Foreign Relations of the United States, 1947, The Far East, Volume VI

501.BC/8–2147: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the Embassy in the Netherlands

confidential
us urgent
niact

Washington, August 21, 1947—7 p.m.

430. Following are the points which Herschel Johnson will cover in a statement to be made before the Security Council on Aug 22:

(1) The US Govt has given considerable thought to the problems arising in connection with the cessation of hostilities in Indonesia. We believe that the Security Council acted properly and in conformity with the Charter in calling upon the parties to cease hostilities. Specifically, the US considers that para (a) of the Council’s resolution of Aug 1 is, so far as the Charter is concerned, a provisional measure under Article 40. It is hardly necessary to emphasize the seriousness with which the US believes the Council should take into account a failure by the parties to comply with such a measure.

(2) We had hoped that the provisional measure which the Security Council took on Aug 1 would result in action by the parties which would clearly indicate that hostilities had in fact ceased and that a situation had been created in which the parties might adjust their difficulties by peaceful means. There have, however, been reports that acts of violence in the area have continued and which indicate that observation of the cease fire, by an agency of the Council, is in order.

(3) We believe that the Council should do everything within its competence under the Charter to create conditions which will facilitate agreement between the parties. We believe that the best way to create such conditions at the present time is to despatch an agency of the Council immediately to the area concerned to observe the steps taken by the parties in compliance with the cease fire order of August 1. If this task is undertaken by the Council and is pursued properly and effectively, there is no doubt that the Council would thereby be making a major contribution to a just and lasting settlement of the dispute.

(4) The US considers that it is the parties themselves who ultimately bear the responsibility for determining the method and the terms of such a settlement. The US believes this to be true quite apart from any question of the jurisdiction of the Security Council in the settlement of the merits of this case. The US believes that the Council should not impose or attempt to impose a particular method of pacific settlement upon the parties. To do so would not contribute to a lasting or just settlement.

(5) The question of the Council’s jurisdiction as to the merits of this case is a very real one; a question which may not be passed over lightly. The constitutional history of the building of the federal structure of the US itself affords ample evidence as to how seriously this Govt regards matters of jurisdiction domestically; we have no less regard for such matters in the field of international affairs. The US considers there is room for doubt as to the Council’s jurisdiction in so far as a settlement of the merits of the Indonesian question is concerned.

(6) We recognize that, in the final analysis, the Council itself can alone determine under the Charter whether it has jurisdiction in any question before it. However, we also recognize that the very real doubt that several members of the Council have regarding the Council’s jurisdiction as to the merits of the case before us might very well be alleviated by an advisory opinion from the International Court of Justice. The Council would remain free, of course, while the International Court is deliberating, to take such action in conformity with the Charter as the Council may deem necessary to maintain international peace. Taking these considerations into account, the US believes that the Council should not hesitate to refer the question of its jurisdiction in this case to the International Court and the US is prepared to support a proposal to that effect.

(7) The US proposes that the Council tender its good offices to the parties. In so doing the Council does not raise any question whatsoever as to its competence in this matter. Further, the question of the Council’s jurisdiction would not arise at any stage in the exercise of such good offices since, at each stage, whatever service the Council rendered would be upon the express request of the parties themselves. Specifically, should the parties accept the Council’s tender of good offices they could, for example, request it, through its agency, to act as a mediator or conciliator in suggesting a method of settlement. Or they could ask it to perform any other service they desired. So long as both parties joined in such requests, there is obviously no limit to the service the Council could perform in facilitating a just and lasting settlement of this dispute.⁶

Lovett

6. The text of the statement as actually made by Ambassador Johnson on August 22 is printed in SC, 2nd yr., pp. 2175–2179. Ambassador Johnson concluded his statement by submitting a draft resolution (Document S/514) as follows:

   “The Security Council

   Resolves to tender its good offices to the parties in order to assist in the pacific settlement of their dispute, in accordance with paragraph (b) of the resolution of the Council of 1 August 1947. The Council expresses its readiness, if the parties so request, to assist in the settlement through a committee of the Council consisting of three members of the Council, each party selecting one, and the third to be designated by the two so selected.” (Ibid., p. 2179, footnote 1.)

   The resolution was adopted by the Council on August 25 (ibid., p. 2209).