I take it from the absence of directions from Canberra lately that
you are as puzzled as we are here to know exactly what can be done
next to help the Indonesian matter along. Up to the present, there
has quite definitely not been a majority in the Council for doing
anything which looks like interference with the Committee of Three
or which could be regarded as putting any sort of pressure on the
Dutch. Even for the obvious and innocuous action of asking the
Committee to forward the text of the Australian/American plan [1],
we only got six votes at the last meeting. [2] All the other
suggestions current, such as increasing the powers of the
Committee, would probably not have got even that much support if
they had been put to the vote.

The reason has been, of course, that both the Americans and the
British, on account of other considerations, have not wanted to
put the screw on the Dutch, especially in advance of the general
election in Holland. But at the same time I know that neither of
them has swallowed the Dutch line of propaganda which Van Kleffens
has been putting out in the Council to the effect that everything
is going alright and that the parties should be left to settle
matters between themselves on the spot. The British have told me
privately that in the recent period the Foreign Office has been
telling the Dutch to go carefully and not overreach themselves
either with the Security Council or in the local negotiations. The
Americans also say that they are not at all taken in by Van
Kleffens' soothing reassurances. One of their delegation told me
last week that the State Department is getting more than a little
tired of Dutch manoeuvrings and delaying tactics. They were
prepared to let the Dutch go over their election period, but if
still nothing happened in Batavia within a very short time after,
they would want to know from the Dutch exactly what the latter
were aiming to do. The delegation here is satisfied that the
Australian/American paper is a good approach and would be quite
happy to see the discussions go ahead on that basis, but they want
to save the face of the Dutch as much as they can and are
therefore thinking whether some other way can be found of bringing
the plan back in again, but in some form different from that which
the Dutch have already turned down two or three times.

I think therefore we can reasonably expect a bit more support from
now on in trying to get the Council to take a more active interest
in [the] [3] Batavia talks. I judge that even Belgium is becoming
a bit embarrassed in having to back Van Kleffens up every time in
the face of the very specific charges of delay and prevarication
which Palar, ourselves and others have made in the Council, and
would like some sign that the Dutch intend to pay attention to
such criticism. Although the Council has so far done nothing about
it, it is my impression, and that of others, that the Dutch case
has of late not gone down any too well in the Council as a whole,
and that the idea has really begun to sink in that things are not
going in the way in which the Council meant them to go earlier in
the year, the fault not being with the Republic. At least a
certain persistence has resulted in the position being brought out
into the light of day, and I don't see how the Council, having
gone this far, can with any credit to itself now let the matter
drop. One thing that would help would be much more frequent
reports from the Committee, even if they are short and incomplete
as they arrive. Otherwise it is too easy for the Council to find
the excuse of waiting until a 'full review' is received from the
Committee, which may not be easily digestible when it comes
anyway.