92 Australian Delegation, United Nations, to Department of External Affairs

Cablegram UN180 NEW YORK, 26 February 1948, 9.48 p.m.


Security Council. Indonesia 26th February. [1]

1. Sastroamidjojo, Indonesia made statement dealing fully with West Java as unilateral and contrary to Renville. Exposed the puppet nature of the new state. Lack of plebiscite. Grave consequences for Republic of new states. Expressed agreement with Australian proposal.

2. Gromyko (Soviet) repeated that Renville Agreement is a screen for reimposition of Dutch Colonial domination with support of other Colonial Powers due to investments and fear of success of movements for independence. Renville 'shameful document'.

Indonesia cannot expect any help from Committee. Netherlands ignores provision for plebiscite. Canadian resolution [2] unacceptable. Australian [3] and Colombian amendments [4] do not really change the resolution. Praise given the report reminds him of Mark Twain's hen which insisted her egg was a planet.

3. Tsiang (China). Two dangers-creation of new states and differences of interpretation of Renville. Considered Indonesian position on new states reasonable. Reminded Council war in Indonesia came after an agreement (Linggadjati). Necessity to watch situation after this further Agreement (Renville). Recalled procedures statement and Kirby suggestion. Had found there were objections in Council to his arbitration suggestion. Committee has power to adopt Kirby procedure. Not necessary to sit [5] on Australian proposal. No rule of Council prevents the suggested procedure. Unless this challenged will not press to vote.

Colombian amendment would not change resolution. Will support Canadian proposal. [6]

4. Van Kleffens (Netherlands) made statement in refutal of Indonesian statement on new states. West Java conference [is] third of a series of informal unofficial conferences. Entirely without interference or pressure by Netherlands authorities.

Republic representatives were present. Quoted para. 2 of the twelve political principles. [7] Suppression by Dutch would be to side with Republic against people desiring autonomy. Republic not synonymous with healthy democratic development. Conference com[p]rises [8] several groups none designated by Netherlands Indies authorities. Local knowledge essential and proper place to deal with question of new states is in Committee of Good Offices on the spot. If still member of Council, Netherlands would oppose both Colombian and Australian proposals. Committee has not asked for extension of functions. Only a majority of Committee has asked for this. Would cease to be a Committee of Good Offices.

Particularly against publication if Committee is to be considered to have right to make suggestions, let it do so with greatest caution and in a way conducive to voluntary agreement. Make certain beforehand suggestion acceptable to both parties.

1 The full text of the continuation of debate on 26 February is given in United Nations, Security Council Official Records, Third Year, No.31, 256th Meeting, pp.303-21.

2 Document 68.

3 See paragraph 8 of Document 82.

4 The Colombian amendment invited the parties to the dispute in Indonesia fully to implement the bases of the settlement already agreed upon and to avail themselves of the Committee's services for the solution of any differences that might arise. It asked the Committee to use whatever means it considered appropriate to insist the parties to come to a solution.

5 This should presumably read 'vote'.

6 Tsiang referred to an earlier proposal to incorporate in the Canadian draft resolution (Document 68) a clause on arbitration in case of differences of interpretation of the Renville Agreement and to Kirby's proposal to empower the Committee of Good Offices to make and publish positive suggestions.

7 See paragraph 2 of Document 23.

8 The cited copy here reads 'commission rises'.

[AA:A1838, 854/10/4/2, v]