Security 420.

INDONESIA

1. At the outset of the meeting this afternoon we made short
statement stressing the fact of hostilities, failure of mediation,
need for urgency and desirability of avoiding long debate on
procedure. We urged that the Indonesian question be taken under
consideration immediately. We also expressed the view that the
Council should proceed with its work without waiting for
participation by one or more of Netherlands, Indonesia and India.

However, as Netherlands and India Representatives had invoked
their right to participate and were in the Council Chamber we did
not feel it advisable to press the view that discussion would not
be related to dispute but only to hostilities.

2. Agenda with Australian and India[n] communications as first
item was adopted without further debate and on Belgian motion
Netherlands and India were invited to participate. We at once
suggested that in view of this action invitation should be also
sent to Indonesian Government to send a Representative as soon as
possible. Van Kleffens questioned the right of Indonesia to
participate on the ground that the Republic was not a sovereign
State, only one state (like New South Wales) in a potential
Federation.

3. At this stage India made a general statement supporting the
course of action outlined in our communication to the Council [1]
including the determination that hostilities constitute a breach
of the peace. He agreed that merits could be debated later,
meanwhile urgent task was to ensure cessation of hostilities.

4. We followed with detailed exposition of our case. This followed
closely the lines of your telegrams 409 and 410 [2] but enlarged
on the question of the status of the Republic in International Law
to meet Van Kleffens' argument. We drew attention to-
(a) installing of Cheribon Agreement,
(b) Article 1 of Linggadjati Agreement,
(c) de facto recognition by United States, United Kingdom, India,
Australia and the Arab League,
(d) de jure recognition by Syria, Egypt and Iraq,
(e) treaties of friendship with Syria and Egypt.

We then formally introduced resolution [3] calling on Parties to
cease hostilities and to arbitrate under Article 17. [4]

5. Syria supported our argument that Republic was clearly a State
with authority in Java and Sumatra.

6. Colombia also stressed the urgent need for cessation of
hostilities and suggested that decision by Council on our
resolution would make invitation to Indonesia less necessary.

7. Lange kept debate moving in an attempt to reach decision
without adjournment and Gromyko indicated that he would support at
once resolution calling for cessation of hostilities although he
considered the question of arbitration needed further study. He
wished to hear more of the situation in Indonesia and thought some
country must have an interest in not studying the question in
detail.

8. China strongly supported our resolution but suggested
'settlement by other peaceful means' as an alternative to
arbitration.

9. France urged delay to enable further study.

10. We accepted this and pressed for a vote at least on cessation
of hostilities. It was doubtful, however, whether we would have a
majority on the whole resolution.

It was clear that France and Belgium would abstain and also United
Kingdom whose instructions are not to contest Netherlands argument
that this is a matter of domestic jurisdiction. United States (and
consequently Brazil) were not prepared to accept resolution on the
ground that it was a judgment against the Netherlands.

11. As we had exhausted immediate avenues of securing immediate
majority we were forced to accept decision to adjourn until
tomorrow morning after general statement by Van Kleffens again
attacking jurisdiction of Council and alleging Indonesian
atrocities and inability to implement Agreement. [5]

12. Position as we see it is as follows:-

(A) We have got off to a good start. Meeting was held 24 hours
after our communication was lodged which is a record for the
Security Council. Our letter has top priority on the Council
Agenda. Our resolution is the only resolution before the Council.

We have secured firm support of six Members and indications are
that we shall have excellent press publicity.

(B) On the other hand we are still one short of a majority and
announcement by Van Kleffens today that Netherlands is willing to
accept Arbitration [6] and an International Committee of Enquiry
[7] has had some effect.

(C) It is likely that tomorrow may be the last chance for quick
action. United States and Greek lobbyists are active to bring
Balkans issue back for discussion. We may be faced with decision
whether to adhere to our resolution as it stands and trust to
activity tomorrow to pick up another vote, e.g. Brazil or whether
to accept some modification to secure United States and United
Kingdom support.

(D) Johnson called tonight after consultation with Washington and
said United States Government was just as concerned as we were to
ensure cessation of hostilities and to get the Parties to
negotiate. United States was worried, however, at the possible
far-reaching effects of our juridical interpretation. France and
United Kingdom were similarly concerned and were even more closely
affected. United States would therefore prefer to have resolution
similar to ours but eliminating reference to Articles 39 and 40.

They would be prepared to include statement that Council
recognised situation as a breach of the peace, and calling on
parties to cease hostilities and to enter into negotiations for
peaceful settlement.