IMMEDIATE

Security Council 24 December. [1]

When Council met this morning Soviet put in draft resolution as
follows-

'S.C. condemning aggression of Netherlands Government which has
again started military operations against Indonesian Republic in
violation of Renville Agreement of 17th January 1948-
(1) requires immediate cessation of military operations,
(2) requires as first step towards settlement of conflict
withdrawal of Netherlands troops to positions they occupied before
renewal of military operations,
(3) requires that Netherlands Government shall set free
immediately President of Indonesian Republic and other Republican
political leaders arrested by Netherlands military authorities,
(4) resolves to set up a Commission of S.C. composed of
representatives of all states members of S.C.,
(5) instructs Commission to supervise fulfilment of resolution on
cessation of military operations and the withdrawal of troops and
to assist in settling conflict as a whole between Netherlands and
Indonesian Republic.'

United Kingdom (Dening) after defending their own part in N.E.I.

immediately after the war then said that 'hands off' attitude of
Dutch had been main contributing factor. Netherlands regarded
temporary break in their sovereignty caused by Japan as of no
importance. United Kingdom regarded this as unrealistic view.

Situation clearly one which might lead to international friction.

United Kingdom deplored decision of Dutch who had not used G.O.C.

enough and should have reported violations they claimed to the
Council through G.O.C. Two alternatives of Dutch were clearly not
exhaustive. United Kingdom would support U.S. resolution. While
not expressing views as to legality United Kingdom was of opinion
that state of world was far too dangerous to let such a situation
continue. Present resolution clearly did not exceed powers of
Council, or infringe terms of Article 2 (7) of Charter.

Argument of Parodi for France was almost entirely devoted to legal
aspects of competence. French view that Republic not a State in
international law supported by Republican admission of Dutch
sovereignty by Renville Agreement. Republic was a part of state
about to be set up and any decision of Council to contrary would
have far reaching effects for federal states. Argument that
internal difficulties might have international repercussions was a
sound one and was basis of French case on Spain but it had yet to
be shown to France that there were likely to be any such
repercussions from the situation in Indonesia. France regarded
Dutch action as shocking and brutal but sentiment could not
override competence. France would abstain.

Canada deplored action of Dutch and would support cease-fire. Next
step would be establishment of conditions under which peace could
be achieved. For this purpose full information would be necessary
on military and political situations. Agreed with Australia that
G.O.C. might be asked to assume further functions and recommend
what practical steps Council might take towards settlement. He
would submit a resolution to this effect. Netherlands reply to
debate fell into seven sections.

1. Allegation that letter of 16th [2] was ultimatum. Letters did
not pass until main stage of negotiations in November and early
December had passed and both sides had admitted failure. They were
in the nature of an epilogue. No decision to take military action
was taken until December 18 and it would never have been taken if
reply had been received.

2. Allegation of continuing intention. it would have been of great
advantage to
Dutch to have taken their action much earlier.

3. Infiltrations. No uprisings had taken place in Dutch territory
and G.O.C.

reports disproved Republican claim about visiting families.

4. Article ten of Renville. [3] Information was given Secretary
General of Republican delegation and implication of Council
acceptance of reports from Cochran only in past few days was that
he was able to represent G.O.C.

5. Alternatives. It was going too far to suggest that Netherlands
should go on negotiating.

6. Reporting to Council. Parties had agreed not to have direct
contact. G.O.C. might have reported countless violations reported
by Dutch.

7. U.S. resolution. [4] Appointment of G.O.C. superseded August
resolution [5] which was therefore not infringed. As to cease-fire
Dutch have reluctantly concluded that military action only
solution. Chaos would result from the unwise adoption of such a
provision. As for future such a clause [6] would be superfluous.

Dutch deny emphatically right of G.O.C. to assess responsibility.

Quoted Van Kleffens' reasons against withdrawal as put forward in
1947. Terrorism would result. Aim of Netherlands was same as that
of the Council: independence for Indonesia.

Palar said that cease-fire only would be useless. Without
withdrawal Republic would be seriously damaged.

Belgium deplored profoundly turn of events in N.E.I. In passing
said that Australian criticism of Belgian member of G.O.C. was
unfair as Australians themselves could have brought Australian-
U.S. [7] proposals to Council. Based intention to abstain on fact
that Council had not seen fit to secure opinion of the Court as to
competence. We can hardly claim that matter is a threat to peace
if we apparently don't consider that in China to be one. Council
then proceeded to vote with following results.

1. Syrian-Colombian resolution
A. First two clauses adopted seven nought four [8]; abstentions
being France, Belgium, U.S.S.R., Ukraine. Ukraine was absent
throughout owing, Malik Claimed, to refusal of French in Berlin to
give representative visa and President ruled that this should be
counted an abstention.

B. Third clause defeated six nought five, Argentina joining those
abstaining.

C. Cease-fire adopted seven nought four.

D. Withdrawal rejected five nought six, Canada and Argentina
joining abstentions.

E. Australian amendment [9] re release of President adopted seven
nought four.

F. Australian proposal to delete last paragraph rejected, only
Syria supporting.

G. Last paragraph down to 1948 adopted seven nought four but last
clause re assessment of responsibility rejected five nought six,
Argentina and Canada joining abstentions.

H. Australian amendment re observation and report adopted seven
nought four but clause re reprisals rejected four nought seven,
United Kingdom in addition joining abstentions. Resolution as
whole as amended adopted seven nought four.

2. Soviet resolution
Taken clause by clause and each one rejected. China, Syria and
Colombia sup
ported paragraphs one and two and Syria all paragraphs except
four.

U.S.S.R. explained that it abstained because both parties were
mentioned in U.S. draft resolution. U.S. and United Kingdom
explained abstentions on Soviet resolution as being dictated by
fact that Council had already decided on issues raised. China
stated that it was voting on merits on both cases.

Canada then submitted draft resolution as follows 'Security
Council instructs G.O.C. to submit report at earliest possible
date with view to enabling S.C. to decide what practicable steps
the S.C. may take in view of existing situation in Indonesia to
bring about speedy establishment of peaceful conditions there.'