Security Council (Indonesia) 28th February [1]

1. Ro[mu]lo (Philippines). Renville was forced on Republic by
Dutch Ultimatum. Federation a device to divide and rule. Movement
for freedom stopped by armed force. Only Security Council
intervention prevented extinction of Republic. Guarantees
necessary for implementation of principles.

Chinese, Colombian and Kirby proposals should be adopted. To
remove technical objections [2] suggested change nature of
Committee and give it powers of publicity, observation, immediate
report to Council.

2. Arce (Argentine). Rebuttal of Soviet view that Powers forced
agreement on Republic. Constitution of Committee ensured free
negotiation.

3. judge Kirby. Rejected inference by French and Dutch
Representatives that suggestion of positive action by Committee
was not agreed to by other members of Committee. [3] Only
difference was as to whether formal Council Resolution was needed.

Van Zeeland was not in favour of formal Council Resolution. Dr.

Graham supported Chinese view that Committee could act without
such resolution. Agreed with this.

4. Sastroamijojo (Indonesia). Council should get early report from
Committee on West Java Conference. Contradicted Van Kleffens'
picture of situation instancing imprisonment and expulsion
Indonesian leaders, treatment of political offences as criminal,
lack of freedom of speech and present lack of consultation of
Republic concerning West Java and suppression of Plebiscite
movement. Unilateral action contrary to principles.

5. Van Kleffens (Netherlands) rejected charges. Differences of
view as to implementation nothing new. This merely showed
Committee still had work to do.

6. Tsiang (China). Netherlands statements on new States not clear.

Essential Council should get impartial picture. Moved formally as
follows- 'The Security Council requests the Committee of Good
Offices to pay particular attention to the political developments
in West Java and Madura and to report to the Council thereon at
frequent intervals'. Tsiang went on to give examples of questions
in which Council would be interested. How are Conferences set up,
how conducted, are they intended to by-pass Plebiscites. Explained
that motion not intended to prejudge but Council must have
accurate information.

7. Austin (United States). Three Renville requirements-
(1) No stifling of popular movements;

(2) At all times freedom of speech and Assembly;

(3) Six to twelve months after political agreement plebiscites.

It is view of United States Government that any new States
formally temporarily formed must be under conditions (1) and (2).

Whether conditions observed is question of fact. Therefore
supports Chinese proposal.

8. Belgium wished to amend last phrase to read when it thinks fit
but agreed not to press when Tsiang said it would be for Committee
to interpret.

9. Kirby stated he and Graham would welcome adoption of Chinese
proposal which was briefly supported also by Syria, Colombia,
Philippines.

10. Chinese Resolution adopted, 8 for, nil against, Argentina,
Ukraine and Soviet abstaining.

11. Chairman turned to proposed amendments to Canadian Resolution.

Forsyth stated briefly that in view of Kirby and China Statements
felt it unnecessary to urge adoption of Australian proposal.

12. Van Kleffens stated Netherlands Government does not concur in
the Australian proposal. [4]

13. Lopez (Colombia) then made long diffuse speech in support of
Colombian proposals (Document S/65z). [5]

14. Parodi (France). Committee worked for conciliation. Worked in
silence.

Results good. Committee can certainly make suggestions but
publicity can be given through report to Council. Could not
support Colombian proposal. Will vote for Canada proposal.

15. El Khouri (Syria) supported Colombian proposal. Would have
supported Australian proposal and its withdrawal does not mean
Committee cannot make suggestions.

16. Vote on Colombian proposal by parts-
(A) Five for, Belgium against, France, Soviet, Ukraine, Argentine,
United Kingdom abstaining.

(B) Four for, Belgium and Canada against, same five abstaining.

(Third paragraph). Same vote as (B).

17. Vote on Canadian Resolution. Seven for, nil against, Soviet,
Ukraine, Colombia and Syria abstaining.

18. Van Kleffens (Netherlands). Resolution refers only to our
conflict with the Republic and nothing else.

19. Chairman stated context makes this clear.

20. Colombia asked assurance that West Java question was not
removed from purview by Van Kleffens' last statement. Chairman in
name of Council gave this assurance.