Security 540.

INDONESIA.

1. Palar, Indonesian representative, urgently sought our advice
today on following situation.

2. During debate on 27th October [1] regarding Dutch action
following the cease fire order, the Indonesian representative
claimed that Dutch had abrogated the Linggadjati agreement. He
said that the Dutch statement of 1[2]th August [2], affirming the
intention of the Netherlands Government to organise a sovereign
democratic United States of Indonesia 'in accordance with the
purpose of the Linggadjati agreement'. . . referred to the Dutch
unilateral interpretation of that agreement which was the cause of
the armed conflict in Indonesia. He asked the Netherlands
representative to confirm or deny this.

3. On 31st October [3] Van Kleffens said he had asked his
Government whether it still considered the Linggadjati agreement
valid, but said that the making of an answer should be dependent
on the Republic of Indonesia equally disclosing its hand. He asked
whether the Indonesian representative was prepared to submit an
identical question to his Government. The President expressed the
hope that Palar would obtain a similar statement.

4. Palar insisted that the Dutch had abrogated the agreement and
said that his Government was 'now free to be bound or not to be
bound by the agreement'.

5. Yesterday the Secretary-General informed Palar that Van
Kleffens was ready to hand Lie his Government's reply in a sealed
envelope if the Indonesian statement could be similarly deposited
for simultaneous release.

6. Palar suspected that the Dutch wish to secure some tactical
advantage by forcing the Indonesian Government to make a statement
of its position regarding which the Indonesian Government is
divided. He is very much out of touch with his Government as his
communications via New Delhi are slow and he believes all
communications are read by the Dutch. He does not even know
whether his Government wishes to take the Linggadjati agreement as
the basis for negotiations. For the same reason he is unable to
explain the present difficulty frankly or to obtain instructions.

His own inclination was to preserve Linggadjati agreement as at
least some basis for further negotiations. If forced to do so by
developments here, and in the absence of instructions, he proposes
to furnish evidence indicating Dutch abrogation of agreement and
to suggest that explanation of Indonesian attitude to agreement be
left to be given under auspices of Committee of Three. He intends
in any case to mention Madoera [4] and also death of forty-six
prisoners [5] at next Security Council meeting. He is awaiting
promised memorandum from his Government on economic position
resulting from recent Dutch action in Java. [6]

7. He is further confused by announcement of visit of Dutch
Ministers including Beel to Indonesia. [7] He hopes that this step
means that the Dutch are prepared to return to the original
Linggadjati agreement but is not certain of the significance.

8. Palar suggested that he might send a message in above sense to
his Government through our channels. We explained that we could
not do this without authority from you but undertook to explain
the position urgently to you in case you see fit in some way to
convey what is in his mind to Indonesian authorities. He is badly
in need of guidance before Tuesday's meeting. We have been working
on the assumption that it is desirable that the Linggadjati
agreement should be taken as the basis for negotiation and that
with this in mind, any attempt to stress Dutch abrogation of the
agreement is undesirable. Would be glad of advice as far as
possible as to the present position this point including the
attitude of the Indonesian Government. [8]