Is the U.S. Legally Responsible for the Colonization and Treatment of West Papua

[Andrew767]

Is there a legal obligation under the U.S. ratification of the Charter of the United Nations that makes the U.S. responsible for protecting the human rights including the right of "self-determination" of the Netherlands New Guinea ?

N.B: you can find transcript of the relevant UN resolutions & New York Agreement etc. at http://wpik.org

Background :

1) In 1945 the U.S. and several other nations created an organization called the "United Nations" governed by the Charter of the United Nations

2) In 1945 the U.S. President by proclamation and/or the government otherwise ratified U.S. membership of the UN and obligations under the U.N. charter including chapter XI regarding colonies, see articles 73 & 74 of the charter

3) the Netherlands identified "Netherlands New Guinea" as a colony and began transmitting data as required by article 73(e) of the UN charter.

4) in 1948 the UN membership endorsed the Netherlands notice that West Papua (Netherlands New Guinea) was still a colony - see UN General Assembly resolution 448 (III).

[[ Side-note: Likely because of business desire for easy access to "the wealth of south east Asia" the Axis leader Sukarno after the war had been allowed to maintain his military and his rule from Sumatra to the Celebes in Asia and to the Spice Islands in the Australian Pacific, instead of allowing the populations a choice the UN and Netherlands recognised Indonesia as a member state in 1949. Problem for West Papua is that a Standard-Oil company NNGPM in 1936 had discovered the mountain of Ertsberg in West Papua was world's richest gold & copper reserve, but this was not reported to the Dutch who had granted the exploration licence. In March 1959 the New York Times revealed the Dutch were searching for the mountain source of alluvial gold along the entire southern coast of West Papua, in August 1959 a joint Rockefeller/Lovett interest Freeport began establishing a claim on Ertsberg as a "possible copper reserve" as reported by the Dutch in that's year's report to the UN. After the US elected a John F Kennedy, Mr Lovett suggested Lovett's friend McGeorge Bundy be appointed to run the NSC and in 1961 the NSC began a campaign to get President Kennedy to coerce the Netherlands to trade the people of West Papua for benefit of the U.S.; no kidding - the NSC and Bundy's action is actually been documented by the DoS. see the Department of State historical summary e.g. see http://wpik.org/Src/1961_US_record.html ]]

5) The U.N. in December 1960 agreed on U.N. General Assembly resolutions 1514 (XV) and 1541 (XV)

6) in January 1961 The Netherlands New Guinea (West Papua) held national elections for a "New Guinea Council" using electoral rolls prepared during the previous three years, and Australian & NZ officials attended the installation of the New Guinea Council on April 5, 1961. The U.N. Secretary General Mr Dag Hammarskjold was killed on September 18, the U.S. took the NSC plan to the U.N. at some point, the New Guinea Council was told about the U.S. plan on October 18, 1961; and the Council on the night of October 18 implemented their people's wishes by designing symbols of nationhood including the now beloved Morning Star flag and the Manifesto of independence (a copy is also at wpik.org)

7) ** The U.S. plan was drafted by Robert Kennedy and signed by the Netherlands, Indonesia, and the new U.N. Secretary General after the U.S. and other members voted in support of U.N. General Assembly resolution 1752 (XVII).

[[ Side-Note: Under the contract the U.N. was required to note an "act of self-determination" , but instead of self-determination Indonesia had sold Freeport a 30-year mining license in 1967 and in 1969 conducted what the U.N. in it's notation called a 'Act of Free Choice' in which the Papuan public was not allowed to vote. see U.N. General Assembly resolution 2504 (XXIV) ]]

Argument : West Papua needs help, I think that the U.S. by it's actions including it's vote in U.N. General Assembly resolution 1752 (XVII) is legally obliged under articles 73 & 74 of the U.N. charter to help protect the self-determination & other human rights of West Papua.

What do you think ? ? Would a federal court also support an argument that the US should sponsor a petition at the UN General Assembly asking for the ICJ to provide an Advisory Advice about the status of West Papua (Netherlands New Guinea) ? ?

East Timor got it's vote AFTER the ICJ got a chance to volunteer it's opinion about East Timor in 1995, see http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/index....3&p2=3&case=84

As I'm an Australian, I've asked my government to discuss West Papua at the UN General Assembly & to petition the Assembly to allow the ICJ to give it's legal opinion - because Australia also decided to vote in UN General Assembly resolution 1752 (XVII).
But is any reader here a member of any U.S. NGO that might be interested in promoting the application of international law for the defense of human rights by asking your government to fulfill their obligations under the U.N. charter ? Please email me if you can speak to your NGO about this.
Please note: America has tried to do right a couple of time such as when the US Congress in 2005 asked for the Secretary of State to report about conditions inside West Papua, but the Indonesian President objected to Americans asking questions so the US Senate removed that section of the Foreign Relations Authorization bill. I think the US and others should ask the ICJ to give it's advise for benefit of the U.N. and Decolonization Committee that Indonesia has a seat on.

[Mr. Knowitall]

What do I think? I think you need a better theory.

Even if we presuppose a federal cause of action, a federal court is not going to order the President to take specific diplomatic action.

[Andrew767]

Thanks for your reply, but could we take this one step at a time; is there some kind of obligation ?

The first issue seems to be whether nations that supported the transferring of administration of the colony (UN Gen. Ass. res. 1752), would reasonably qualify as nations that "assume responsibilities for the administration". The opening qualification of UN charter article 73 is : "Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self‑government"

By voting for handing the administration to Indonesia, have the supporting UN members assumed some responsibility for the administration of the colony ?

[Mr. Knowitall]

No, that does not follow from the language you quote.

If you want to lobby a government to take specific action before the UN, you should start with your own.

[Andrew767]

I think the language of my forum question was "Is there a legal obligation"?

I know that I finally ask an auxiliary question of the nature "Would a federal court also support an argument that the US should" {...}. But, the primary/first issue, is whether there is a legal obligation to bring to the government's attention.

The 1960 UN Gen. Ass. res. 1514 & 1541 (XV) appear to require specific conduct towards colonies, the US drafted agreement for the Netherlands to trade the administration duties for West Papua to the UN (UNTEA) for trade further trade to Indonesia appears (articles 14-21 of the contract) to reflect an understanding in 1962 that West Papua was a Non-Self-Governing territory with a right of self-determination, but is that an obligation which in any part falls on the US ?

[Mr. Knowitall]

Does the word "no" mean something different in Australia than it does in the U.S.? Because "No" seems pretty clear. No?

[cbg]

But, the primary/first issue, is whether there is a legal obligation to bring to the government's attention.

No. There is no such legal obligation.

I hope that this is now clear to you.