PARIS, 29 December 1948 Cablegram 299

Security Council 29th December. [1]

Meeting opened with promised statement by Dutch, of which relevant
passages are as follows:

1. Hostilities are in the course of being terminated. In any event
hostilities in Java will, as far as the Netherlands are concerned,
cease at the latest on 31st December at 2400 hours. With a view to
the special emergency in Sumatra, the cessation of hostilities
there cannot be effectuated Until 2 or 3 days later. It will of
course remain necessary 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 the needy population.

2. As the restriction of the freedom of movement of a number of
prominent personalities was the inevitable consequence of military
measures which were taken and which will now shortly come to an
end, the Netherlands Government will thereupon lift this
restriction, on the understanding that the persons concerned will
refrain from activities endangering public security.

3. To further constructive co-operation in rebuilding the whole of
Indonesia, the Netherlands Government has decided that the Prime
Minister, Dr. Drees, will leave for Indonesia within a few days.

4. In order to assist in the carrying out of the request of the
Security Council to be fully informed regarding the situation
since 12 December, the Netherlands Government has already declared
that all possible facilities will be granted to the military
observers and their staff. The necessary facilities will also be
given to the members of the Consular Committee.

United Kingdom hoped Dutch would press on to future without regard
to unhappy past. UK would regard further resolutions on subject as
harmful, especially in view of doubts as to competence of Council.

Council has behaved with impetuosity on matter and assumed too
readily functions of court of summary justice. Council has desired
to proceed too fast in view of complexities of matter. All
colonial problems complex by their nature. Those who have the
honour, the Soviet would say disgrace, to administer them know
this. If necessary, the matter can be considered again in New
York.

India and Syria both spoke along same lines to effect that
termination of hostilities had nothing whatsoever to do with
Council's order but was simply because Dutch were satisfied with
military progress. Reference to 'disturbing elements' meant that
Dutch would not even cease hostilities on dates mentioned. As to
release of prisoners position equally unsatisfactory.

USSR claimed that Dutch action was that of aggressor flouting
Council. All we were told was that they wanted a few more days
completely to stifle the Republic. Council's orders had been
unconditional and Dutch had chosen their own conditions. UK
statement proved that it shielded the Netherlands. The
responsibility for the position that had arisen lay squarely with
US and UK majority. Members of Council must ask themselves whether
to stop Dutch aggression or do nothing and thereby do serious harm
to UN. Does majority now intend to take action?
Netherlands expressed disappointment with reaction of Council and
described Soviet criticisms as nothing but propaganda and
distortion of facts. Van Royen claimed that never before had a
state made such formal and binding statements as the Dutch had.

US said that question was not one of making statements but what
they contained and it was clear that Dutch had not told Council
that either of Council's requirements had been complied with. The
Netherlands did realise seriousness of the matter by their
reference to the intentions of the Dutch Prime Minister, but one
could only regret that such action was not taken before armed
force was used. No additional resolution was necessary to bring
out the fact of non compliance. one read that the SC and UN had
failed because of this but this was not necessarily so. The
condition of the people in Indonesia would have been very
different had not the Council dealt with it. If the matter were
not on the agenda then Netherlands would not have sense of
restraint. It was belief of the US that work of the Council had
produced conditions which give the people of Indonesia real hope
for the future. it was not always feasible to pass additional
resolutions or to propose those which will not be passed. The case
was not finished in the Council. The US would return in no
despondent way armed with reports from GOC and Consular Commission
and it was hoped from the Netherlands that it had been able to
comply with the Council's wishes. Matter would be on agenda in
January and Council could approach final solution from a further
advanced base than now.

China did not think any useful purpose could be served by further
consideration in Paris and reserved its position in full to Lake
Success.

Hodgson said that his delegation had waited for positive
proposals. The four permanent members had spoken without purpose.

The Dutch claimed that the Council had given no attention to
positive points of compliance but there were and are none. Their
statement was no more than the presentation of a fait accompli and
by the time the Council took the matter up again in New York it
would not only be fait accompli but complete liquidation of
Republic. Was not point of cease-fire to preserve integrity and
independence of Republic? Why then can party to whom order was
addressed fail to comply until he has finished his military
operations? It was not a case of non compliance; it was a case of
violation. As to the prisoners now that Soekarno had been removed
from Java what was point of releasing him? Practical fact was that
they are still in confinement and it will be a long time before
they get back to Java. As to military observers Council did not
know whether they were to be completely free and could use their
aircraft. Australia had been accused of being unfriendly to
Netherlands. NEI is our closest neighbour. During war we gave aid
to the Dutch in military and economic fields to reorganise
themselves for a return to NEI but the war was fought for the
sanctity of international obligations and we stand behind the UN.

We have tried to make SC work and we feel there has been loss of
faith and destruction of hope in UN largely from failure of
Council. It has failed in this particular case. Effective action
was needed and yet UK has told us that Council acted with too much
alacrity. Australia hopes before the rot goes too far that in this
case in New York and in future cases the Council would show a
little more decision, a little more good sense and little more
courage.

The Ukraine spoke along lines of USSR classing Netherlands reply
as impudent and provocative and after further speech from Malik in
which he said that UK had answered no to his question as to
whether Council should do more and the US apparently regarded the
Hitlerite junket of the Netherlands Prime Minister as
justification for no further action. The Council after the usual
expressions of seasonal good will adjourned to New York.