Security 411.

Your 389 [1] and 390. [2] INDONESIA.

1. Prior to receipt of these telegrams there was wide publicity
given in the Press here and in England that either Australia or
India would be likely to raise this matter in the Security
Council. Statement made by Bevin during course of his speech in
Commons yesterday [3] that he was doubtful whether the Security
Council was right and proper place to effect solution of this
question is widely supported here. Several Delegates in course of
conversation concurred with this view and the United States
Delegation expressed hope that Australia would not take action as
indicated in press and radio reports, on the grounds that the
present position in Council was so bad that only delay and
frustration would result and that the case was obviously one where
every effort should be made to bring about a settlement outside
the Security Council. Johnson hoped that the United States
Government would be consulted before any decision was made to take
positive action. I repeat this was all before your telegrams were
received.

2. As you know, we have consistently taken the view that as
elected members of the Council, we act in a quasi-judicial
character and give a decision only on ascertained facts.

Consequently, it might be preferable if the case were brought to
the attention of the Security Council by a non-member such as
India. In this respect, I am advised directly by the Arab League
that it is in consultation with the Indian Representatives in the
United States on this question.

3. There is a further practical consideration to be borne in mind.

As you know, the Council is at present meeting twice a day on the
Greek question and great emphasis is placed by the United Kingdom
and United States on reaching a speedy determination on the United
States resolution and the creation of the semi-permanent
commission. [4] I would think that these two members with outside
support, would oppose any attempt to have this question given
priority on the agenda, ostensibly on the grounds that action was
being taken outside the Council as Bevin indicated and that such
action would be more speedy and efficacious in the experience of
the present dilatory methods of the Council and its investigation
commissions.

4. These are only my preliminary observations and I appreciate
that the matter is essentially a political decision but in
arriving at that decision I feel you should know the international
angle here. If the decision is that we raise the issue it can be
fully justified in argument before the Council.