Foreign Relations of the United States, 1948, The Far East and Australasia, Volume VI

501.BC Indonesia/8–2848: Telegram

The Consul General at Batavia (Livengood) to the Secretary of State

secret

Batavia, August 28, 1948—4 p. m.

734. Gocus 362. Following up our conversation of August 25 with Schuurman (Gocus 360, August 26), we had a further talk with him on August 28, in which following problems were discussed:

1. We pointed out that decision to proceed with enactment of draft act for administrative regulations during the interim period, whether or not a “satisfactory agreement” had been reached with the Republic (see telegram 529 dated August 19 from Embassy Hague¹), in addition to making resumption negotiations with Republic more difficult, would call for the most careful coordination of our plans with those of Hague. We explained that, as we understood it, present draft act deals solely with phase A of interim period, whereas negotiations with Republic would necessarily be concerned with phase B. We said that situation might become hopelessly confused if Government in Hague were to proceed with legislation on phase A while we were attempting to resume negotiations dealing with phase B.

2. We recalled to Schuurman his and Neher’s estimate that the present draft act could not become law before October 1 since it was intended to consult views of (1) Bandung group; (2) NEI Government and (3) Republic before submitting a final draft to States General. We emphasized the desirability of consulting the views of the Republic on the draft act even though it could be anticipated that their reaction to it in its present form would be negative. We pointed out also that we did not believe resumption of negotiations with Republic could be delayed until October 1 in view of pressure now being exerted on the present Government at Jogja. We listed these pressures as being (1) apparent stiffening in attitude of Netherlands as exemplified by recent steps taken by NEI Government; (2) increasingly tempting character of Russian offer in such circumstances; (3) possibility of carrying whole issue back to SC on grounds that (a) Netherlands had put forward no acceptable basis for negotiations which had been suspended since June and (b) apparent impotence of GOC to put forward an acceptable plan itself. In connection with latter point, we said that Critchley, at GOC meeting August 26, had observed that GOC would be failing in its duty if it did not inform SC of existing situation. Critchley had also said that GOC should seek instructions from Council as to how Committee might make an effective contribution to breach present deadlock and work out speedy settlement.

3. Cochran told Schuurman it had been his understanding with Netherlands officials in Hague they would provide USDel soonest with as much material as they could supply that would be of use in formulating basis for working paper that might lead to plan for negotiation of political agreement with Republic, whether this plan be set forth as Netherlands Delegation proposal or GOC proposal. He added it had been his impression that Hague anticipated effort would be made to recommence discussions and negotiations toward political agreement while bill for implementing constitutional amendments still in process of formulation, and that results of our discussions and negotiations would be considered enactment.

4. Finally we told Schuurman that we wished to avoid a possible serious conflict on timing and that we hoped his delegation had presented the increasingly difficult situation here clearly to Hague.

5. In reply to foregoing, Schuurman assured us that on basis his present information from Hague there was no real possibility of conflict mentioned in Paragraph 1 above arising since he believed Hague still intended that negotiations regarding implementation of Renville principles be undertaken here concurrently with continuation of discussions with Bandung group which, he expected, would be resumed after the jubilee and coronation celebrations were concluded. As he understood it, Hague definitely prefers that negotiations with Republic be concluded before presentation of a final draft act to States General. He assumed it would follow from this that the present draft might very well be amended in such a way as to include whatever resulted from negotiations with Republic. He pointed out that although Hague could not be reasonably expected wait indefinitely for conclusion such negotiations prior submission of a draft act to States General, it was certainly still to be hoped that negotiations on basis of Renville could be resumed and concluded within a reasonable time so that the draft act in its final form would reflect the results of the negotiations. He added, however, that we cannot tell definitely what the new Netherlands Government has in mind until an answer has been received to an urgent cablegram which NEI Government sent Hague requesting decision on the issuance in Batavia of the public statement recommended by US (Gocus 358, August 22) and on the provision of additional material on Hague’s views regarding the basis of further negotiations. Signed Cochran.

Livengood

1. Not printed.