The United Nations made West Papua a
current Indonesian administration
is in violation of
of the UN Charter which the General Assembly made UN members subject to when
it made resolution 1752 (XVII).
The UN members including the Pacific UN members have a legal obligation to
the Secretary General that he needs to add General Assembly resolution 1752
(XVII) to the agenda of the Trusteeship Council,
which the Secretary General was required but failed to do in 1962.
The United Nations sent Indonesian soldiers to West Papua,
for fifty years they have raped, tortured, and killed;
it is overdue for the UN Trusteeship Council to
open its eyes to this trust territory.
"No right anywhere exist to hand people about
from sovereignty to sovereignty as if they were
property in a game"
- Woodrow Wilson, Washington, 11th Feb 1918
What is a colony ?
It is "A region politically controlled by a distant country"
a territory and its people under the political control of a remote or foreign administration.
A colony, or "non-self-governing territory", is also external to UN membership
although the occupying or foreign administrating State may be a member of the
UN, see UN Charter chapter XI.
West Papua and West Papuan people become subject to a Dutch colonial claim
during the 19th century and became subject to Dutch nominal rule until
the United Nations took possession of the colony in October 1962.
The UN colonization has been fifty years of terror squashing rights of speech,
assembly, and life under the UN chosen administrator Indonesia..
"No political prisoners? The suppression of political protest in West Papua"
Yale law school study from 2004,
Indonesian Human Rights Abuses in West Papua: Application of the Law of Genocide to the History of Indonesian Control
What is a trust territory ?
It is a concept created in chapter 12
of the Charter (constitution) of the United Nations,
it is a colony for which the UN has accepted legal responsibility.
One type of "trust territory" is a colony which the United Nations has decided
to administrate under article 85 and
Chapter XII of the Charter of the United Nations in accordance with
Article 77 part 1(c) of that chapter.
West Papua became a UN trust territory when the General Assembly made
resolution 1752 (XVII)
approving UN occupation and administration of West New Guinea (West Papua)
as article 85 of the UN Charter allows the General Assembly to do.
The UN Charter requires the UN to protect trust territories under articles 76,
87, and 88 until those territories have become fellow members of the UN as
agreed in article 78 of the Charter.
Although the UN decided in 1963 to withdraw from West Papua and allowed
Indonesia to occupy the colony, the United Nations (Security Council) is
still required to exercise articles 76 (to protect human rights),
87 (to hear petitions), and 88 (to monitor conditions) in West Papua
until West Papua becomes a fellow member of the United Nations as agreed in
article 78 of the Charter.
The difficulty is that the public and the Melanesian nations have not known
that West Papua is a UN trust territory.
This is because the United States for its own benefit as explained by the
US Department of State, drafted the trust agreement
without mention of Chapter XII of the UN Charter or trusteeship although
the Trusteeship System (Chapter XII) is the only means by which the UN
can agree to occupy a colony.
The requirement today is for the UN to resume its legal duties to protect
the people of West Papua from Indonesia and others once the UN has acknowledged
its legal capacity and duty to do so under the Trusteeship System chapter XII
of the UN Charter.
The easiest method to achieve this is for members of the United Nations to
begin asking the United Nations, "is West Papua a trust territory?"
What are the "General Assembly" and "Security Council" ?
They are organs (part) of the United Nations defined in chapters 3, 4, and 5
of the UN Charter.
Normally only the Security Council under chapter 7 articles 42 and 48 may use
UN forces. The exception is article 85 of the UN Charter which permits the
General Assembly to authorise UN occupation of any colony for which the
Assembly approves a trusteeship agreement under the Trusteeship System
XII article 85 of the Charter of the United Nations.
- NSC (American National Security Council) runs a campaign to convince US
President Kennedy to support the NSC scheme to get Indonesia into West Papua
Apr 1961 - Dutch wish to make West Papua a UN trust territory
Apr 1961 - US slight of West Papuan council
Sep 1961 - Dutch repeat wish for West Papua to be trust territory
Oct 1961 - Dutch community agreement for trusteeship
Feb 1962 - Robert F Kennedy comments on situation
Aug 1962 - * Statements about the agreement *
Sep 1962 - UN report for 1962
Sep 1962 - Agenda for 1962 General Assembly, see final item
May 1963 - Indonesia becomes UN appointed administrator of territory
post 1973 - United Nations summary of Administrative History
-Notice- If the United Nations renames the file again, this is a copy of it
Is West Papua a trust territory ?
The General Assembly approved the New York Agreement in 1962 by making
General Assembly resolution 1752 (XVII), see
17th session of the General Assembly.
Also in 1962 UN troops occupied West Papua, see
UN Historical Summary and the
1962 UN Yearbook pages 124-128.
The problem is that the US and others were willing to sacrifice West New
Guinea to gain trade and other relations with the Indonesian Generals.
The United Nations members had a self-serving motive to make the colony
subject to the Trusteeship System as a means to allow the Indonesian military
entry, while the UN members had no intention of ever acknowledging
the West Papuan people's choice for indepndence.
Conclusion: Yes West Papua is a UN trust territory because that is
the only way that General Assembly resolution 1752 (XVII) was able to
authorise the deployment of UN troops from Pakistan to occupy the colony
of West Papua.
Conclusion: Yes when you read the requirements of chapter XII of the
Charter of the United Nations you will discover that the 1962 agreement is
written in accordance with each of the several requirements, including the
final requirement that it be approved by the General Assembly.
The 1962 agreement has the form and exercises the functions of a trusteeship
agreement because is is a trusteeship agreement for the United Nations to
accept responsibility for West New Guinea, West Papua.
General Assembly approval for agreement on Somaliland, 442 (V)
General Assembly approval for approval for agreement on West New Guinea, 1752 (XVII)
General Assembly statement about Somaliland,1479 (XV)
General Assembly statement about the 1962 agreement, 2504 (XXIV)
United Nations statement about West New Guinea,
Did the "Act of Free Choice" change anything ?
No, the event which Indonesia calls the "Act of Free Choice" was not
recognised by the United Nations (either the General Assembly or International
Court of Justice) as either a referendum or a display of "self-determination"
by the West Papuan people.
It does not matter what Indonesia says, nor does it matter what Jakarta's
supporters like Bob Carr say.
Only the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has jurisdiction to say with
authority if the people of West Papua have granted their sovereignty to a
The 1962 agreement (the New York Agreement) does describe the normal requirement
for recognition of the people's decision by the UN General Assembly majority;
a vote by all male and female adults who are not foreign nationals.
What are the legal obligations of the United Nations members to a trust
The basic objectives of the trusteeship system, in accordance with the Purposes of the United Nations laid down in Article 1 of the present Charter, shall be:
to further international peace and security;
to promote the political, economic, social, and educational advancement of the inhabitants of the trust territories, and their progressive development towards self-government or independence as may be appropriate to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned, and as may be provided by the terms of each trusteeship agreement;
to encourage respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion, and to encourage recognition of the interdependence of the peoples of the world; and
to ensure equal treatment in social, economic, and commercial matters for all Members of the United Nations and their nationals, and also equal treatment for the latter in the administration of justice, without prejudice to the attainment of the foregoing objectives and subject to the provisions of Article 80.
The General Assembly and, under its authority, the Trusteeship Council, in carrying out their functions, may:
consider reports submitted by the administering authority;
accept petitions and examine them in consultation with the administering authority;
provide for periodic visits to the respective trust territories at times agreed upon with the administering authority; and
take these and other actions in conformity with the terms of the trusteeship agreements.
The Trusteeship Council shall formulate a questionnaire on the political, economic, social, and educational advancement of the inhabitants of each trust territory, and the administering authority for each trust territory within the competence of the General Assembly shall make an annual report to the General Assembly upon the basis of such questionnaire.
General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV)
1514 (XV). Declaration on the granting of independence to colonial countries and peoples
The General Assembly,
Mindful of the determination proclaimed by the peoples of the world in the Charter of the United Nations to reaffirm
. . .
1. The subjection of peoples to alien subjugation, domination and exploitation constitutes a denial of fundamental human rights, is contrary to the Charter of the United Nations and is an impediment to the promotion of world peace and co-operation.
2. All peoples have the right to self-determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development.
3. Inadequacy of political, economic, social or educational preparedness should never serve as a pretext for delaying independence.
4. All armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against dependent peoples shall cease in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence, and the integrity of their national territory shall be respected.
5. Immediate steps shall be taken, in Trust and Non-Self-Governing Territories or all other territories which have not yet attained independence, to transfer all powers to the peoples of those territories, without any conditions or reservations, in accordance with their freely expressed will and desire, without any distinction as to race, creed or colour, in order to enable them to enjoy complete independence and freedom.
6. Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations.
7. All States shall observe faithfully and strictly the provisions of the Charter of the United Nations, the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and the present Declaration on the basis of equality, non-interference in the internal affairs of all States, and respect for the sovereign rights of all peoples and their territorial integrity.
947th plenary meeting,
14 December 1960.
But, can people say West Papua is not a trust territory ?
A common mistake is to look for a word formular, a specific phase you would
like to see in a document; but there is no requirement in Chapter XII for
an agreement to use the word "trusteeship".
A logical reason neither the New York Agreement or the General Assembly
approval res.1752(XVII) use the word trusteeship is because Indonesia was
uncomfortable with the legal reality, Indonesia would not sign the agreement
unless the UN and the agreement did not use the word trusteeship.
Another mistake by people new to the trusteeship question, is to confuse the
'System' of UN Charter chapter XII with the 'Council' of UN Charter chapter
There is no need for the Trusteeship Council to be the UN administrator, and
in fact Article 81 of the Charter requires the agreement to "designate the
authority which will exercise the administration of the trust territory".
The creation of the UNTEA was a means of satisfying the requirements of
Chapter XII while not putting the colony under the control of the
Trustesship Council which Indonesia would not accept, and without putting
the UN administration under Indonesian control which the Netherlands would
This is ALSO the reason that article 12 of the New York Agreement gave the
UN the option of allowing Indonesian administration or not, because the
Dutch insisted the UN had to have the option.
A third common mistake is to look to un.org web pages expecting that
those are authoritive sources of information; but they are not.
All the web pages at un.org are covered by disclaimers in their copyright
that they use the information there at their own risk.
Most importantly, the office workers writing the web pages and who assembled
the Non-self-governing territory lists are not lawyers putting their names
to the un.org web page claims denying the colonial status of West Papua.
Only the International Court of Justice (ICJ) has jurisdiction to decide
if West Papua is a trust territory, but common sense says West Papua is and
the media should be asking "Is West Papua a trust territory?"
Technically this means the current President of the Trust Territory under
rule 1 of the Council's rules of procedure should be calling an immediate
meeting ofthe Trusteeship Council to exercise General Assembly resolution 171 (III)
so the ICJ can answer the question.
It also means every member of the UN has a moral and probably legal obligation
to transmit their wish for the General Assembly to ask the ICJ the same question.
As a member of the Security Council and neighbour to West Papua, Australia
should be eager to fulfil its obligations by asking the question at the
But is Australia a honest UN member or will it put its trade relationship
with Indonesia ahead of regional human rights???
Who are the members of the Trusteeship Council?
The members of the Security Council plus whichever UN member is in occupation
of trust territory; see chapter 13 of the UN Charter.
The last statement by the United Nations about the territorial status of
West Papua was in this document describing Indonesia as the "current administrator".
Please remember that ALL the web-pages at UN.ORG are covered by UN disclaimers
to the effect:
"This site may contain advice, opinions and statements of various information providers.
The United Nations does not represent or endorse the accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion,
statement or other information provided by any information provider,
any User of this Site or any other person or entity.
Reliance upon any such advice, opinion, statement,
or other information shall also be at the User's own risk."
Please also be aware that Indonesia and Reuters have been publishing
mis-information about a UN General Assembly resolution in 1969, and that
too many academics fail to read the document themselves because they
assume Reuters understood and revealed the entire story...
General Assembly resolution 2504 (XXIV) says nothing about the sovereignty
of West Papua, and does not claim to have revoked UN trust status of the
territory which was and still is being administrated by Indonesia pending
an "act of self-determination" when the UN will hopefully acknowledge the
sovereign choice of the West Papuan people.
The United Nations issue
The United Nations appears to be in abeyance of the United Nations Charter
and has been since 1962, which would be issues the media could query in
New York and Geneva.
By United Nations action and omission of actions, human rights have been
suspended in the colony of West New Guinea (West Papua) since it became a UN
administrated colony (trust territory) in 1962. Hundreds of thousands of
people have been killed, unknown numbers have been raped, and a nation has
been denied its freedom (self-determination) for fifty years.
Under the United Nations Charter, conditions in every colony must be
reported to the organisation either under article 73(e) of the Charter, or
under articles 87 and 88 of the Charter if it is a "trust territory".
But the United Nations ceased monitoring conditions in the colony of
West New Guinea (West Papua) in 1962, and has not attempted to implement
articles 73(e), 87, or 88 of the UN Charter since then.
Why? Gold, money, profits, the common reason for turning a blind eye
to genocide and colonial mining.
Background to the American mine and New York Agreement
The colony has the world's richest gold & copper desposit,
which the and other shareholders of the
Freeport corporattion wanted.
In 1961 a Freeport director
got his friend
McGeorge Bundy appointed
national security adviser
in Washington DC from where they could influence
US foreign policy to their benefit.
Legally the United Nations can not buy or sell people (slavery) but under
chapter 12 of the UN Charter it can become the administrator of an entire
colony until they are allowed to decide their sovereignty, self-determination
by public vote which still has not been allowed in West Papua.
Like any con-artist or lier, the corporations and their friends told
different stories to different people, they told the US President that
sacrificing West Papua would save the world from communism,
they told the other UN members that
sacrificing West Papua would save
the world from war with Indonesia, and they told the lawyers that
transfer of administration from the Netherlands to the United Nations was
for benefit of the Papuan people. -Those were conflicting lies.
The truth is simple, the Freeport directors wanted a cheap mining licence for
West Papua's gold, copper, silver, etc. which they purchased from General
Suharto in 1967.
They had no intention of allowing the "act of self-determination" promised
to be allowed by 1969.
The mine is worth $billions to the Indonesian Generals and the American
shareholders, they had no intention of allowing the
"act of self-determination" defined in the 1962 UN agreement.
And they will still do anything they can to prevent West Papua being
mentioned at the UN General Assembly.
When the UN General Assembly made
resolution 1752 (XVII),
the UN was legally required to add West Papua to the agenda of the
Trusteeship Council, but this have never been done.
The benefactors of the UN still not adding West Papua to the agenda of the
Trusteeship Council have been
and Bechtel corporations and their
business partners in Jakarta at the expense of the West Papuan people.
Freeport was the first foreign mining license General Suharto signed and
businessmen continue to make untold $billions from the arrangement...
.. those businessmen can and do exercise influence in Washington and among the UN General
America and then the UN has ignored the West Papuan wish for freedom,
for human rights, for their independence.
The West Papuan people had already chosen independence but the American media
did not report this. Electoral rolls had been created and in January 1961 the
colony elected representatives for a New Guinea Council which in April 1961
became their part of the administration of West New Guinea.
Six months later the New Guinea Council heard of the American plan, and to
prevent the terror of Indonesian rule it created this
manifesto of independence
declaring their people's wish to be free, to become an independent nation
called West Papua which wanted to
"live in peace and to contribute to the maintenance of world peace".
The 1962 Agreement
In September 1961 the Netherlands announced that it wanted the colony to
become a United Nations trust territory, without Indonesia being allowed
to occupy Papua.
But America refused to support UN trusteeship unless Indonesia became
the administrator of the UN territory.
In New York, America drafted an agreement
which in accord with
chapter 12 of the United Nations charter took
effect when the
General Assembly aproved the deal.
The United Nations in October 1962 asserted a hostile occupation which denied
permission for public rallies in Papua and refused to hear petitions under
article 87 of the UN charter;
and as administrator, the UN in May 1963 chose to allow Indonesia to occupy
& administrate the colony pending an "act of self-determination"
no later than 1969.
The agreement became a "trusteeship agreement" when the United Nations
General Assembly endorsed the agreement in resolution 1752 (XVII),
as required of a trusteeship agreement under article 85 of the UN charter.
In 1967 Indonesia illegally sold alleged mining rights of the colony to
the Freeport corporation.
By this stage the Freeport friend McGeorge Bundy had left the White house
to head the Ford Foundation, but a new adviser Henry Kissinger guided the
US while Indonesia began using US equipment to kill people and level
villages in areas wanted by the mine. Years later Henry Kissinger was
rewarded with membership of the Freeport mining corporation's board.
No "act of self-determination" as promised in the agreement has ever
been allowed in the colony, and neither Indonesia nor the United Nations
Secretary-General have yet exercised their parts of the agreement
(articles 14-20, and article 21 of the agreement).
Instead of fulfilling the trusteeship agreement, an Indonesian
General in 1969 selected 1022 men whom he alleged represented
the colony for an Indonesian process he called an "act of free choice".
Purportedly the choice was to either raise their hands when told or
their families would be killed and their villages burnt to the ground.
Instead of expressing outrage at the inhuman conduct of the
"act of free choice" the UN General Assembly made a resolution 2504
saying Indonesia had conducted something called "act of free choice"
and neither Indonesia or the Netherlands were objecting.
The rule of law requires that the United Nations and Indonesia allow
the "act of self-determination" they promised in the
New York Agreement.
The Charter of the United Nations is written so that once the
UN becomes the administrator of any colony, the territory will remain a
"trust territory" even if the UN decides to allow one of its members to
take over the administration of the trust territory.
The only provision which the UN charter makes for "trust territory" status to
end is article 78 -
"The trusteeship system shall not apply to territories which have become
Members of the United Nations, relationship among which shall be based on
respect for the principle of sovereign equality.".
In other words, West Papua will remain
a UN Trust territory until West Papua
has determined its sovereignty (an act of self-determination),
and has been accepted as a sovereign United Nations member by the other members.
Or the International Court of Justice exercises its sole judicial
jurisdiction to the same effect.
The rule of law requires that the United Nations members
allow the "self-government" and "peace"they promised in the
United Nations Charter.
The rule of law requires the UN members to protect the human
right of "self-determination" promised in General Assembly
resolution 1514 (XV), and
resolution 1541 (XV).
The rule of law requires the United Nations to allow the
"act of self-determination" it promised in the trusteeship agreement.
As was documented in this
US Department of State record,
America for its own benefit created this
Agreement signed by the Netherlands, United Nations, and Indonesia
agreeing on terms for their occupation and administration of West New Guinea as a colony
until the Secretary-General of the United Nations reports
"to the General Assembly on the conduct of the act of self-determination and the results thereof"
and "The parties" .. "recognize and abide by the results of the act of self-determination".
It is not relevant to the United Nations territorial status of West Papua whether
agreement has yet been completed, but as it happens the agreement will not be completed
until a UN Secretary General can fulfil the above mentioned
requirement of noting an "act of self-determination" as required by
article 21 of the agreement.
As an international agreement involving the United Nations, only the
International Court of Justice has jurisdiction to resolve any
debate if it exists.
In legal terms, Indonesia abandoned its claim of sovereignty in 1962 by signing
the New York Agreement agreement in exchange for administrating the colony for
up to seven years before allowing an "act of self-detrermination" as defined
in the agreement.
Indonesia has NO RIGHT to sell mining licenses to Freeport or BP, no right
to fly the Indonesian flag over the Morning Star. Sovereignty and property
rights belong to the West Papuan people, it always has, and they are NOT
property to be traded between foreign powers.
West Papua became subject to the Trusteeship system when the General
Assembly including Indonesia and the Netherlans
supported resolution 1752 (XVII).
The last United Nations statement
The last UN statement about West Papua free of disclaimers appears to have
document from the 1970s which states:
The United Nations Temporary Authority in West Irian (UNTEA)
was formed to administer West Irian, which is located on the island of New Guinea.
In 1963 Dutch New Guinea became Irian Barat, which in 1973 changed its name to
Irian Jaya and is currently administered by Indonesia. UNTEA administered
West Irian from October 1962 to May 1963. The administrator was Djalal Abdoh.
Please note that the web-pages being published at un.org are subject
to disclaimers in their
such as "This site may contain advice, opinions and statements of various
information providers. The United Nations does not represent or endorse the
accuracy or reliability of any advice, opinion, statement or other information
provided by any information provider, any User of this Site or any other
person or entity. Reliance upon any such advice, opinion, statement, or other
information shall also be at the User's own risk."
A side-note: 1969 (but important for Ban Ki-moon)
The "act of free choice" event in 1969 is irrelevent because it was not an
act of self-determination, nor did the Secretary-General or General Assembly
claim it was.
The events in 1969 were irrelevent because they did not affect the sovereignty
of West Papua and therefore did not affect trust territory status.
In fact the same administrator, Indonesia, remained in administration of the
As it happens, the New York Agreement was not successfully concluded.
Although the General Assembly in Resolution 2504 (XXIV) mistakenly alleged
the Secretary-General had completed his task, but that task in article 21 of
the agreement is not completed until the Secretary-General reports on an act
Current administration of the colony
Video summary about West Papua
Access in 2012,
Swiss journalist arrested in Jayapura - 2010,
Dutch journalists detained - 2009
Military operations in West Papua
Ertsberg - Wikipedia
I have drafted this
which I invite members of the West Papuan community if you wish to,
to endorse and publicly deliver copies of the letter directly to the
President and members of the
United Nations Trusteeship Council.
I believe West Papua is a United Nations trust territory
which the United Nations Trusteeship Council should be asking about
and should be asking the UN Special Committee of Decolonization about.
Legal concepts - Sovereignty
Neither the Netherlands nor the United Nations owned the sovereignty
of the Papuan people and their homelands.
Just as Americans exercised self-determination in 1776, so too does every
nation have the right to chose independence or to be subject to some other
Neither the Netherlands nor the United Nations could give Indonesia
something which they did not own; the Agreement was a grant to
allow each to occupy and enforce control of the colony, but it ALSO
was an agreement to allow and recognise Self-determination.
Sovereignty still belongs to the people of West New Guinea
until they decide it belongs to their own or some other government,
a process called self-determination
which the United Nations has not yet recognised to have been exercised.
Jakarta had no legal right to sell a mining license to Freeport in 1967
or to BP now. The Indonesian Generals have no legal entitlement to cut
down the forests of West Papua. And Jakarta has no legal right to try
and divide West Papua against itself, or to delay self-determination
contrary to it's signature on the Agreement and contrary to it's alleged
acceptance of United Nations General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV).
Legal concepts - Trusteeship System
When the world endorsed the United Nations charter an important
part of it's goal was to end colonization and in support of that the charter
included three chapters titled:
: DECLARATION REGARDING NON-SELF-GOVERNING TERRITORIES
: INTERNATIONAL TRUSTEESHIP SYSTEM
: THE TRUSTEESHIP COUNCIL
Human Rights concepts - Self-determination / Decolonization
United Nations General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV),
14 December 1960 : DECLARATION ON THE GRANTING OF INDEPENDENCE TO COLONIAL COUNTRIES AND PEOPLES
United Nations General Assembly resolution 1541 (XV),
14 December 1960 : A declaration that incorporates an agreed requirement for "Self-determination",
PRINCIPLES WHICH SHOULD GUIDE MEMBERS IN DETERMINING WHETHER OR NOR AN OBLIGATION EXISTS TO TRANSMIT THE INFORMATION CALLED FOR UNDER ARTICLE 73e OF THE CHARTER
Contacts, you can contact the,
Other pages of interest
Free West Papua,
a poem by Bill Anderson 2010.
Surrey Hills, Australia.
By the Waters of West Papua,
Sad Island Friend,
We sit down and weep.
Behold a Pale Horse...
If we forget you West Papua,
Sad Island Friend,
Let our tongues split,
our hands lose their skills.
And his name...
must we look North,
Sad Island Friend,
with horror and Shame ?