Security 466.

Indonesia.

Belgian proposal for reference to International Court [1] was
rejected today by four (United States, United Kingdom, France,
Belgium) to one (Poland) with six abstentions.

2. We made it clear that in principle we favoured reference of
legal questions and legal aspects of disputes to the International
Court. Circumstances of each case differed however and we were
opposed to reference of Indonesian question on following grounds:-

(a) Fact that case would be sub judice might be used as argument
to delay or obstruct execution of Council decisions already taken.

(b) Majority of Council including Australia had no doubt on
jurisdiction and had in fact acted under Chapter VII with
implication that enforcement measures would be used if provisional
measures under Article 40 were ineffective.

(c) Automatic reference to Court of questions involving
interpretation of Article 2(7) was rejected by San Francisco
Conference and Charter envisages that as a general rule Organs
will decide their own competence.

(d) When question of jurisdiction had arisen previously for
example in Iranian and Spanish cases [2] it had not been referred
to Court.

3. Polish resolution calling on Indonesia and Netherlands to
adhere strictly to Council recommendation of 1st August was passed
by 10 to 0 with United Kingdom abstaining.

4. Sjahrir announced at end meeting that Indonesian Government
would comply with all Resolutions of Council. All facilities would
be given to Consular Commission. On behalf of his Government he
accepted Council's offer of good offices and requested Council to
assist settlement by appointment of Committee of Three. He hoped
the appointment of the Committee would result in early
arbitration. He was consulting with his Government and hoped to
advise shortly which Member of Council Indonesia had selected for
Committee. (Sjahrir informed us privately that he had advised his
Government to nominate Australia. We presume you will have in mind
possibility that Australia may be asked to appoint a
representative at short notice. We presume the Committee will sit
in Indonesia.)
5. Van Kleffens stated simply that his Government was using every
diligence to make its attitude known as soon as possible. Our
judgment based on conversations here is that Netherlands will
accept the good offices and agree to establishment of Committee
but will ask that it confine its work to mediation.

6. President has asked us to direct your attention to yesterday's
Resolution (our 784 [3] paragraph 1). We assume you will inform us
when you have instructed Ballard or Stuart [4] so that we may
advise President.

7. General opinion is that results on whole are very satisfactory
and we obtained the best that could have been expected especially
as it seemed a complete deadlock at one stage. Australia has
received wide commendation for her initiative and perseverance.

Only unfortunate aspect is that in spite of our objectivity we
have been in opposition throughout to Western European interests.

It is essential our representative on group of observers should
continue to adopt a most impartial and objective approach on all
issues coming within ambit of its reports to Council.