IMMEDIATE

Security Council 27th December. [1]

Before proceedings commenced Council held brief informal meeting
which decided that sessions in Paris would conclude 30th December
resuming in New York not before 6th January.

Council took up Indonesia at once and Netherlands read statement
of Government attitude towards Security Council resolution. This
claimed that hostilities were practically at an end and that
Netherlands having achieved aims of order and security would
proceed to political settlement with view to Federal Interim
Government. Military observers were again permitted to be
despatched to the field. Ukraine after explaining non-attendance
last week as due to French Consular refusal in New York to give
him visa expressed at length the views of his delegation which
followed precisely lines of Malik's statement last week. He then
presented a resolution as follows-

'The Security Council considers it necessary that Netherlands
troops should be withdrawn immediately to the positions which they
occupied before military operations against the Indonesian
Republic were renewed.'

U.S.S.R. claimed that Netherlands reply was a straightforward
refusal on part of the Dutch to comply with cease-fire. They were
continuing their military action and, therefore, Soviet Union
presented following resolution-

'The Security Council noting that the Netherlands Government has
so far failed to put an end to military operations against
Indonesian Republic orders military operations to cease within
twenty-four hours of adoption of present resolution.'

Syria claimed that in view of circumstances of Netherlands
statement time for cease-fire to be effective had already passed.

only thing that would be gained was release of prisoners and
unless Security Council ordered withdrawal it would in fact have
done nothing.

India stated that Netherlands statement at best played for time
and at worst rejected Council resolution. Council was not even
told when it would receive final decision of Netherlands. It was
unreal to suggest that political settlement might be reached with
the Republic as in practice without demarkation lines negotiations
were impossible.

Netherlands then claimed that their statement was not an outright
rejection. They had attempted to be conciliatory and had taken
cognisance of Council resolution. Question was 'How far we could
comply and when?'
Hodgson then claimed that order of Council had neither been obeyed
nor observed but had been passed backward and forward between
Netherlands and Netherlands East Indies. just what was meant by
giving to military observers chance to 'study course of events'
was obscure. All that the Council had done was to pass weak and
ineffective resolution which had surprised Australian Government
who had expected stronger action in face of flouting of Council's
previous decisions. Latest documents confirmed that functions of
Good Offices Committee had not been exhausted much less
effectively utilised. Every day's delay further prejudiced
Republic if indeed it did not mean its elimination. It was
Australia's view that there should be withdrawal to status quo
lines and suggestions of further delay should be dismissed.

Members of Security Council especially elected members were acting
on behalf of all United Nations and when they acted in such a way
as to defeat will of majority they should be prepared to explain
their motives.

United Kingdom regarded reply of Netherlands as satisfactory and
considered it would be appropriate to wait until it became clear
what they intended to do. United Kingdom would abstain on both
resolutions for this reason and because they are identical with
old Soviet resolution. It would be undignified to vote two
successive days on same thing.

Argentine regarded action of Council as no more than friendly
suggestion because of doubts of many members as to its competence.

Cease-fire was basis of matter and remaining action should be
later discussed after competence had been fully investigated.

Colombia said it would vote in favour of Ukrainian resolution
because it was in line with the original United States proposal.

The difference was exclusively that U.S.S.R. referred only to the
Dutch and the facts showed clearly that this was accurate. From
point of view of respect of Charter and Security Council the
position must be restored otherwise argument of fait accompli
would be accepted. The previous resolution was now only shadow of
a shadow.

United States declined to be put in false position by either
comments or resolutions. Its position was clear and appreciated by
Indonesians. On the other hand Indonesians have had to suppress
Communist uprisings. Withdrawal would have been adopted 'if
U.S.S.R. had had in mind the achievement of results'. While United
States not satisfied with Dutch declaration it hoped that
additional statements might be made at next meeting and United
States will abstain on any proposal before then as none of them
gave promise of assistance in forwarding task of Council.

China expressed disappointment with Netherlands response and
claimed that situation now quite different from last week as
Council was considering response to resolution. While it would be
courteous to let Netherlands make another statement later the
matter could not be allowed to rest.

Malik then made further long statement on behalf of U.S.S.R. in
which he claimed that majority of Security Council had chosen to
screen and connive at Dutch aggression. After further attack on
Good Offices Committee he claimed that original resolution had
tried to obscure responsibility from world public opinion by
sacrificing principle and logic to egotistical calculations.

United States and United Kingdom had been safe in proposing a
withdrawal when they knew there was no risk of its being passed.

United States claimed that it voted against Soviet resolution
because matter had been voted on but difference between proposals
was perfectly clear. United States was transforming Security
Council into organ for camouflaging and abetting aggression. It
was never too late to correct aggression and the earlier the
better. No more information was necessary. All Dutch were doing
was playing ball with Security Council resolution backwards and
forwards from The Hague to Batavia.

Resolutions were then put to vote with following results-
(1) Ukraine. Five in favour (Syria, China and Colombia supporting,
eastern Group and rest abstaining.

(2) U.S.S.R. Four in favour (Syria and China supporting and rest
abstaining).

Colombia then presented proposal as follows-

'The Security Council requests the Consular representatives in
Batavia to which refers paragraph five of resolution adopted at
194th meeting of Council [2] to send as soon as possible for
information and guidance of Security Council a complete report on
situation in Republic of Indonesia. Such report to cover the
observance of the cease-fire orders and the conditions prevailing
in areas under military occupation or from which armed forces now
in occupation may be withdrawn.'

This will be considered tomorrow after Council has disposed of
Egyptian complaint as regards resumptions of hostilities in Negeb
by Israel.

Netherlands referred to request for further clarification which
had been made by various delegations and stated he was not sure
Dutch would be ready to do so by tomorrow. As to the original
resolution he said that stopping of military action might lead to
more bloodshed than if it were continued.

Council adjourned after short statement from Palar who said that
Dutch aim was to comply with resolution only when military
objectives achieved. Dutch claim that there had been no serious
resistance was false as Indonesians relied on Guerrilla action
from which one could not expect spectacular results. in any event
all news was Dutch news. Faith in Security Council had been basis
of Republican policy even to the extent of endangering military
security and it was, therefore, hoped that Council will insist on
full enforcement.