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
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:
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
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.
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
Compensation in cash: to recover losses which are not
recoverable in kind, paid at the annual rate of 1-1 V percent of
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
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.
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 41/2 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.
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
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
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
"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.
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 . . ."
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
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 . . ."
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
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
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
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.
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 . . ."
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,
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)
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
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.
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
"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. . ."
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
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
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
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."
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
"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 . . ."
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:
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
"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:
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).
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
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. . ."
Dealing with UNESCO and Sergei Koudriatsev, the Daily
". . . 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...
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
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!