501.BC Indonesia/4—2848: Telegram
The Consul General at Batavia (Livengood) to the Secretary of State
351. Gocus 248. Ourtel 247:1 Upon receipt USDel paper on timetable future phases negotiations: Vredenburch in letter DuBois stated (1) not slightest doubt his mind original target date cannot be met, (2) he fully agrees all steps must be timed on political agreement, (3) his Indonesian friends consider possible reach paper agreement with Republic but doubt Republic able implement it, though he personally somewhat less pessimistic, (4) he doubts wisdom limiting pre-plebiscite period this stage to 6 months, and (5) he considers periods suggested for last 2 phases far too short and nothing to be gained by establishing target dates probably impossible meet.
Riphagen later pointed out Netherlands could assume no responsibility for time taken to draft and ratify USI constitution, which would be purely Indonesian matter.
In GOC meeting yesterday long and somewhat sharp discussion held on USDel paper. Critchley held to view no purpose to be served by establishment timetable before political agreement reached and no harm likely result should those who expect transfer sovereignty on January 1 continue expect so for few more months. His position undoubtedly based on unwillingness apply pressure on Republic to reach political agreement. He stated frankly he believed it would make no difference if ProvFedGovt including Republic never formed at all. [Page 158] We replied only difference in our view would be that sovereignty could never be transferred. Critchley also argued there no reason why USI could not be set up by January 1. Herremans also (we believe for personal reasons) expressed view creation USI and “end GOC work” possibly by January 1. Result was stalemate on USDel proposal.
At same meeting, discussion equally long and sharp on draft pamphlet explaining Renville Agreement on which GOC has been endeavoring get agreement parties for 2 months. Pamphlet had been redrafted by USDel last week in light comments by parties on original USDel draft, NethDels comments having taken form of rewritten pamphlet received 6 weeks after submission original. Drafting of current version (after talks with Riphagen) very ticklish owing extraordinary sensibilities parties. However, GOC subcommittee approved draft with minor changes with exception statement plebiscite will be held throughout Java, Madura and Sumatra unless parties agree plebiscite not most satisfactory method delineating states. Cutts2 wished substitute original Renville phrase “in the various territories of Java, Madura and Sumatra”. Argument continued in GOC meeting, in which USDel pointed out Dutch campaign propagandizing of Republic contention plebiscite to be confined Netherlands areas, would not accept pamphlet without specific statement plebiscite to be held throughout 3 islands, which we stated we considered fully justified. Critchley defended Republic position and maintained even if plebiscite held Republic areas, Republic must be treated as unit with voters offered choice merely voting for or against inclusion in Republic. We noted this directly contrary letter of principle. Herremans suggested “compromise” statement that “unless parties agree there more satisfactory method, plebiscite will determine what states to be in Java, Madura and Sumatra.” We had no choice but accept in order avoid position opposed both other delegates. Hence onus rejecting pamphlet will be on Dutch.
Incompetence Herremans resulting increasing embarrassment USDel and evidently giving Claeys Bollaert much concern.
Department pass Hague.3