Indonesia. Security Council 17th June. [1]

Further to our UN.549. [2]

1. Tsiang (China) said reports did not substantiate Van Kleffens'
allegation that Republic does not want federation and union but
show substantial grounds for Republican charge that Dutch were
fostering separatist movements. Committee should be instructed to
conduct fair plebiscite in West Java and Madura. Asked assurance
that Netherlands would not renew police action.

2. Pillai (India) asserted new states were part of a definite plan
for a fait accompli.

3. Malik (Soviet) criticized Committee and its reports. Charged
Committee with safeguarding Dutch interests. (Referred to
provisional federal Government, procedure of committee, Madura,
blockade). Republican aspirations were in accord with Charter and
Soviet supported them.

4. Australia. It was established that situation required continued
vigilance by the Council. Soviet charge above refuted and
Australia interest defined Oust and stable settlement). Council's
desire for stable settlement not at present being achieved. Delays
deliberately created to favour Dutch purposes. Quoted United
Nations press release SC/681 referred to in our 549. Not noted
seriousness of discontinuance of negotiations. [3] Council must
retain control of situation and should secure immediate report of
suspension and text of document concerned.

5. Van Kleffens (Netherlands) denied that negotiations were broken
off asserting there was merely suspension pending instructions to
Netherlands Delegation. Again appealed to Council to let well
enough alone.

6. Palar (Indonesia) supported suggestion for report on
suspension.

7. Tsiang (China) asked President to request Committee to send
text of Aus-tralian-American proposal.

8. Langenhove (Belgium) objected to any new instructions to
Committee on basis of press reports, reviewed successful truce
implementation, recalled question of competence of Council and
urged careful preservation of good offices procedure and advance
of intervention on arbitral lines. [4]

9. Siu (China) explained that Tsiang's request at morning session
was not proposal for immediately obtaining the text of Australian-
American proposal and reserved right to raise the question later
if necessary.

10. Pillai (India) in response to question by Tarasenko (Ukraine)
quoted Herald Tribune article [5] giving a version of Australian-
American proposal (election of constituent assembly to form
provisional federal Government and establishment of joint
commissions to define status of NEI).

11. El-Khouri (Syria) President, felt Council should obtain report
on suspension of negotiations and also Committee's views as to
compliance or non compliance by parties with existing agreements.

12. Jessup (United States) opposed asking Committee's opinion of
conduct of the parties and felt Committee could be relied on to
make necessary reports.

1[3]. Tarasenko, (Ukraine) criticized Committee for reporting
facts only and not expressing judgement. Criticized Australia for
not dissociating itself explicitly from Committee's reports and
U.S.A. for seeking economic advantage in Indonesia through deal
with Indonesia, Netherlands. Referring to Van Kleffens' statement
of 10th June [6], charged Netherlands with desire to boycott
Security Council. Council must deal more actively with Indonesian
question and not rely on the Committee.

1[4]. Australia urged definite date for next meeting and steps to
speed Committee report.

1[5]. El Khouri (President) pointed out there was no concrete
proposal before the Council. He would however cable Committee for
report on suspension of negotiations.

1[6]. Gromyko (Soviet) opposed indefinite adjournment pointing out
that report on Bandoeng Conference (issued as DOC. 842 16th June)
remained for discussion. [7]

1[7]. McNaughton (Canada) stressed nature of Good Offices
Committee's functions and urged that any communication from
Council to Committee should observe this.

1[8]. Palar (Indonesia) reserved right to discuss Bandoeng
Conference report. 1[9]. President stated his intention to ask [8]
Committee only about suspension of negotiations and fixed time for
next meeting Wednesday afternoon 23rd June.