The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade has recently supplied Premier's Department with the correct Guidelines of the Australian Government on Official Australian Contact with representatives of various Foreign States, Political Entities and Organisations.

Attached for your information is a copy of the Guidelines Paper.

Please bring these Guidelines to the attention of the appropriate staff within your administration.

R. G. Humphry
Director-General

Contents

Introduction

East Asia

• Taiwan
• Vietnamese and Lao Anti-communist Resistance Movements
• Cambodia

North Asia

• Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK - North Korea)

South East and South Asia

• Fretilin
• Burmese Dissident Groups
• Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) and other Muslim Separatist Groups
• Commununist Party of the Philippines (CPP)
• New People's Army (NPA),
• National Democratic Front (NDF)
• Muslim Separatists in Southern Thailand
• Tamils (Sri Lanka)
• Afghanistan

The South Pacific

• Front de Liberation Nationale Kanake et Socialiste (FLNKS)
• French Polynesian Independentists
• The Organisasi Papua Merdeka (OPM or Free Papua Movement)
• Bougainville Revolutionary Army (BRA)

The Middle East and Africa

• The Kurds
• Libya
• The Palestine Liberation Organisation (PLO)
• Polisario Front - SADR
• South Africa
• Angola: UNITA
• Mozambique: RENAMO

Latin America

• Chile
• Paraguay
• Cuba
• Haite, Suriname
• El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras
• Insurrectionary Groups

Europe

• Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus (TRNC)
• Armenians
• Royal Exiles
• BaItic States and Soviet Republics
• Macedonians
• Croatians and Slovenians
• Sinn Fein
• Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of St John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta

 Introduction

With most countries of the world, the Australian Government maintains normal diplomatic, commercial and cultural relations. In these instances, Departments and agencies are guided by the accepted norms of international relations in their dealings.

However, contacts with a range of organisations, states and entities can give rise to particular sensitivities or difficulties. These guidelines set out the basic approaches to be followed and the degree and manner of contact permitted in such cases. Because contacts can impact on the government-to-government relationship between Australia and other countries and can be affected by certain sensitivities, all Australian Government Departments and agencies are to follow these guidelines.

Also relevant to the issue of official contacts is the Australian Government's policy on 'recognition' or 'non-recognition'.

Since the practice of 'recognising' governments was abandoned in January 1988, it is no longer appropriate to use the term 'recognition' or 'non-recognition' in regard to 'governments' that have come to power unconstitutionally. Whether such regimes are considered by Australia to be the legitimate government of the country concerned is inferred from the nature and level of Australian official contacts with such regimes and any official statement by the Australian authorities. For example, high level official contact with a new regime will usually be construed as an acknowledgement by the Australian Government that it accepts the regime to be the government of the county concerned. However, this is not always conclusive. Each situation will need to be assessed in the light of all the circumstances before such an inference can be drawn. In cases of doubt, enquiries should be directed to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade.

Australia continues to 'recognise' States, i.e. as juridical entities which are capable of exercising rights and obligations at the international level, irrespective of whether it accepts the regime in power to be the government of the State concerned. For example, Australia recognises Afghanistan as an independent State despite the fact that it does not accept the claim of the regime in that State to be the legitimate government and, consequently, does not have government-to-government dealings with it.

Similarly, the term 'recognition/non-recognition' continues to be used in a legal sense in regard to acquisition of territory by another State, e.g. Australia's recognition of lndonesia's incorporation of East Timor.

East Asia

Taiwan

The Australian Government's policy towards Taiwan is based on the Joint Communique of 21 December 1972 between Australia and the People's Republic of China (PRC) on the estabishment of diplomatic relations. Under the terms of this communique, Australia recognises the Government of the PRC as the sole legal government of China and acknowledges the position of the PRC that Taiwan is a province of China. This means that Australia does not accept the claims of the authorities in Taiwan to be the legitimate government of China nor that the authorities in Taiwan have the status of a national government. The Australian Government can have no official dealings with the so called 'Republic of China'. This one-China policy has been adhered to by all Australian Governments since 1972.

Within the framework of its one-China policy, the Australian Government firmly supports the development, on an unofficial basis, of commercial and other mutually-beneficial contacts with Taiwan.

Visits

Visits to Taiwan are permitted subject to the following conditions:

i) diplomatic or official passports may not be used for travel to Taiwan

ii) Australian Government officers in the Senior Executive Service who propose to visit Taiwan unofficially should seek guidance from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade

iii) contacts with Taiwan interests should conform strictly to the advice set out below on unofficial dealings with Taiwan

iv) Members of Parliament and Senators, including Parliamentary office holders, should visit only in their private capacities and are encouraged to advise the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade of their plans

v) official visits to Taiwan by Australian Government Ministers would not be consistent with Government policy.

Visits to Australia by Taiwan passport holders are permitted subject to the following conditions:

i) the agreement of Taiwan passport holders that they may not claim to represent authorities we do not acknowledge as representing the Government of China

ii) Taiwan diplomatic or official passports may not be used for travel to Australia

iii) Taiwan officials may visit only in their private capacities (including for commercial purposes)

iv) visits should be consistent with the advice set out below on unofficial contact with Taiwan

v) proposals for unofficial visits by Taiwan officials at or above Vice-Ministerial rank (or its equivalent) should be referred to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade for consideration on a case-by-case basis.

Unofficial dealings with Taiwan

Government business enterprises and other agencies with full commercial independence may deal freely with Taiwan on purely commercial matters.

Commonwealth Departments/agencies may have unofficial contacts in Australia with Taiwan interests on economic and technical matters, but advice should be sought from the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. Official dealings with Taiwan are not permitted.

At meetings, conferences and cultural events held in Australia

i) documents, place cards, programs, signs etc should not refer to Taiwan as the 'Republic of China', 'China' or 'ROC'

ii) the flag or anthem of the 'Republic of China' should not be used

Cooperation with the Taiwan armed forces is not permitted.

Sporting Events

At international sporting events held in Australia under International Olympic Committee rules, it is recommended that Taiwan participation conform to the 'International Olympic Committee formula', i.e. teams from Taiwan should

i) compete under the name 'Chinese Taipei';

ii) use the flag of the Chinese Taipei Olympic Committee; and

iii) use the 'ROC Flag Song' in place of the 'national' anthem of the 'ROC'.

For other international sporing events, organisers should take care to consult the relevant international governing body for guidance on arrangements for Taiwan participation.

Further advice

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade will be glad to provide guidance and briefing for prospective visitors to Taiwan and practical advice on any of the matters discussed in these guidelines. Please dlrect enquiries to the Hong Kong, Macau and Taiwan Affairs Section on (06) 261 2060.

Vietnamese and Lao Anti-Communist Resistance Movements

A variety of Vietnamese and Lao expatriate groups operate in their countries of residence (France, USA, Australia, Canada and Thailand). Some seek to support or engage in armed attempts to overthrow the current Lao and Vietnamese Governments.

Australia enjoys normal relations with the Governments in Vietnam and Laos. Contact with groups which have openly espoused the armed overthrow of the Vientiane and Hanoi Governments should be avoided.

Any activities by the Vietnamese and Lao expatriate communities in Australia which go beyond the normal rights and freedoms enjoyed by Australian citizens are a matter of concern and will be subject where appropriate to legal action.

Cambodia

Two groups claim to be the Government of Cambodia. They are:

i) the National Government of Cambodia (NGC), known before February 1990 as the Coalition Government of Democratic Kampuchea (CGDK); and

ii) the State of Cambodia (SOC), known before April 1989 as the People's Republic of Kampuchea (PRK).

Australia does not accept either claim and does not have government-to-government dealings with the NGC or the SOC. Australia is encouraging the emergence of a legitimate government of Cambodia through a negotiated comprehensive political settlement and the exercise by the Cambodian people of their right of self-determination.

However, Australia believes that in the pursuit of a comprehensive settlement of the Cambodian problem, it is necessary to have contacts with the Cambodian parties.

Supreme National Council

At the meeting of the Cambodian parties in Jakarta in September 1990 convened by Indonesia and France as Co-Chairmen of the Paris Conference on Cambodia, the Supreme National Council (SNC) was established. The Cambodian parties agreed that the SNC ''is the unique legitimate body and source of authority in which, throughout the transitional period, the independence, sovereignty and unity of Cambodia is embodied'. The SNC consists of 12 representative individuals, 6 from the SOC and 6 from the NGC (2 from each of the three factions making up the NGC).

As a result of meetings in Pattaya, Thailand 24-26 June 1991 and in Beijing 16-17 July 1991, the SNC is now fully operational, with Prince Sihanouk as its Chairman and with an agreement that it will establish its headquarters in Phnom Penh, probably in November 1991. Australia, which had been active in developing and promoting the concept of an SNC, strongly welcomed these developments. On 2 July 1991, Australia became the first country to respond to an invitation from Prince Sihanouk for countries participating in the Paris Conference on Cambodia to accredit diplomatic representation to Cambodia. The Government announced that the Australian Ambassador in Bangkok would be accredited, additionally, as Ambassador and Permanent Representative to the SNC and that a resident Australian mission would be opened in Phnom Penh in phase with the SNC's establishment of its headquarters there.

Representation at the United Nations

On 15 October 1990, the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) adopted a consensus resolution which welcomed the agreement to form the SNC and noted that the SNC is to occupy the seat of Cambodia at the United Nations. It was intended that all Cambodians be represented at the UN through the SNC, thus ending debate over which party or rival government was entitled to represent Cambodia at the United Nations. The Cambodia seat at the United Nations was left vacant pending agreement among the members of the SNC on a delegation. That problem was solved at the meetings of the SNC in Pattaya and Beijing in June/July 1991. The Cambodian parties agreed at those meetings on the composition of the SNC delegation, led by Prince Sihanouk, which will occupy the Cambodia seat at the 1991 UN General Assembly.

Groups participating in the NGC

The CGDK, now the NGC, was formed in June 1982 to bring together the three resistance movements opposing the Vietnam-supported regime in Phnom Penh.

(a) FUNCINPEC

Followers of the former Cambodian leader, Prince Norodom Sihanouk, formed the United Front for an Independent, Neutral, Peaceful and Co-operative Cambodia (FUNCINPEC) in March 1981. FUNCINPEC maintains an armed force, the Armee Nationale Kampuchea Independente (ANKl). The ANKI and the Khmer People's National Liberation Armed Forces (KPNLAF) - see below - together are sometimes described as the non-communist resistance (NCR).

There is no objection to contact with FUNCINPEC/ANKI members, although in cases where they purport to represent the NGC, care should be taken to ensure that such contacts are not misinterpreted as implying Australian acceptance of the NGC as the government of Cambodia or Australian endorsement of NGC claims.

In July 1991, Prince Sihanouk resigned from all his positions in relation to FUNCINPEC and the NGC in order to demonstrate that he would be strictly neutral in his role as Chairman of the SNC. The position of Head of FUNCINPEC is now held by his son, Prince Ranariddh.

Members of FUNCINPEC could be admitted to Australia in their personal capacity. Prince Ranariddh will be visiting Australia as a Guest of Government in mid-August 1991; but this will be in his capacity as a member of the SNC.

(b) Khmer People's National Liberation Front (KPNLF)

The KPNLF was formed in 1979 following the Vietnamese invasion of Cambodia. The political leader of the group is Son Sann, who also holds the position of 'Prime Minister' in the NGC. The KPNLF's army is the KPNLAF (The Kampuchea Peoples National Liberation Armed Forces).

There is no objection to contact with members of the KPNLF/KPNLAF, although in cases where KPNLF representatives purport to represent the NGC, care should be taken to ensure that such contacts are not misinterpreted as implying Australian acceptance of the NGC as the government of Cambodia or Australian endorsement of NGC claims.

Son Sann visited Canberra in 1983 and 1986 on the understanding that he was visiting in a personal capacity and not as 'Prime Minister'. Other KPNLF office holders could be admitted to Australia in their personal capacity or, in the case of Sonn Sann or Ieng Mouly, as members of the SNC.

(c) The Khmer Rouge (the Party of Democratic Kampuchea or PDK).

The Khmer Rouge Government of Democratic Kampuchea (DK) was in power in Phnom Penh from 1975 until it was overthrown by the Vietnamese in 1979. In exile the Khmer Rouge still calls itself Democratic Kampuchea. It is generally accepted that Pol Pot and other Khmer Rouge leaders responsible for the genocide in Cambodia 1975-78 retain control over Khmer Rouge forces which are based on the Thai-Cambodian border and operate deep into Cambodia. While the Khmer Rouge claims that Pol Pot, and a number of his senior associates, no longer hold any formal position in the Khmer Rouge, and to have abandoned its extremist version of communism, such claims must be treated with great scepticism given the Khmer Rouge's past record.

A strong feeling of abhorrence persists in the Australian community towards Pol Pot and the Khmer Rouge and that must influence attitudes towards contact with it. As a general rule, contacts should be avoided.

In the context of a search for a comprehensive settlement of the Cambodia problem, it has been necessary for Australian officials to have discussions with members of the Khmer Rouge. Proposed contacts with the Khmer Rouge, except in this context (and this has involved only a small number of senior Australian officials and diplomats), should be advised to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, which will consult Mlnisters as necessary.

We have not admitted Khmer Rouge members to Australia as representatives either of their own faction or of the NGC. As a special exception, the Khmer Rouge was invited to send two participants to the third Griffith University Seminar on Indo-China in January 1989, but in the event did not attend.

The State of Cambodia (SOC)

The Vietnam-backed People's Republic of Kampuchea regime was installed in power in Phnom Penh in January 1979. It was restyled the State of Cambodia in 1989. In the years since then it has developed its control throughout most of the country. However, it has not been able to prevent NGC forces, particularly the Khmer Rouge from operating inside Cambodia. Following Vietnam's withdrawal of formed military units in September 1989, there was an intensification of fighting within Cambodia as the resistance forces of the NGC (in particular the Khmer Rouge) carried out guerrilla activity to undermine morale and destabilise the SOC. Since May 1991, a ceasefire has been maintained as the result of agreements by the parties through the SNC.

The SOC has six representatives on the SNC. Any of these could visit Australia in their capacity as SNC members.

There have been private visits to Australia by SOC officials under the sponsorship of the Australian Council for Overseas Aid and Australian non-government organisations. The visitors have complied with a requirement not to engage in activities inconsistent with the private purpose of the invitations. SOC representatives, acting in their personal capacity, also attended, by special invitation, the Griffith University Seminars on lndo-China in May 1988 and January 1989.

Travel to Cambodia

Pending the establishment of the SNC's headquarters in Phnom Penh and accreditation of the Australian mission to the SNC (expected to be November 1991), travel to Cambodia by Ministers, Presiding Officers and senior public servants (SES and above, Heads of Mission) should generally be avoided. However, exceptions could be made where visits by senior officers are necessary to pursue important Australian interests, for example, Australia's role in the settlement process and in dealing with such issues as the illegal arrival in Australia of boat people from Cambodia. Once an Australian mission is established in Phnom Penh, the way will be open for visits by Ministers, Presiding Officers and senior public servants. The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade should be informed of such visits so that Ministerial guidance may be sought if required.

Parliamentarians are free to visit in their private capacities and have done so.

Public servant below SES level may visit Cambodia for official purposes, but Ministerial approval is required.

Public servants below SES level may make private visits to Cambodia without Ministerial approval, provided the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade is informed in advance (to allow for the Minister to be consulted if necessary).

The Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade will be glad to provide guidance and briefing for prospective visitors to Cambodia and practical advice on any of the matters discussed in these guidelines. Please direct enquiries to the Indo-China Section on (06) 261 2030.

 North Asia

The Democratic People's Republic of Korea (DPRK-North Korea)

Australia recognised the DPRK in 1974. Diplomatic relations were established in the same year, followed by the opening of Embassies in Canberra and Pyongyang. For reasons which have never been fully explained, the DPRK withdrew its Embassy from Canberra in October 1975 and then expelled Australia's mission from Pyongyang. Our relations have remained in a state of ''interruption' since then. There are no official trade relations with the DPRK.

Limited dialogue with the DPRK has been taking place and we have conveyed to the DPRK that our attitude to improved relations would be influenced by:

• the DPRK's signing and implementing the International Atomic Energy Agency Safeguards Agreement pursuant to its obligations as a signatory to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty
• developments on the Korean Peninsula, in particular ROK-DPRK relations
• the DPRK's international behaviour, and
• our level of confidence that there is scope for a constructive relationship with the DPRK, including the DPRK's demonstrating its bona fides in resolving its outstanding foreign debt to foreign, including Australian, banks as a prerequisite to the establishment of formal trading relations

The DPRK is not represented in any way in Australia.

In the absence of diplomatic relations, officers should avoid initiating contact with DPRK representatives unless instructed to do so. However, there is no need to avoid contact initiated by DPRK representatives except in the cases noted below:

• If invitations are received by Australian Heads of Mission to attend DPRK National Day functions, they should not attend but be represented by a more junior officer. Where a function is hosted by a DPRK Head of Mission in the capacity of Dean or Acting Dean of the Diplomatic Corps, the Australian Head of Mission may attend. In general, Australian representatives overseas should not attend other functions hosted by the DPRK. If however, a post believes there is a good reason to attend a specific function it should consult Canberra.
• There is no objection to courtesy calls being received at any post on arrival of, or before the departure of, a DPRK Head of Mission. Australian Heads of Mission however, should not make courtesy calls on their DPRK counterparts.

As the DPRK joins more international organisations, there will be occasions where discussions will be sought by both Australian and DPRK representatives. There are no objections to such contact.

If bilateral issues are raised by DPRK representatives, Australian representatives should simply note what they have to say and report the conversation to Canberra.

Written communication and correspondence from DPRK representatives may be received by a post. If the correspondence or communication refers to bilateral relations, it should be referred to Canberra.

DPRK citizens are generally free to visit Australia for genuine business, cultural and non-political purposes, or attend multilateral conferences or meetings of multilateral organisations, irrespective of whether they include the ROK.

DPRK citizens wishing to visit Australia may apply for visas at any Australian mission. Applications should be lodged at least 14 days before the proposed departure date.

Proposals for visits for overtly political purposes or of a sensitive nature must be referred to Canberra for guidance. No undertakings should be given to DPRK officials.

Australian officials (including AUSTRADE) are not permitted to visit the DPRK on official business without the approval of the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade. Australian officials may visit the DPRK in a private capacity provided they travel on ordinary passports and do not make any contact with officials while in the DPRK. Proposals by officials serving in Seoul or Beijing to visit the DPRK privately must also be referred to Canberra for prior consideration.

Proposals for visits to the DPRK by State Government officials should be referred to Canberra for guidance.

 South East and South Asia

Fretilin

The Australian Government does not accept the claims of Fretilin in East Timor. Contacts with this organisation are accordingly on an unofficial basis. In principle, the Government is prepared to allow members of Fretilin to visit Australia in a private capacity although it will wish to assess each application on its merits.

Burmese Dissident Groups

Contact should be avoided with groups linked with the heroin trade (Shan United Army, the Wa and the Burma Communist Party). Discreet contacts with other active dissident groups (whether of Karen, Kachin, Mon or Arakanese origin) outside Burma are not prescribed. Such contacts should not be agreed to within Burma, where there may also be some risk of abduction.

Australia continues to conduct normal but limited and cool relations with the military regime in Burma. Australia does not, therefore, have any official dealings with the provisional government of Burma known as the Coalition Government of the Union of Burma. It is composed of expelled elements of the National League for Democracy, a legal political party in Burma, and the Democratic Alliance of Burma (DAB), which is composed of a number of organisations opposed to the military regime, including ethnic insurgent groups. Any contact should avoid any action implying support for claims by it to represent Burma.

Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) and other Muslim Separatist Groups

The MNLF, formed in 1971, is the major Muslim separatist group in the southern Philippines. It has however split into several factions: the faction led by Nur Misuari, which has retained the name; the Reformist' MNLF group led by Dimas Pundato; and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), led by Salamat Hashim.

Dlscretion should be exercised in contacts with persons known to be connected with the various Philippines Muslim separatist groups. Such contacts need not necessarily be avoided if initiated by adherents of these groups; possible implications for Australia's relations with the Philippines should however be discussed with the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade and our Embassy in Manila before any substantive contact is made.

Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP)/NPA/NDF

The Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP), its military arm, the New People's Army (NPA) and its united front arm, the National Democratic Front (NDF) are illegal and contact with them should be avoided.

Muslim Separatists in Southern Thailand

There are a number of small Muslim separatist groups in southern Thailand. Any contacts by Australians should be circumspect, informal and where possible notified in advance to our Embassy in Bangkok

Tamils (Sri Lanka)

Contact with various Tamil groups in Sri Lanka may be carried out with discretion. Known militant groups such as the Liberation Tigers of Tamil Eelam clearly associated with acts of terrorism should, however, be treated with appropriate circumspection. With the exception of the High Commission in Colombo, contact should not be initiated by Australian representatives overseas and any contact that may occur should be limited and informal. Contacts by all Australian representatives overseas should be reported to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade in Canberra. Representations to Ministers and parliamentarians from the Tamil Community in Australia should be referred to the Minister for Foreign Affairs and Trade in the first instance.

Afghanistan

Australia does not accept any of the various factions in Afghanistan, including the Afghan Interim Government (AlG), as the legitimate government of the country. Australia does not have diplomatic representation in Kabul and there is no representative of the present Kabul regime (the 'Republic of Afghanistan') in Australia. Written communications from the Kabul regime may be received and reported to the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, but no formal acknowledgement or response should be sent. No written communication should be initiated and no calls or invitations should be made or accepted which might be taken to imply a diplomatic relationship.

Australian Ministers, parliamentarians and officials should not accept invitations from the regime, but need not go out of their way to avoid contacts with regime representatives at social or other informal occasions. Officials will also from time to time need to contact regime representatives on consular or administrative matters. Such contact should be as informal as possible. On these occasions political discussions are to be avoided, and if the context demands it, it should be made clear that the contact does not imply any change in Australian policy towards the regime.

In 1982 representatives of the Afghan Mujaheddin established, with ministerial approval, an Afghan Information Office (AIO) in Canberra to publicise the cause of the Afghan resistance. The office had no official status.

In 1988 Dr Abdul Aziz Majidi took over as head of the AIO. Following increasing indications of dissent within the Afghan community in Australia about Dr Majidi's status, the Australian Government decided in July 1990 not to renew Dr Majidi's entry permit. The AIO remains unstaffed.

There is no restriction on Australian official contacts with Mujaheddin representatives, although the fact that Australia does not accept the AIG as being in control of the state of Afghanistan should be borne in mind during such contacts. Caution should, however, be exercised in contact with the Mujaheddin group, Hezb-i-Islami, in view of its record of political violence and narcotics trafficking.

There is no prohibition on official or private travel to Afghanistan or restrictions on the type of passport used, but a visa issued by an overseas mission of the Afghan regime (e.g. in lslamabad) is required. Travel by representatives of the Afghan regime to attend international conferences in Australia of organisations of which the regime is a member is permitted. Travel to Australla for other purposes is considered on a case-by-case basis, and should be referred to Canberra.

The South Pacific

Front de Liberation Nationale Kanake et Socialiste (FLNKS)

 The FLNES (Kanak Socialist National Liberation Front) Is the major PM-Independence grouping in New Caledonia. Formed in September 1984 it is a group of parties, bound together by the single oal of New Caleledonian Independence. The largest constituent party of the FLNKS is the Union Caledordienne.

 On 1 December 1984 the FLNKS announced the formation of a 'provisional government of Kanaky.' This 'govemmene' has rarely had more than a shadowy, even notional, existence, it has never held any formal status. To our knowledge it was never formally recog~ by any regional or other states and its existence has in practice been Ignored by successive French g~vernments since 1984, even though dealings with the FI-NKS as a political organisation have continued-

 Since the election of the Socialist Government in 1988 and the signature of the Matignon accords on the future of New Caledonia Cune 1988), the raison Xetre of the provisional government as a political and propaganda tool has, for all intents and purposes, disappeared. One of the signatories of the Matignon accords, the FLNKS has resumed full participation in New Caledonia's public Ille as a recognised and legitimate political group.

 Under the Matignon Accords, New Caledonia has been divided into three provinces. In the 1989 provincial elections the FLNKS gained control of two of these, the predominantly Melanesian Northern and Loyalty Islands provincets. Accordingly, the FLNKS is now widely represented in the Frovticial Assemblies and Ter