856e.00/7–1348
Memorandum of Conversation, by the Under Secretary of State (Lovett)
| Participants: | Dr. E. N. van Kleffens, Ambassador of the Netherlands |
| Dr. Nico S. Blom, Special Adviser on Constitutional Law to the Netherlands Foreign Office | |
| Mr. Robert A. Lovett, Under Secretary of State | |
| Mr. W. S. B. Lacy, SEA | |
| Mr. Frederick W. Nolting, Jr., NOE |
The Netherlands Ambassador called to present Dr. Nico S. Blom, Special Adviser on Constitutional Law to the Netherlands Foreign Office. In the course of conversation, I told Dr. van Kleffens that I found the present state of affairs in Indonesia very unsatisfactory since it appeared to me that little progress had been made in negotiating a final political settlement during the past several months. I pointed out that it appeared to me that the areas of disagreement separating the Netherlands and the Indonesian Republic had increased in late weeks and that the position of the Republic had so hardened that I thought it highly unlikely that it would accept any proposal for a final solution which the Netherlands might be able to offer on its own initiative. I stated my view that since neither party appeared to be prepared to accept a proposal offered by the other, a compromise solution seemed called for and that such a compromise solution could be offered only by the GOC. Dr. van Kleffens and Dr. Blom appeared to agree, Dr. Blom stating that he understood that his government intended to present any proposal they had in mind first to the GOC for its comments; from further conversation it appeared that the Netherlands Government plans to continue its efforts to reach a settlement through negotiations under GOC auspices.
I expressed my concern that the Netherlands Government avoid “freezing upon a course of action” through the adoption of legislation, the effect of which would be to present the Netherlands Delegation at Batavia with a position from which they would be unable to recede in the course of negotiations before the GOC. Messrs. van Kleffens and Blom assured me that the Netherlands Government had no such intention; that the contemplated legislation was permissive in character only; and that the Cabinet was fully aware of the importance of leaving its delegation at Batavia sufficient latitude for negotiation.
I told Dr. van Kleffens that I was aware of the desire in some Netherlands circles to proceed with the formation of a federation of states in Indonesia with or without the Indonesian Republic. I pointed out to Dr. van Kleffens that such a program was tantamount to partition of [Page 283] the area. I said that the Department regarded such contingency as highly undesirable since in our opinion the preservation of the unity of the entire archipelago was extremely important not only to the Indonesian Republic but to the Dutch people and the rest of the world. Dr. van Kleffens and Dr. Blom said that it was the policy of the Netherlands Government to preserve the unity of the area and that while plans for partition of the area had been seriously considered by many Netherlander, as well as many non-Republican Indonesians, his government regarded this course of action as one of last resort. Dr. Blom added that the stimulus for this program came for the most part from the non-Republican Indonesian groups, which, he said, were continually pressing the Netherlands to take police action against the Republic. I asked Dr. van Kleffens if he considered the partition of Indonesia a practical program. After some discussion Messrs. van Kleffens and Blom appeared to be unwilling to abandon the position that such a partition could be carried out if necessary.
I reminded Dr. van Kleffens that I regarded the final objectives of the Netherlands and the US Governments in Indonesia to be similar and in many respects coincidental; and that the US Government like the Netherlands Government was eager that a solution be reached, based on the Renville principles. I asked his serious consideration of the probability that a final solution would require certain concessions to the realities of the situation at the expense of an ideal solution. Messrs. van Kleffens and Blom appeared to accept this view with sympathy and reiterated their understanding that it was in no sense the intention of the Netherlands Government to freeze upon a course of action in advance of negotiations about to be undertaken by the GOC.
In the course of general discussion it appeared to me that there was no great difference between the positions of the US and the Netherlands Governments in respect of the procedural approach to the achievement of a final settlement; it appeared that in respect of the substance of a plan which might be mutually acceptable to the Republic and the Netherlands, some areas of difference separated the Netherlands’ view from that embodied in the revised Dubois-Critchley proposal.