Following Security Council's resolution [1] of December 28th, the
Consular Commission met this afternoon.

2. Tsiang, the Chairman felt that there was nothing could be done
by the Commission which could not be done more effectively by the
Good Offices Committee. However, the Belgian and French members
argued that the Council must fully have considered the position of
the Commission, and its latest resolution was a direct request to
the Commission which could not be ignored. Other members also,
while agreeing with Tsiang, felt that since all of their
Governments had voted in favour they were obliged to try and
implement the resolution. They were accordingly not prepared to
consider the arguments (a) that in view of practical difficulties
involved in observing any cease-fire orders when there were no
demarcation lines and the lack of facilities i.e. aircraft, jeeps,
military observers, with which Commission might conduct a thorough
investigation; and (b) that even were these difficulties resolved
the Good Offices Committee with its detailed register and
experienced staff could more effectively provide the Council with
the required information. The French argued that military
observers were only on loan from the Commission and could be
withdrawn at any time. The British member and I argued that this
would mean interference with the Committee and any question of
using the Committee's facilities should be a matter for the
Security Council. On the question of whether the Dutch would allow
the Commission the freedom to investigate now denied the
Committee, the French by his assurance that this matter would be
so, indicated that he had private advice from the Dutch.

3. It was finally decided that Tsiang should confer with the
Chairman of the Committee concerning duplication of the function
between the two bodies and the position regarding the Committee's
facilities and that he should ask the Dutch whether they would
permit such facilities to be used freely by the Commission.

4. A cable was sent to the Security Council reporting that the
Commission was investigating means of complying with the Council
resolution and stating assumption that the composition of the
Commission, Australia, Belgium, China, France, United Kingdom and
the United States of America was in accordance with the intention
of the resolution. This point was included because, at the
beginning of the meeting, the Belgian and French members had
queried the position of Australia and Belgium in the next year
when neither would be members of the Security Council and so
possibly not entitled to Commission membership in the terms of the
resolution of August 25th, 1943. [2]