1. Today's debate in Council ended without votes being taken on
Colombian or Australian amendments or on Canadian draft
resolution. See summary of debate in separate cable. [1]

2.Yesterday Cadogan agreed with me privately that he would vote
for Australian amendment and would endeavour persuade Austin,
McNaughton, Arce (Argentina) and Parodi (France) to do so. Tsiang
agreed with me that he would not only vote for the amendment but
would sponsor it.

3. Before the Council met today Cadogan told me Austin would not
be persuaded and would abstain and that Parodi would not commit
himself but Cadogan thought latter certain to abstain. Canadians
said they would not vote for any amendment to their draft
resolution. Argentina said they would follow Cadogan and vote for
our amendment. In light of these facts (and with Russia and
Ukraine at best abstaining on all three motions) it appeared
certain our amendment would not be carried.

4. Later Cockram (United Kingdom) just as meeting began informed
Forsyth that United Kingdom delegation had just received cable
from Foreign Office with instructions to effect that Canadian
resolution was not to be tampered with. Cadogan without
maintaining any such instructions told me that our amendment
seemed certain not to be carried but said if it were not put to
vote he would make statement to effect that it was unnecessary
because opinion of Council was clearly to effect that Committee
itself had the right to change its procedure in the manner
indicated in proposed Australia amendment. Cadogan later told me
he was unable to vote for Australian amendment.

5. Forsyth and I then had talk with Tsiang who after conferring
with Cadogan and with ourselves made statement to the Council as
reported including following. Other representatives thought that
the idea was a good idea, that the Committee might well use that
procedure but that it was unnecessary for the Security Council to
incorporate that idea in an amendment. I think there is a great
deal to what these representatives stated and therefore I think
that the Australian amendment might well go without a vote here.

Unless there should be a challenge to that idea I would not
sponsor that amendment. If it is challenged then I would push that
matter to a vote.

6. Present indications are that (a) Colombian resolution [2] will
fail although [for] some extraordinary reason not apparent to
anybody but themselves Americans are toying with idea of
supporting it. [3]

(b) Australian amendment will not be put to vote unless Tsiang's
statement challenged but if put to vote will fail.

(c) Canadian resolution [4] will be carried unless Russia uses
veto of which Russia has given no indication one way or the other.

7. Although extremely disappointed by lack of voting support for
Australian amendment we feel that Tsiang's statement today and
Cadogan's promised statement will have same effect as far as
Committee's future practice is concerned.

8. I am considering advisability of having it suggested to Council
by Forsyth or Tsiang that Committee of Good Offices be asked to
furnish immediate report to Council as to whether Dutch are in
fact sponsoring New States in West Java and Madura and if so
whether such a practice is justified. In this regard see summary
of Van Kleffens Speech. [5]