357.AA/3–2151: Telegram
The Ambassador in Indonesia (Cochran) to the Secretary of State
priority
1285. Gocus 959. This afternoon talked informally Australian UNCI rep Gilchrist as well as Australian Ambassador Hood re UNCI future. (Gocus 958)1 I said we had always favored dissolution following settlement military problems and while we had taken this position in general interest and irrespective of anticipated Indo attitude we cld not ignore latter which had now been formally ascertained, since it might mean UNCI wld be refused future cooperation by major party. Stressed impossible envisage any problem UNCI cld usefully deal with particularly New Guinea matter where Indos already claiming UNCI wld give “loaded” decision. Referring possibility new Indo Govt might abrogate union and resist revision RTC (see announced PNI program in Embtel 1283).2 I mentioned in this event Neth might submit appeal for UNCI intervention and I asked Hood and Gilchrist whether Aust Govt wld be prepared as part of UNCI involve itself in whole complex future Neth–Indo relations under such conditions. Pointed out UNCI wld be vulnerable to Indo charges Western bloc tactics and Australia as original Indo nominee on UNCI might expect protest against its participation in any discussion Neth–Indo affairs involving New Guinea. Said Neth démarche to Indo re mis-treatment its citizens might be first step toward placing its problems here on international level and it seemed urgent matter to disengage ourselves from possible UNCI complications through its early dissolution.
[Page 626]Hood and Gilchrist said they personally fully agreed. Mentioned that they, as well as previous UNCI member Cutts,3 had emphatically pointed out Australia Govt dangers continuation UNCI but apparently had been over-ruled by Spender. Gilchrist’s latest instrs were to report stand various parties to his govt but in “last analysis” to support Dutch position. I remarked this was curious situation for Indo nominee on UNCI and again stressed risks attendent thereon. Gilchrist said he wld report to Canberra my approach and arguments I had used. He thought US should work on Australia in Washington or in Canberra particularly in light Spender’s appointment as new Ambassador to US. He believed we shld take similar line with Dutch which wld make it easier for his govt alter its viewpoint. He said policy change might occur with Australia elections April 28 but recognized this might be too late deal with UNCI dissolution. Signed Beam.
Dept pass The Hague, Canberra, sent Dept 1285, repeated info The Hague 126, Canberra 18.
- In telegram 1279(Gocus 958) from Djakarta, March 20, Ambassador Cochran reported Mr. Beam’s observations that neither the Netherlands nor Indonesia at that time seemed disposed to compromise on the future of the UNCI. He also declared that the UNCI Secretary-General, Mr. Romanos, agreed with the United States that the UNCI should be dissolved. (357.AA/3–2051)↩
- Ambassador Cochran reported in telegram 1283 from Djakarta, March 21, that the Natsir Government had resigned the previous day, although President Sukarno had asked the Prime Minister to continue with a caretaker administration. The Ambassador also reported that the Masjumi Party might refuse to enter a new Cabinet and let the PNI take responsibility for the latter’s formation, and, according to a statement issued that morning, the PNI Chairman, Sidik, said that the PNI would form a Cabinet even without the Masjumi. Sidik also announced a PNI program of action if its members entered the government. Among the PNI goals was the objective of liquidating the Netherlands–Indonesia Union and the revision of the RTC accords. (756D. 13/3–2151)↩
- T. W. Cutts.↩