See our en clair report [1] of this afternoon's proceedings.

1. Strong support for both resolutions this afternoon is
indicative of [increasing] [2] Council irritation with delaying
tactics of the Dutch whose repeated statements about the prestige
of their Government and the undesirability of resolutions which
might be construed as censuring them are not helping their case.

2. The United Kingdom, contrary to McNeil's assurances this
morning to Beasley, was again represented by Falla, who once more
did not vote for positive action on the grounds that the Dutch
should be allowed to tell the Council what they propose to do.

Outspoken comments, both on the part of Syria and Colombia as to
the motives underlying the voting on various withdrawal proposals,
may have cleared the air a little and it is possible that if the
Dutch continue to regard the Security Council directions as no
more than pious hopes to be ignored some basis of agreement for
firm action may be reached.

3. The Colombian resolution [3] does not appear to add very much
as the Council has plenty of information on which to base its
decisions. The last sentence of the resolution is obscure. I
endeavoured privately to see what other members of the Council
thought it really meant. Nobody understood or understands it but
we did not raise the question as it can be subjected to a wide
interpretation which suits our purpose. The clear view of the
majority of the members of the Council was that it would provide
for a report on the question of the practicability of withdrawal
to the positions held on December 18th.