IMMEDIATE

Security Council 28th December. [2]

Consideration of Indonesia did not commence until late this
afternoon after Council had decided to defer voting on British
resolution calling for cease-fire in Negeb, until tomorrow.

In addition to Colombian resolution reported last night Council
was faced with Chinese resolution as follows-

'The Security Council noting that the Netherlands Government has
not so far released the President of the Republic of Indonesia and
all other political prisoners as required by the resolution of
24th December, 1948, calls upon the Netherlands Government to set
free these political prisoners forthwith and report to the
Security Council within 24 hours of the adoption of present
resolution.'

The meeting began with a Netherlands statement to the effect that
the Dutch Government was not yet in a position to inform the
Council as to its attitude as consultation was still proceeding
between Holland and the Netherlands East Indies. The Indonesians
then claimed that Dutch had no intention of releasing prisoners
and that it was the Republic's view that the violation of the
truce had been made for the very purpose of capturing them.

Palar urged adoption of Chinese resolution. China said that by now
Council might have hoped that Dutch would have cleared up doubts.

The release of prisoners would have been simple thing and it was
inescapable duty of the Council to adopt Chinese resolution which
might retrieve in part the authority and prestige of the Council.

The Netherlands claimed that the Chinese resolution differed from
that of the 24th in that note [of] censure was introduced and
asked for delay until he could give statement tomorrow that might
clear up the matter.

Syria contended that there was no connection between tomorrow's
statement and resolution.

United Kingdom agreed in principle with the Chinese resolution but
felt it would be better to accede to request of Netherlands for
delay and he would, therefore, abstain.

U.S.S.R. said that Council was facing overt sabotage on both
counts by Netherlands who were counting on their protectors in
Council to take them under their wing. Quite correctly Netherlands
felt they could flout Security Council.

United Kingdom found it possible to propose cease-fire in
Palestine which U.S.S.R. supported. Why does representative lapse
into reticence on Indonesia? This policy was one of favouritism
and prejudice as opposed to principle and it undermined the
Council.

Chinese proposal supported but U.S.S.R. felt it should go further
and propose end to military action and immediate withdrawal.

United States regarded matter of prisoners as a situation calling
for special action and was prepared to vote immediately for
Chinese proposal.

India pointed out that prestige of Council as well as that of
Holland which was claimed by Van Royen was involved in this
matter. Clearly the word forthwith had not yet been understood by
the Dutch. Only two days remained in Paris before Council
adjourned until 6th January and time was precious.

Hodgson pointed out that a resolution of the Council now five days
old had been infringed and reminded Council of mandatory character
of article 25 of the charter. There might well be note of censure
in proposals now coming before Council. He confessed himself
unable to understand attitude of United Kingdom either today or
yesterday. Could it be said that waiting for Netherlands to make
up its mind protected prestige of Council. Council had new
resolutions before it in the hope that members might reconsider
their views on the need for positive action and the Chinese
resolution was to be commended.

Malik intervened again to state that Dutch claim that prisoners
were only under house arrest was totally irrelevant. Point was
that prisoners were detained. As to Dutch promises of statement
tomorrow it should by now be clear to them that Security Council
was becoming rather impatient.

Falla defended United Kingdom attitude on resolutions by claiming
that he had abstained on Ukrainian withdrawal proposal because the
appeal was one sided.

The Chinese resolution was then put to vote and passed by 8
favour, o against, 3 abstentions (France, Belgium and United
Kingdom).

Council then passed to Colombian resolution [3] which was
introduced by its sponsor with statement to effect that all
hostilities should be settled in first place by withdrawal of
troops to stabilise position for negotiations. It was possible
that withdrawal had been defeated because delegations did not have
information that this proposal was designed to provide. This
method might avoid objections of Dutch to Good Offices Comm[ittee]
carrying out such functions.

U.S.S.R. opposed because of nature of body to carry out Security
Council functions. Officially Security Council did not know what
nations had consular representatives and in any event adoption of
resolution would affect resolution of 24th by duplicating
information function which had been given to Good Offices
Committee. The mention of withdrawal in the Colombian proposal was
positively misleading as it led to erroneous impression that
Council was doing something that it was not. Colombia pointed out
that while it would prefer straight out withdrawal proposal this
seemed impossible and even this admittedly imperfect resolution
might achieve something.

Syria supported Colombia because of mention of withdrawal in last
sentence. He criticised both United States and U.S.S.R. for
motives leading them to frustrate will of Council on withdrawal.

Netherlands said that if Syrian interpretation was correct then he
would oppose it very strongly. Consuls were accredited to
Netherlands and it would be wrong to afford to them a right of
supervision. To bring back a reference to withdrawal through the
back door would be harmful and incorrect.

Belgium and France announced that they would support resolution
because question of competence of Council was not involved even if
interpreted as Syria had stated.

United States also announced support in view of Colombian
assurance that resolution did not cut across or cast a slight on
excellent work of Good Offices Committee but merely sought to
supplement it. The resolution was then passed with slight drafting
changes by 9 votes to 0 with two abstentions (U.S.S.R. and
Ukraine).