Security 444.

INDONESIA

1. In the Council this afternoon, we presented the resolution as
contained in our 747 [1] with the following modifications made
after consultations with other Delegations this morning.

(A) Telescoping the second and third preambles.

(B) Paragraph two-omit 'with approval'.

(C) Omit paragraph 3.

(D) Amend to read, 'resolves to establish a Commission consisting
of representatives of......... who will report direct to the
Security Council on the situation in the Republic of Indonesia
following the resolution of the Council of 1st August, 1947'. [2]

2. In introducing the resolution, we stressed that the urgent
problem was that effective procedure for settlement should be
worked out as soon as possible. While appreciating the United
States action Australia considered good offices insufficient and
had therefore offered to act jointly with the United States in the
capacity of mediator and arbitrator. The Indonesian Government had
also taken the view that good offices would not lead to quick
settlement and had accepted our offer. Meanwhile press reports of
armed clashes were still being received and it was essential that
the Council should send a Commission to Indonesia to report on the
situation pending arbitration.

3. At this stage, Poland moved that Sjahrir who had just arrived
should be invited to participate. This touched off a prolonged
debate on the status of the Republic. Netherlands, United Kingdom,
France and Belgium again argued that invitation under Article 32
[3] could only be issued to fully sovereign states which had been
given de jure recognition. At the same time they again denied the
Council's jurisdiction and even the validity of resolution of 1st
August. We pointed out that neither we nor any other Member of the
Council had asserted that the Republic was fully sovereign. The
question was whether it was a 'state' within the meaning of
Article 32. Replying to Van Kleffens' argument that the
Indonesians were Netherlands Nationals under the Netherlands
crown, we drew attention to the position of the British Dominions
and the Soviet Republics. We also cited the cases of India and the
Philippines who had been original signatories of the Charter
although in the latter case independence had been promised only
for July 1946. Similar statements were made by U.S.S.R., Poland
and Colombia. United States reserved the position on the juridical
question but considered that an invitation should be issued if not
under Article 32, at least under Rule of Procedure 39 (invitations
to Secretariat and other persons to supply information). [4]

4. The resolution to admit the Indonesians was passed as a
procedural question by 8 to 3 (United Kingdom, France and
Belgium). Van Kleffens requested that a similar invitation be
issued to Governments of East Indonesia and Borneo. This will be
considered at the next meeting together with renewed documented
request by the Philippines.

5. The statement Sjahrir has prepared while rather long and
containing a great deal of historical material seems quite
satisfactory except it still asks for a Security Council
Commission of Arbitration of three Members. This will conflict
with our statement based on your advice that Sjarifoeddin had
accepted the Australian proposal. [5] Anything you can do to
ensure that Sjahrir receives instructions from his Government on
this point would be appreciated. The Council meets again on
Thursday to consider the Australian resolution and hear Sjahrir.

6. Your 464 and 467. [6] The United States Delegation here could
add nothing to the State Department information in Austemba 1081
and 1088. [7] We understand that a broadcast this evening reports
that the Indonesians have rejected the United States conception of
'good offices' as conveyed by Foote. [8]