INDONESIA

My 208. [1]

1. Council today adopted by 8 votes the following text of message
to U.N.C.I.

proposed by Canada.

'It is the sense of the Security Council that U.N.C.I., in
accordance with the
Council's resolution [2] of 28th January, 1949, and without
prejudicing the rights, claims and position of the parties, should
assist the parties in reaching agreement as to,
(a) The implementation of the Council's resolution of 28th January
and in particular paragraphs 1 and 2 of the operative part
thereof, and,
(b) The time and conditions for holding the proposed conference at
The Hague to the end that the negotiations contemplated by the
resolution of 28th January may be held as soon as possible. It is
further the sense of the Council that if such an agreement is
reached, the holding of such a conference and the participation of
U.N.C.I. in accordance with its terms of reference would be
consistent with the purposes and objectives of the Council's
resolution of 28th January, 1949'. [3]

2. Soviet Union, Ukraine and France abstained on the vote, the
last on the grounds that the competence of the Council was
doubtful.

3. In preceding discussion, India and Australia both stated
reasons for objection to Canadian text. We spoke strongly on
previous lines adding reference to The Hague as location of the
conference, but it was obvious that, at the opening of the
meeting, United States, Canada and the United Kingdom had
succeeded in persuading Cuba and Egypt to support the adoption of
the formula. Cuban representative told me afterwards that although
he still disliked the terms of the formula, he felt that it was
necessary to fall in with the United States and Canada in order to
get something done by the Council. Egypt stated that they
supported the text on the understanding that until the Republican
Government had definitely been re-established, no attempt would be
made to carry out the remaining parts of direction to the
Commission.

4. The above decision of the Council is unsatisfactory and to some
extent unexpected as I had understood that both Cuba and Egypt
would maintain their objections referred to in my 208. Netherlands
representative [4] said that he could make no comment on the
Canadian formula without directions from his Government, but I am
informed that Netherlands acceptance is probable on their own
interpretation of what the formula means. However, Canadians
mention that they have received an assurance from the Netherlands
that there will be no objection 'In principle' to re-establishment
of the Republican Government.

5. It would be useful if Critchley could be informed that the
interpretation
given to the formula by Egypt was not challenged in the Council.

It would be desirable if the Commission could send some
preliminary comments or report in the light of the Council's
decision in time for the next meeting which has been fixed for
Monday, 28th March.