IMMEDIATE

Following is part two of Committee's report [1] telegraphed to
Security Council this afternoon seventh.

'Part two conclusions.

12. Committee is not in position to report that there has been
satisfactory compliance with subparagraph (AAA) [2] of Resolution
of twenty-fourth December which called on parties to cease
hostilities.

(A) Telegram despatched to Territorial Commanders in Java by Chief
of Staff of Royal Netherlands Indonesian Army at seventeen hundred
hours twenty-ninth December nineteen forty-eight is, according to
its terms, for information and cannot be construed as orders-Cease
hostilities forthwith';

Dissemination of order of Commander in Chief to Territorial
Commanders in Java which confirmed fact that hostilities in Java
have ended at twenty-four hundred on thirty-first December was
begun at eighteen forty-five Batavia time, second January.

In Sumatra, where-'special emergency situation'existed, parallel
order disseminated late on fourth January had an effective time of
twelve hundred fifth January nineteen forty-nine;

(B) It is noted that these orders were issued at time when
'operational phase' of military activities presumably had been
completed. Orders noted respectively that hostilities had
terminated on thirty-first December nineteen forty-eight in Java
and on fifth January nineteen forty-nine in Sumatra but charged
troops to

'carry out action against roving groups, bands or individuals, who
attempt to cause unrest or, as was stated by our representative to
Security Council, to act against disturbing elements, who either
individually or collectively endanger public security or interfere
with or prevent the supply of food and other essential commodities
to needy population'.

Orders permit continuation of every type of military action that
would be required against guerilla resistance likely to be offered
by regular or irregular republican forces;

(C) As result of immobilisation of its military observers
Committee has no first hand information as to effect of orders
discussed above;

(D) Committee is of opinion that these orders issued more than
week after adoption of resolution of twenty-four December, and
expressed as they were, cannot be looked upon as satisfactory
compliance with subparagraph A of resolution;

(E) There is no channel available to Committee for dissemination
of resolution of twenty-four December to Government or to
Commanders of Republican Army.

13. Sub-paragraph B of the Security Council's resolution of
twenty-four December, calling for immediate release of President
of Republic and other Political Prisoners, has not been
implemented. So far as Committee is aware, President Sukarno,
Vice-President Hatta and other members of Republican Government,
who were captured by Netherlands forces on nineteen December, are
still under detention. Direct questions relating to present
status, welfare and whereabouts of political prisoners, addressed
to Netherlands Delegation in our letter of twenty-fifth December
[3] (report of twenty-sixth December [4]), have not been answered.

14. As pointed out in paragraph fifteen of report of twenty-sixth
December, task imposed upon Committee by Security Council in its
resolution of twenty-four December, to observe and report upon
implementation by Parties of earlier portions of resolution, was
fraught with inherent difficulties from outset. These difficulties
include absence of demarcation lines between Armed forces of
Parties, impossibility of establishing contact with Republican
forces, and extreme difficulty in distinguishing hostilities
between parties from security measures.

15. Despite the statements to Security Council by Netherlands
Representative on twenty-seven and twenty-nine December [5],
Committee has not been in position to make independent
investigations of any kind in field for purpose of carrying out
its functions under the resolution of twenty-four December. As
result of failure of Netherlands to authorize or facilitate return
of Committee's military observers to field, they are temporarily
immobilised in Batavia and Bandung without any opportunities for
observation. It has been heard unofficially and informally that
certain military and naval liaison officers attached to some of
Consular Officials in Batavia took advantage of Netherlands offer
to conduct them on a tour of some of military areas on five and
six January. These officers are not military observers of
Committee of Good Offices and their observations are not available
to Committee even if their tour was type of field investigation
and observation required by functions of Committee.

16. If Committee of Good Offices is to continue to function, it is
requested that Security Council define respective functions of
Committee and of Consular Commission under resolutions of twenty-
four and twenty-eight December nineteen forty-nine. [6] Inability
to determine whether functions of one are at this point exclusive
of other or concurrent, and problem of to whom military observers
are primarily responsible, has already created some difficulty and
has been made an occasion for delay. It is understood that this
point has been raised independently in a telegram [7] from
Consular Commission to Security Council dated sixth January.

17. The Committee invites attention of Security Council to problem
of its present and future status.

The functions exercised under truce by Committee and its military
assistants have disappeared with truce itself. Committee was set
up under resolution of Security Council of twenty-five August
nineteen forty-seven to aid parties in reaching a Pacific
settlement of their dispute. First of twelve Renville principles
[8] provided that Committee would assist in working out and
signing of a political agreement to be achieved by negotiation.

But negotiations and methods of Pacific settlement have now been
rejected in favour of military action.

Committee feels a deep and abiding concern for welfare of
Indonesia. It does not, however, wish to be put in position of
seeming to approve by its participation, or even its
authentication, any settlement based on force rather than truce
negotiations.

Divested of broad functions it formerly exercised by change in
circumstances resulting from military action instituted on
nineteen December, there remains to Committee function of
reporting to Council under terms of resolution of twenty-four
December. Subparagraphs A and B of resolution have already been
subject of report. Committee is also called upon in resolution of
twenty-fourth December to exercise what may be looked upon as
continuing reporting function, that of reporting to Council on-

'events which have transpired in Indonesia since twelve December
nineteen forty-eight'.

Inability of Committee to carry out effectively this direction as
result of its failure to obtain permission or facilities for
return of its military observers to field has already been
emphasised as hav[ing] inherent difficulties of useful reporting
(paragraphs fourteen and fifteen [9]). But even if its military
assistants were permitted to move freely everywhere in Indonesia
without undue restrictions and were given adequate facilities it
must be emphasised that Committee itself was designed primarily as
instrument of negotiation.

These considerations inevitably raise question whether
continuation of Committee of Good Offices in present circumstances
would serve any useful purpose or would contribute to peaceful
settlement of Indonesian problem'.