501.BB/11–2349: Telegram

The Acting Secretary of State to the United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin)1


112. For USGADel: The delay in transmission of Appendices to UNCFI report indicates that discussion of Indo case in both SC and GA will take place early in Dec. Inasmuch as somewhat different considerations govern extent of discussion of Indo item in GA and SC, Dept is transmitting certain observations looking forward to coordinated treatment of this case in forthcoming debates. The precise lines of treatment and discussion can be determined, of course, only immed prior to and during course of GA and SC consideration. Therefore, the fol principles are presented for gen guidance in planning treatment of Indo case.

1. A gen US objective is that all discussion and action in UN at this time be of a character which will aid parties in carrying out agreements for transfer of sovereignty and final settlement of Indo question. Hence strategy in both GA and SC shld be: a. to show parties full UN approval and appreciation of statesmanlike measures taken by them toward settlement; b. to avoid prompting any action which might have effect of blocking or deterring ratification of Hague agreements by either Neth, Republic or BFO components; and c. to lay as solid a groundwork as possible for favorable reception in UN of prospective Indo application for UN membership. Stemming from these objectives, certain specific considerations affecting GA and SC discussion are set forth in succeeding paras.

2. GA. As indicated in GA position paper (SD/A/C.1/253) Dept feels that most desirable GA action in light of complete agreement of [Page 573] parties at Hague conference wld be to note results of Conference with gratification and drop from agenda. In this respect Dept believes tentative position of India and Austral (ur tel–1352, Nov 18 19492) that item shld remain on agenda for 5th Session GA was ill considered and inconsistent with those dels’ other objective that UN action be directed toward establishing favorable case for Indo UN membership. USDel may find it appropriate to discuss this question with Austral and India dels, pointing out that rationale for placing Indo case on agenda at 2d part 3rd session wld, if applicable at end of 4th and beginning of 5th sessions, possibly cast doubt upon existence of internal stability in Indo which has important bearing upon membership qualifications.

Moreover, 4th session action placing item on agenda fifth session wld have no necessary substantive advantage over dropping item at end of 4th session. If Indo situation were to become grave again, matter can easily be placed again on agenda for consideration at 5th session.

It is not unlikely, of course, that Soviet Dels will be critical of Indo settlement in both Comite and plenary GA discussion. Yet, as noted in No. 1105 of Nov 14, 1949 from the Hague,2 the expected adverse Soviet discussion in all likelihood will not be harmful but may even help ratification by solidifying support of otherwise divergent local elements for ratification of agreements promising an effective bulwark against Communism in Indo.

Important goal of debate in Comite and plenary is that Indo settlement receive approbation of non-Soviet world. In particular it is desirable that nations participating in Jan 1949 New Delhi conference show at this point that they appreciate wisdom of current measures toward settlement. Indo–Neth relations wld be strengthened by affirimations from New Delhi nations that the concern they showed in Jan 1949 has now been dissipated by constructive action Batavia and the Plague. New Delhi group, although legitimately casting cautious eye on future, shld be forthright in congratulating parties, including Neth, for salutary Indo developments.

With respect to US comment, all GA discussion shld desirably be short, emphasizing voluntary and constructive character of action by Indo and Neth reps in reaching agreement Batavia and Hague. Proper recognition of role of UN in aiding settlement shld be made, with emphasis upon primary role of SC in handling item within UN and furnishing means for mediation through UNCFI. US shld not discuss in GA details of Indo settlement, and in particular shld refrain from being drawn into discussion of New Guinea problem. Some emphasis may appropriately be placed, however, upon prospective attributes of new Indo nation as likely candidate for UN membership.

[Page 574]

In light of US membership UNCFI and claims from various sources that US has dictated terms of Indo settlement, preferable that US not sponsor GA res, although USDel may wish to coop with other Dels in discussing presentation of res by other Dels (desirably, from New Delhi group), commending parties for statesmanlike steps in accomplishing cessation hostilities and arranging for early transfer of sovereignty.

3. SC . a. Current SC consideration shld cover both First Interim Report UNCFI (S/13733 dated 10 Aug 1949) and UNCFI’s Special Report on RTC (S/14174 dated Nov 1949).

b. Dept believes that SC in current discussion shld not undertake to alter or redefine UNCFI terms of reference or to establish a new Comm for observation of elections and the implementation of RTC agreements. In brief the fol are primary reasons:

(1) It is important for beneficial effect upon ratification and implementation of Hague agreements and prospects for internal stability in Indo fol transfer of sovereignty that primary UN action be to express gratification and approval of conduct of parties in achieving the current settlement. This objective might needlessly be jeopardised if extensive debate were to take place now upon precise terms of future functions of UN Commission in Indo, involving probable differences of opinion not only between Soviet and Western reps but also between reps of colonial and non-colonial members.

(2) As UNCFI reports indicate, there is still a substantial job ahead for UNCFI, and terms of SC Jan 28 res are broad enough to permit continuation UNCFI functions under terms of reference delineated Jan 28. (See Ushic 20, Sept 29, 1949.) (a) If question is raised, it is US view that Para 116 of UNCFI Special Report constitutes “recommendation” to SC under Para 4(c) of Jan 28 res that UNCFI continue without change in terms of reference. Reason for continuation UNCFI after transfer of sovereignty is that under current agreement several aspects of settlement, e.g., elections, will be carried out after transfer instead of prior to, as generally contemplated before accelerated transfer plan was agreed upon by parties. (b) Further, it wld be difficult technically for SC to evaluate now performance of UNCFI under Jan 28 res because two UNCFI reports do not cover all of UNCFI’s responsibilities delineated then. In the main these reports describe Batavia Agreements re cease-fire, etc. and Hague Agreements re transfer of sovereignty, without reference to manner or extent to which terms of agreements have been or are being complied with by parties. In particular there is as yet no report to the [Page 575] Council on following points: The extent to which cease hostilities and maintenance of law and order by parties have been accomplished; the degree of compliance with the provision of Jan 28 res re release of Polit prisoners; details concerning the return of the civil Admin of the Republic of Indo; discussion of final recommendations and action concerning withdrawal Neth troops; and description of arrangements for observation of elections in Indo. Likely these matters covered subsequent report, and parties will describe satis conditions, (c) SC res, if any, should preferably assume fol pattern (along the lines of Feb 28, 1948 res fol Renville Agreement): considering UNCFI reports, noting with satisfaction results of parties’ deliberations Batavia and Hague, congratulate parties, express confidence in successful transfer of sovereignty, urge parties to continue efforts toward complete attainment of stability and order in Indo, and request UNCFI to continue functioning under previous terms of reference, observing implementation of agreements, and to report developments from time to time to SC.

For same reasons governing GA position Dept believes it preferable that US not introduce draft res. This position is, of course, subj to reconsideration as SC discussion develops.

(d) US rep shld, of course, express hearty US approval of steps toward complete solution and of high statesmanship displayed Neth and Indo, and mention US hopes for harmonious and constructive coop between Indo and the Neth in the future. In contrast to GA discussion US rep may find it advisable to deal with specific items in two UNCFI reports. Outline of elements desirable for inclusion in initial statement of US rep being prepared in Dept and will be transmitted after receipt of appendices to RTC report. Reference to and tenor of comments upon particular subjs will be covered therein.

  1. Repeated as 1057 to The Hague and as 590, Usgoc 441, to Batavia.
  2. Not printed.
  3. Not printed.
  4. August 4, SC, 4th yr., Spec. Suppl. No. 5.
  5. November 8, SC, 4th yr., Spec. Suppl. No. 6.