, and which it entrusts with the establishment of a New International Economic Order. Khruschev was right. The Communists spit in our faces - and we think it is dew!