501.BC Indonesia/10–548: Telegram
The Consul General at Batavia (Livengood) to the Secretary of State
niact
[Received October 5—7:33 p. m.]
884. Gocus 403. USDel received by Netherlands delegation today 11 a. m. at our request. I told Schuurman we sought explanation 2 or 3 points in Netherlands delegation reply which we had glanced through and reminded him he had asked us similarly for certain explanations of our draft plan. Netherlands delegation first asked permission change date of covering letter of acceptance from October 5 to 4. Granted. Reference final paragraph that letter I asked whether Netherlands delegation expects USDel transmit to GOC members and Republican delegation complete set documents or only those marked “annexes”. Reply was full set.
Reference paragraph in covering letter beginning “in the third place” I sought and received document under reference constituting official communiqué issued on September 15 at Hague and Batavia. This states in part: “the government considers it necessary to declare explicitly that all Communist action is contrary to law and order and is therefore subject to articles of penal law, which protect the peace. This applies to individual activities as well as to membership of societies [Page 385] on a Communist basis. For a considerable time the government has taken measures against these criminal activities but from now on it intends to fight these activities with all lawful means. It follows that these measures are directed only against those persons who carry out, aim at, or propagate the criminal purposes of Communist agitation. These measures do not infringe the right of free speech, the liberty of the press or of political organization, as long as such organization has no Communist basis and lawful bounds of peaceful action are not transgressed.”
I referred Schuurman’s visit yesterday (reported Gocus 4011) and reminded him he had said some contradictions in latest instructions from Hague. I thought there was indication further conflict and confusion. I referred to 3 preliminary conditions marked I, II and III in covering letter. I said Netherlands Embassy counselor on October 1 communicated to Department conditions on which Netherlands Government had instructed Batavia accept my proposals as basis negotiations. Netherlands counselor had stated that Netherlands Government would adopt as conciliatory attitude as possible toward Republic’s 3 conditions precedent to resumption negotiations and would in return expect Republican Government assure full implementation of truce agreement (suppression, infiltration, opium smuggling, sabotage and guerrilla activities). I stated conditions set forth in covering letter not in my mind limited to seeking assurances but place in mouth of Republican Government specific statements they are to make public. I asked which was correct sense of conditions. I stressed that GOC itself already undertook procedure looking to early recommendations for better observation of truce and would of course do everything possible to improve this for critical stage of resuming negotiations. Netherlands delegation replied covering letter drafted Batavia and text approved by Hague. They insist assurances are not enough and substance of language establishing the 3 conditions must be used by Republic Government.
I mentioned transportation difficulties explaining our C–46 unable leave ground and C–47 which had been sent here to replace it is now in Manila for its repair and repair parts for both planes and not expected Batavia before latter part this week. I said I would have to study Netherlands delegation reply carefully before acting thereon. Schuurman said that in view of USDel and Netherlands delegation agreement on expediting negotiations he hoped I would pass answer promptly to parties concerned. I told him I would study document urgently and act as quickly as I conscientiously could. I reminded him, however, that I had interceded 3 times for Netherlands delegation with [Page 386] Republic delegation in explaining delays by Netherlands delegation and was sure he would be reasonable with me.
I am interrupting transmission Gocus 4022 text of reply to interject this message on procedural policy. Before passing Netherlands delegation reply to Republic delegation or GOC associates, USDel will await Department’s decision thereon. Doubt seriously Hatta Government could broadcast specific statements requested by Netherlands reply and continue in office. While opposing communism militantly, question arises advisability outlawing communism.
Gadel 1043 indicated to USDel that Department had thought out possible procedure to be followed in event acceptance by Netherlands delegation outlined in Usgoc 1554 does not promise result successfully and reference case to SC is warranted. Question now arises whether Department would see fit question Netherlands Government on matter above mentioned of preliminary conditions required of Republic Government prior transmission Netherlands delegation reply to Republic Government by USDel with view seeking wording more consonant with message given Department by counselor Netherlands Embassy. If this point overcome it might be possible compromise on other precedent conditions both sides and get them into negotiation. Netherlands reply has however imposed in oral note I conditions as to substance which Department may consider negate acceptance. Furthermore oral note II constitutes revision USDel plan along strict lines indicated some weeks ago as contemplated in a Netherlands delegation draft (Gocus 3645). Would Department prefer we get 2 parties into negotiation even with these factors making successful outcome highly questionable or does Department suggest more direct reference caseto SC?
It is our view that covering letter and enclosures quoted in full Gocus 402, if presented in their present form to Republic, would prompt Hatta to throw case into SC. The Republic would probably take view that Netherlands conditions precedent to actual resumption negotiations set forth Paragraphs I, II and III of covering letter make resumption of negotiations under GOC auspices impossible. They would probably also take position that presentation of Netherlands oral note II amounts simply to rejection of substance USDel’s plan and that in this connection Netherlands have given the Republic 3 weeks in which to accept or reject the Dutch plan.
It seems to us that the following general lines of action remain open: We could turn over the Netherlands reply in its present form to [Page 387] Hatta and leave it up to him to accept Netherlands terms or to take the whole issue to the SC. If this procedure were followed and latter alternative chosen by Hatta, or if GOC itself should report situation to SC, Department might wish to support USDel’s plan in the SC and endeavor to get the SC to recommend to the parties that it be used as a basis for negotiations. This connection, talks with members Netherlands delegation lead us believe Netherlands might argue in SC that danger to maintenance international peace does not exist and therefore SC could not in any case recommend USDel’s draft to parties.
Second general line of action, as we see it, is this. Department may wish bring sufficient pressure on Netherlands as to occasion them to remove condition set forth in Paragraphs I, II and III of covering letter and to remove from it third paragraph which states that there are parts of USDel’s draft agreement to which objections of such serious nature exist that they “cannot be incorporated in the political agreement.” This paragraph of Netherlands delegation’s letter is, in our opinion, tantamount to rejection of substance of USDel’s plan and, in our opinion, would be so regarded by Republic. With removal of this reservation as to substance of USDel’s plan and with removal of conditions precedent to actual resumption of negotiations set forth in Paragraphs I, II, and III of covering letter, we believe it would be possible that Hatta would agree to resumption of negotiations under GOC auspices without reference to the SC. Assuming resumption of negotiations under GOC auspices in such circumstances, we believe it possible to achieve a settlement by following general suggestions Department made Usgoc 141.6 Procedure we would use would be along following lines: (1) We would request both parties to submit any amendments they may wish to make to USDel’s draft in writing and in article form: (2) Where such amendments submitted by parties were in conflict with each other, we would ask parties to accept GOC recommendations as to their reconciliation. Parties could themselves of course request the GOC to make such recommendations and could, if they wished, undertake in advance either (a) to accept such recommendations or (b) to consider them seriously.
In light of fundamental issue presented by these alternatives, USDel has not as yet transmitted Netherlands delegation note October 4 to Republican or to GOC colleagues and will continue to hold until Department’s instructions received. USDel can temporize briefly by capitalizing on immediate unavailability of plan, need of time for study, clarification, etc., but will hourly be under increasing pressure from Republican delegation which knows Netherlands answer already long overdue and from GOC colleagues. Netherlands delegation likewise [Page 388] urges transmission to Republic soon as possible. With Hatta scheduled leave Jogja for Sumatra by Monday, highly desirable he should have answer in time for full discussion his colleagues. By delay we take risks consequent upon increasing tension and internal situation Republic in addition to possibility inspiring distrust. I suggest telephone be used for immediate answer in effort accelerate receipt of reply. I shall endeavor call Butterworth at Department between 8:30 and 10 o’clock Washington time morning October 6. Will understand answer “yes” to mean we deliver Netherlands note in present form to Republican delegation soonest. Answer “no” will signify desire of Department that I await further cabled instruction.
From foregoing Department will understand I envisage possible use every pressure mentioned Gadel 104. Signed Cochran.