RUSSIAN CHARGE ABOUT NAURU

Press, Volume CVI, Issue 31117, 21 July 1966, Page 16

RUSSIAN CHARGE ABOUT NAURU

(N.Z.PJI. Reuter—Copyright) NEW YORK, July 20. Australia plans to annex the Pacific island of Nauru and another of its trust territories, the Soviet representative, Mr Nikolai R. Makarevich, charged in the trusteeship council yesterday.

The council, which is debating conditions in the territory, administered by Australia, was told by the Russian delegate: “The problem now is to eliminate one of the last bastions of the sad history of colonialist oppression.”

H e said that the Australians, who administer the phosphate-bearing island on their own behalf and for Britain and New Zealand, were trying to maintain their political and economic domination of the island. "The trust territories are considered as a profitable sphere for capital investment,” he said. Because of this policy, Nauru was one of the most backward of areas and the British Phosphate Commissioners followed a policy of exploitation. “It is important that development be for the benefit of Nauruans, rather than of foreign capitalism.” he said. “In my view, the only solution to the problem is to give Nauru full political and economic independence as quickly as possible,” he said. “TRUE MASTERS” The true masters of Nauru were the British Phosphate Commissioners, he said, and Australia administered the island in the interest of those commissioners. The time had come, he said, when the administering authority must restore to the Nauruans all the profits it had

derived from phosphate extraction. “This money will enable the Nauruans to rehabilitate the island, develop agriculture and create industries,” he said. “The British Phosphate Commissioners, which have made the island a desert, should be liquidated and its assets transferred to the Nauruans. This money will help train them and ensure their independent future,” he said. N.Z. VIEW For New Zealand, Mr Frank Corner said that some of the Soviet delegate’s comments gave the impression that the past year had been one of constant repression of Nauruan political development. “However, the very opposite has been the case,” he said.

Mr Corner said it was neither the intent nor the purpose of the three governments, including his own, to deny self-determination to the Nauruans.

He admired and respected the Nauruans and their leaders for the deep thought they had given to the question of their future. He respected them for their sense of responsibility in planning and negotiation, he said. HEAVY TASK "The Nauruans are confronted with a heavy task over the years immediately ahead,” he said. “They have to decide not only on their political future, but also on the question of the site where they will assume their chosen political status. “The question of site is the key one,” he said, “since their final political status might well be determined by their choice of homeland.” The meeting was then adjourned until tomorrow. Earlier, a French delegate had told the council that Australia had “remarkably” developed the political, economic and social progress of the territory.