Your 412. [1] See our 330 of 6th November [2] giving you text of
New York cable explaining Council resolution.

In my view, no good purpose is served by seeking further
interpretation. Paragraphs in question [3] are clear and mean that
any military advance, whether by hostile action or peaceful
penetration beyond the position at August 4th, is inconsistent
with Council resolution. Cease fire order in our view meant that
both sides should stand fast and cease any movement of any kind
until negotiations between the two parties determine subsequent
moves. You might suggest that Committee ask for stand fast in this
sense in present positions so as to prevent further mopping up
pending clarification of Council resolution.

I feel in arguing about interpretation, Committee is being side-
tracked from the main issues. The fact is, interpretation would be
unimportant if there were willingness to conform with the spirit
of the resolution and if there were willingness to co-operate with
the Committee on finding terms of settlement. Meaning of terms and
phrases you referred to is irrelevant to the main issues and if
the parties are not willing to conform, then Committee has no
alternative but to report back to Council. We do not fear the use
of the veto and can assure you it will not be exercised in this
case in favour of the Dutch. It is true Council will not welcome
reference back but world opinion still less welcomes lack of
progress in negotiations.

You may quote Australian interpretation which is clear if you wish
and I am communicating with the Minister as you requested [4] but
I would consider best course is to quote your own belief that the
meaning and intention are clear and you will not accept further
side-stepping.

Meanwhile settlement negotiations should be pursued. if there is
no Co-operation on this, then lack of co-operation on ceasefire is
unimportant.