Indonesia.

1. I have been puzzled as to course of action. You will appreciate
the restraints experienced here very largely resulting from a
feeling that any action taken by Australia to bring matter to
Security Council would be politically unacceptable and interpreted
as sympathy with position of waterside workers and their backers.

Moreover, McNeil expressed to Beasley view that it is important
not to raise matter in Security Council which would bring Russia
into area. [2]

2. My own estimation of opinion here is that action by Australia
would be welcomed. That is certainly view consistent with press
leaders. On second point, the matter is likely, in any case, to go
to Security Council and, this being the case, it would be
preferable for us to bring matter than for some other State such
as India.

3. Watersiders have reimposed ban. [3] Teppema has publicly
stated, 'We ask Australian people to leave us alone. There is no
war. It is a police action.' [4] United States have decided on a
policy of 'hands off' [5] and it is clear United Kingdom in fact
adopting same policy, though professing willingness to mediate, if
requested. [6]

4. Meanwhile, Sjahrir has left for India [7] and Sjarifoeddin, in
broadcast from Djokjakarta, made personal appeal to various
countries and persons, naming Australia and yourself [8] Precise
action sought not clear.

5. 'London Times' speaks of influence Britain, United States, and
Australia have been trying to bring to bear and is by implication
critical [of] Dutch. 'New York Times' states action cannot be
condoned and matter should come to Security Council.

6. Sjahrir at Singapore quotes Australia and India as having been
two most friendly nations and looks to them for assistance. [9]

7. Have followed up your original message London [10] and
emphasised to Beasley importance Australian initiative or at least
association with any mediation [11], but no move is imminent
because, while sympathy undoubtedly is against Dutch, no one is
prepared to act against European in favour of native Indonesian.

8. Australian vital long-term interests clearly demand unequivocal
action to express Australian sympathies. Only action which meets
the need and which is consistent with Australian policy of judging
on facts would be immediate reference appropriate body. If matter
is claimed domestic, and if in any case reference Security Council
unwise, immediate appointment Australian Commission Enquiry seems
way out. This could be done without reference either party, but
with request both parties facilitate enquiry, with view to
suggesting means terminating conflict. Difficult for Dutch to
refuse, but even so, fact of taking step puts us in good position.

This could be put forward by you in such a way as to take
advantage of press leaders' view that Australia must be active;

obviate criticism of sympathy with Indonesians and waterside
workers; and would give better reason for non-reference to
Security Council.

9. May I discuss with Prime Minister and seek concurrence in
statement by you of appointment Australian Commission of Enquiry
to ascertain facts and recommend to both parties solution?