Office of the Historian

501.BC Indonesia/10–2947: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin)33

secret
us urgent
Washington, October 30, 1947—7 p.m.

529. Reurtel 1114 Oct 29 Dept considers language of Belgian amendment as quoted second paragraph your telegram34 maintains essential [Page 1065] neutral US position. Accordingly we recommend you support this amendment.35

Counselor of Netherlands Embassy Helb in consultation with Dept officers this afternoon said he was in complete agreement with us that the purpose of the US resolution either in its original language or with the proposed Belgian amendment was to place the entire situation in the hands of the Good Offices Committee. (For your info we understand that proposed Belgian amendment as an interpretation of the cease-fire resolution refers both to past and future alteration of the territory occupied by either side on Aug 4.)

Dutch Counselor agrees with us that in effect SC is merely saying at this time what it meant by the resolution of Aug 1.

According to Helb it is probable that the Belgians will not directly introduce this amendment. We feel that it would be preferable for another delegation, possibly the Chinese or British, to suggest the change, since Belgium is a member of the Good Offices Committee.

You should, when the new language is proposed, give it full support.

Lovett
  1. Repeated to Batavia in telegram 292, October 31, 2 p.m. (9 for Graham).↩
  2. Text of Belgian substitute for last paragraph of American resolution is as follows: “Advise the parties concerned, the Committee of Good Offices and the Consular Commission that its resolution of August 1, 1947 should be interpreted as meaning that any substantial alteration of the territory occupied on August 4, 1947 by the parties would be inconsistent therewith.” (501.BC–Indonesia/10–2947)↩
  3. After extensive discussion on October 31 the Security Council set up a new sub-committee to examine the U. S. draft resolution and amendments (SC, 2nd yr., pp. 1700 ff.). On November 1 the Council received a draft from the sub-committee which, after considerable debate, was adopted. For text of this resolution, see telegram 296, November 3, to Batavia, p. 1068; it is also printed in SC, 2nd yr., p. 2723.↩