Further to my telegram No. 5 [1] of 6th January, the Consular
Commission met again on 6th, 8th and 14th January, and 2nd
February.

2. At the fourth meeting on 6th January, the Commission considered
certain points raised by the Chairman of the Committee of Good
Offices, Mr. Critchley, concerning the Commission's cable [2] to
the Security Council seeking clarification of its task and
reporting its position in relation to the Committee and the
Military Observers. The Chairman of the Commission suggested two
minor amendments to the text which would eliminate the impression
that there was conflict between the Commission and the Committee.

The French member [3] protested that there was conflict between
the two bodies, since the Committee refused to release the
Commission's Military Observers and thus prevented the Commission
from performing its duties. It was pointed out that the Commission
had never requested the Committee to release the Military
Observers and after some discussion the French member agreed not
to maintain his objection, and the amendments to the cable were
adopted. (A copy of the cable is attached). [4] The Commission
decided not to take advantage of an invitation from Mr. Critchley
to give instructions to the Military Observers through the
Committee's Military Executive Board.

3. At the meeting on 8th January, the French member formally
proposed that the Commission withdraw its Military Observers from
the Committee. This motion was defeated by the votes of Australia,
the United Kingdom and the United States of America, with Belgium
and China abstaining. The French member then made a
statement claiming that the Commission had deliberately deprived
itself of the means of implementing the Security Council's
resolution [5] of 28th December, 1948, and reserved his position
regarding this decision. After this the Commission heard a report
from the British Military and the American Naval Consular Liaison
Officers, who had just returned from a short tour of the Java
interior at the invitation of the Netherlands Military
authorities. I understand that Mr. Critchley forwarded to you the
notes [6] on this report.

4. The Commission met for the sixth time on 14th January, to
consider a letter from the French member. The letter drew
attention to Directive No. 5 of the Committee's Military Executive
Board, in which, under the heading 'General Information', was set
out the Security Council's Resolution of 28th December, 1948,
directed to the Consular Commission; the letter pointed out that
the instructions which followed in the Directive might be
interpreted as being intended to implement this Resolution; if
this were the case, then the French member wished to make it clear
that he considered that the Committee of Good Offices was not
competent to issue such instructions and that it was for the
Commission to do this. The Commission decided to note the letter
and declare its agreement with the ideas expressed in it, but to
take no action for the time being.

5. The Commission met finally on 2nd February, and taking note of
sub-paragraph (b) of paragraph 4 of the Security Council's
Resolution [7] of 28th January, decided that there was nothing
further for it to do at present and adjourned indefinitely.