501.BC Indonesia/12–3147: Telegram
The Acting Secretary of State to the Consulate General at Batavia
us urgent
380. For Graham No. 41. Dept grateful excellent reporting and analysis urtels 64, 67 to 71, 73 and 74.97 Dept still believes final recommendation urtel 69, Dec 20 must be made by GOC as free agent on the [Page 1100] spot. Dept appreciates, however, considerations which have prompted request urtel 69 that it relate choice of alternatives to overall US foreign policy. Dept therefore proposes to set forth below major considerations of US policy which should determine the ambit of choice of alternatives, Paras 1 and 2, urtel 68, Dec 20. These follow:
(1) Netherlands is strong proponent US policy in Europe. Dept believes that stability present Dutch Govt would be seriously undermined if Netherlands fails to retain very considerable stake in NEI, and that the political consequences of failure present Dutch Govt would in all likelihood be prejudicial to US position in Western Europe. Accordingly, Dept unfavorable to any solution requiring immediate and complete withdrawal Netherlands from Indies or any important part thereof. (2) US has long favored self-government or independence for peoples who are qualified to accept consequent responsibilities. Therefore, Dept favorably disposed to solution providing Netherlands sovereignty for limited period and setting date in future for independence of Indonesians, both Republican and non-Republican. Construction of USI under continued Netherlands sovereignty for limited period with view to incorporation independent USI in Neth-Indo Union or Commonwealth system is consonant, in Dept view, with this principle. (3) Dept desires speediest acceleration trade between all of Indonesia and rest of world. This desire of long standing now heightened by tremendous burden imposed on US ability to supply consumer goods under Marshall Plan. In this connection, for your info, careful estimates recently completed by Dept disclose indispensability of NEI as supplier of food and other commodities to meet needs under ERP. Therefore, Dept unfavorably disposed toward any solution which likely to protract existing disorder in NEI. (Para. 2 urtel 68)
Not as statements of pertinent US policy but rather as practical suggestions which Dept hopes will be helpful to USDel in making final recommendation following views set forth: (a) Dept regards attempts to induce reversal of Dutch program for formation USI in so far as establishment new states concerned is unrealistic and in some respects undesirable; (b) Dept believes Dutch will accept plan set forth para 3 urtel 69 if interim period of continued Dutch sovereignty is provided so that Dutch will have opportunity to prepare for end of period of sovereignty, and so that Dutch will have opportunity during interim period to convince Indos of their mutual dependence on each other. If Dutch realize that they are committed to withdrawal at end of interim period they will be constrained to make most genuine possible efforts to lay groundwork for practical voluntary permanent relationship.
[Page 1101]Dept’s opinion that while Dutch may now hope to organize USI subject Neth sovereignty, they do not expect to remain sovereign in USI for more than few years. It is Dutch hope that USI will remain within a Dutch Commonwealth system, but they are prepared to face contingency that USI will elect complete independence at end of that period, provided that they are given opportunity interim period to demonstrate at least mutual advantages of economic association.
Above principles and observations do not appear conflict with proposals already made by GOC in Basic Statement and Annex 1 as described urtel 75.98 Is Dept correct in assuming under Annex 2 that (a) sovereignty of all NEI lodges in Dutch throughout interim period; (b) elections under para 5e would be for purpose of determining whether each area would be autonomous component of USI or part of Republic or other component within USI; (c) Final political affiliation within USI of newly created Dutch-sponsored states would be determined by elections envisaged in para 5e, but administration would remain as presently established? What provisions can, in your judgment, be made to insure adequate protection of civil and property rights within territory to be taken over by Republic for administrative purposes, as suggested para 5(b) urtel 75? In respect to foregoing following observations may be pertinent: It would seem to us important that question of interim sovereignty be unequivocally settled in any proposed definitive agreement. It seems equally important that administrative control of disputed territories be not returned to Republican authorities without adequate guarantees that orderly conditions will in fact prevail. Dept recognizes that plebiscites to determine political affiliation will inevitably be influenced toward whatever authority holds administrative control at time such plebiscites are held, and considers that conditions for free expression popular will probably less favorable under Republic control than under Dutch. Therefore the status of the newly-created states during interim period seems crucial.
Dept commends initiative GOC in suggesting to parties overall program for settlement. Foregoing observations offered in hope that they will prove useful to USDel in discussions occasioned by Dutch and Republican responses to GOC proposals (urtel 75).
Send Batavia as 380. Repeat The Hague as 614 (for info. Ambassador or Chargé d’Affaires only).