Security 460.

INDONESIA.

Reference our Security 455. [1]

1. Following on requests from President that Australia should
confer with China and Poland with a view to reaching agreement
over the Australian resolution and the Chinese and Polish
amendments we worked hard on this right up to meeting 22nd August
to produce following text to cover immediate problem of
appointment of Commission of Security Council to report and
observe the 'cease fire' orders. Omitting preamble text is as
follows-

'The Security Council
(a) notes with satisfaction that steps taken by the parties to
comply with the resolution of 1st August, 1947,
(b) notes with satisfaction the statement by the Netherlands
Government issued on 11th August, in which it affirms its
intention to organize a sovereign, democratic United States of
Indonesia in accordance with the purpose of Linggadjati Agreement,
(c) notes that the Netherlands Government intends immediately to
request the career Consuls stationed in Batavia jointly to report
on the present situation in the Republic of Indonesia,
(d) notes that the Government of the Republic of Indonesia has
requested appointment by the Security Council of a Commission of
observers,
(e) requests the Governments members of the Council who have
career consular representatives in Batavia to instruct them to
prepare jointly for the information and guidance of the Security
Council reports on the situation in the Republic of Indonesia
following resolution of the Council of 1st August, 1947, such
reports to cover the observance of the 'cease fire' orders and the
conditions prevailing under military occupation or from which
armed forces now in occupation may be withdrawn by agreement
between the parties,
(f) requests the Governments of the Netherlands and of the
Republic of Indonesia to grant to the representatives referred to
in paragraph (e) all facilities necessary for the effective
fulfilment of their mission,
(g) resolved to consider the matter further should situation
require.' [2]

However, during Council meeting Poland retracted and expressed
opposition to text. Soviet Union also strongly disagreed on ground
that it followed closely the Netherlands proposal.

2. As to the proposal for the appointment of an Arbitration
Commission China would not agree to the appointment of any
arbitrators while Poland insisted that the Council should name the
arbitrators whether or not they were satisfactory to either party.

Our text is as follows which we are submitting as a separate
resolution.

'The Security Council requests the Governments of the Netherlands
and of the Republic of Indonesia to submit all matters in dispute
between them to arbitration by a Commission consisting of one
arbitrator selected by the Government of the Republic of
Indonesia, one by the Government of the Netherlands, and one by
the Security Council.'

3. Following on this the United States submitted the following
text-

'The Security Council resolves to tender its good offices to the
parties in order to assist in the Pacific Settlement of their
dispute in accordance with paragraph (b) of the resolution of the
Council of 1st August 1947. The Council expresses its readiness,
if the parties so request, to assist in the settlement through a
Committee of the Council consisting of three members of the
Council, each party [selecting one] [3] and the third to be
designated by the two [so selected].'

During the course of the meeting the United States indicated that
they would support any proposal for submitting the question of the
competency of the Security Council to deal with the situation in
Indonesia to the International Court of Justice. The Belgian
immediately circulated the following draft resolution that the
Security Council, having been seized by the Governments of
Australia and India of the situation in Indonesia-

'Considering that the Government of the Netherlands in invoking
Article II, paragraph 7 of the Charter, contests the competence of
the Security Council to deal with the question of which it has
thus been seized;

Considering the debates which have been taking place on this
subject in the Security Council;

Requests the International Court of Justice, under Article 96 [4]
of the Charter, to give it, as soon as possible, an advisory
opinion of whether the Security Council is competent to deal with
the aforementioned question.

The Secretary-General is instructed to place the documentation
submitted to the Security Council regarding the question and the
records of the meetings devoted to it at the disposal of the
International Court of Justice.'

This new resolution which will hopelessly confuse matters at this
stage was clearly introduced by arrangements between United
States, United Kingdom, Belgium and Holland.

4. You will appreciate therefore that the discussion during the
day became very complicated. It commenced with an emotional bitter
attack by Van Kleffens both on the Indonesian Government and
personally on members of the Security Council. He also raised the
question of the jurisdiction afresh. The President foolishly made
the remark that the question of the jurisdiction of the Council
had [not] been [decided]. [5] He also said he would consider any
proposal to admit representatives of [East] Indonesia and Borneo
despite fact that resolution for latter to be admitted had already
been defeated. Belgians submitted another proposal to this effect
which was again defeated only Belgium, United States, United
Kingdom and France voting for it.

5. Confusion and delay is due almost entirely to attitude of
United States which varies from day to day and is unpredictable.

Brazil shifts accordingly and China also tends to follow U.S.

France, Belgium and U.K. form a bloc at one extreme and U.S.S.R.

and Poland at the other. Our only consistent supporters are Syria
and Colombia.