Cablegram UN551 NEW YORK, 18 June 1948, 2.33 p.m.
SECRET
Indonesia. Security Council 17th June. [1]
Further to our UN.549. [2]
1. Tsiang (China) said reports did not substantiate Van Kleffens’ allegation that Republic does not want federation and union but show substantial grounds for Republican charge that Dutch were fostering separatist movements. Committee should be instructed to conduct fair plebiscite in West Java and Madura. Asked assurance that Netherlands would not renew police action.
2. Pillai (India) asserted new states were part of a definite plan for a fait accompli.
3. Malik (Soviet) criticized Committee and its reports. Charged Committee with safeguarding Dutch interests. (Referred to provisional federal Government, procedure of committee, Madura, blockade). Republican aspirations were in accord with Charter and Soviet supported them.
4. Australia. It was established that situation required continued vigilance by the Council. Soviet charge above refuted and Australia interest defined Oust and stable settlement). Council’s desire for stable settlement not at present being achieved. Delays deliberately created to favour Dutch purposes. Quoted United Nations press release SC/681 referred to in our 549. Not noted seriousness of discontinuance of negotiations. [3] Council must retain control of situation and should secure immediate report of suspension and text of document concerned.
5. Van Kleffens (Netherlands) denied that negotiations were broken off asserting there was merely suspension pending instructions to Netherlands Delegation. Again appealed to Council to let well enough alone.
6. Palar (Indonesia) supported suggestion for report on suspension.
7. Tsiang (China) asked President to request Committee to send text of Aus-tralian-American proposal.
8. Langenhove (Belgium) objected to any new instructions to Committee on basis of press reports, reviewed successful truce implementation, recalled question of competence of Council and urged careful preservation of good offices procedure and advance of intervention on arbitral lines. [4]
9. Siu (China) explained that Tsiang’s request at morning session was not proposal for immediately obtaining the text of Australian- American proposal and reserved right to raise the question later if necessary.
10. Pillai (India) in response to question by Tarasenko (Ukraine) quoted Herald Tribune article [5] giving a version of Australian- American proposal (election of constituent assembly to form provisional federal Government and establishment of joint commissions to define status of NEI).
11. El-Khouri (Syria) President, felt Council should obtain report on suspension of negotiations and also Committee’s views as to compliance or non compliance by parties with existing agreements.
12. Jessup (United States) opposed asking Committee’s opinion of conduct of the parties and felt Committee could be relied on to make necessary reports.
1[3]. Tarasenko, (Ukraine) criticized Committee for reporting facts only and not expressing judgement. Criticized Australia for not dissociating itself explicitly from Committee’s reports and U.S.A. for seeking economic advantage in Indonesia through deal with Indonesia, Netherlands. Referring to Van Kleffens’ statement of 10th June [6], charged Netherlands with desire to boycott Security Council. Council must deal more actively with Indonesian question and not rely on the Committee.
1[4]. Australia urged definite date for next meeting and steps to speed Committee report.
1[5]. El Khouri (President) pointed out there was no concrete proposal before the Council. He would however cable Committee for report on suspension of negotiations.
1[6]. Gromyko (Soviet) opposed indefinite adjournment pointing out that report on Bandoeng Conference (issued as DOC. 842 16th June) remained for discussion. [7]
1[7]. McNaughton (Canada) stressed nature of Good Offices Committee’s functions and urged that any communication from Council to Committee should observe this.
1[8]. Palar (Indonesia) reserved right to discuss Bandoeng Conference report. 1[9]. President stated his intention to ask [8] Committee only about suspension of negotiations and fixed time for next meeting Wednesday afternoon 23rd June.
_
1 The full text of the discussion is given in United Nations, Security Council Official Records, Third Year, No.86, 332nd and 323rd Meetings, 17 June 1948, pp.1-49.
2 Document 185.
3 The meaning of this sentence is unclear. Australia’s representative John Hood, argued that the Security Council could not ignore the suspension of negotiations in Indonesia and should take ‘official and formal notice’ of it.
4 The last six words of this sentence are confusing. Langenhove argued that the UN Charter did not give the Security Council the right to act as an arbitrator.
5 A reference to the article ‘Indonesia Talks Halted, Dutch Angry at “Leak”’ in the New York Herald Tribune on 17 June.
6 See Document 174.
7 The text of the report of the Committee of Good Offices on the Federal Conference opened in Bandung on 27 May 1948, with appendixes and annexes, is given in United Nations, Security Council Official Records, Third Year, Supplement for June, 4 June 1948, pp.91-118.
8 A sign here denotes mutilated characters but without explanation.
_
[AA:A1838, 854/10/4/2, vi]