Security 451.

Indonesia.

1. After today's debate position is confused and uncertain but not
unsatisfactory to our point of view. Netherlands opened with long
emotional statement challenging jurisdiction and competence anew
of Security Council, making extravagant assertions about
incompetence and corruption of [a] Japanese inspired Government
without positive proof and alleging they were violating the cease
fire orders. Van Kleffens made following declaration and two
proposals:

(a) That the Netherlands Government affirms its intention [to]
organise a sovereign democratic state of Indonesia in accordance
with purpose of Linggadjati agreement.

(b) That it intends immediately to request resident Consular
Officers and career representatives at Batavia to observe the
execution of the cease fire order and the general state of peace
and order in the Republic of Indonesia.

(c) That it intends to establish a Commission of investigation
with three members to be selected by agreement between the
Netherlands Government and the Republic. [1] You will note that
action contemplated is quite outside the jurisdiction of the
Council.

2. The Polish Delegate spoke and submitted an amendment to our
resolution. [2] He informed me prior to the meeting of its terms
and as he was listed to speak like all others from last meeting I
could hardly object as his reason which follows was generally in
accordance with what we were so proposing.

'Resolves to establish a Commission of the Security Council
consisting of......... who on behalf of the Security Council will
act in the capacity of mediator and arbitrator between the
Government of Netherlands and the Republic of Indonesia.'

3. Philippines made long statement mainly on competence and
jurisdiction of Council, his main point being that as Australia
had [brought] [3] dispute under Article 39 of Chapter VII no claim
of domestic jurisdiction would be valid. He supported our
resolution.

4. At this stage Belgium on point of order claimed that Council
had no competence to consider the Australian resolution and this
aspect should be settled immediately. A further wrangle started
but we intervened on the ground that point of order could only
refer to the wrong application of and specific reference to rules
of procedure and therefore President should rule there was no
point of order involved. He did this and his ruling was not
challenged.

5. President announced at 6.20 that he ha[d] Soviet Union, United
States, Australia, China, Indonesia and Belgium still on list.

United States proposed an adjournment and though we protested it
was carried by nine votes to one (Australia).

6. At termination of meeting Belgium informed me he was submitting
a resolution to effect that opinion should be sought of
International Court as to whether Council had jurisdiction to hear
case.

7. Van Kleffens, when I protested as I had already done publicly
about stonewalling tactics adopted the last week and stated how
imperative something further and positive should be done by
Council, said his Government at any rate was going to continue to
take action. This can only mean they propose to take unilateral
action on lines mentioned in paragraph 1. This should be resisted
and instructions sent to Ballard that this was not acceptable as
matter was before Security Council with proposal for a Commission
of five to observe and report on cease fire arrangements as well
as proposal for three arbitrators. [4]

8. Generally attitude of United Kingdom, France, United States and
Belgium is very unsatisfactory and they are exerting utmost
pressure on Colombia, Brazil and China to come round to their
point of view. Even China which supported our resolution yesterday
so strongly now informs us of amendment to eliminate paragraph 3
of our resolution by a new paragraph noting the proposals advanced
by Netherlands and resolving
(a) That the measures of consular observation and the three member
commission of investigation be accepted by the Council as steps in
the right direction.

(b) That consular body at Batavia and the commission of
investigation be requested to for-ward copies of their reports to
the Council, and
(c) That should a settlement of the dispute be unduly delayed the
Council shall itself devise means to meet the situation.

9. Next meeting is probably Wednesday morning as we are forced by
time schedule of rules of procedure to report on admission of new
members. We are pressing for earlier meeting.