694.001/9–851: Telegram
The Ambassador in Indonesia (Cochran) to the Secretary of State
404. In vote approving treaty signing1 Cabinet split 11 to 6 with Masjumi, PIR, Catholic, Democratic faction and nonparty Ministers pro while PI and Eu Ruh opposed.2 Parkindo Minister absent but party opposes signing. PNI announced Friday night opposed to signing on basis reports from party reps in Indo delegation Frisco. Feel treaty not to advantage Indonesia, contrary independent foreign policy. PSI sponsored PEL motion last night urging govt not to sign: govt parties left chamber when voting came on resolution thus making sufficient quorum impossible, forcing tabling resolution, PNI, PSI, Parkindo and left groups all definitely against ratification.3 PNI intimated intent withdraw Ministers from Cabinet if treaty ratified, refuse accept responsibility govt action.4
In public statement yesterday, Burmese Embassy denied statement by vice chairman Parl that Burma charged Indo has deserted her. Said “Burma fully understands Indo decision attend conf”. Compared Indo with maiden choosing marriage with wealthy foreigner “whose [Page 1343] love might not last too long” in preference simple devotion rustic lover. Urged “Asian countries concerned take joint action protect selves”.
In comment yesterday, prior announcement Cabinet decision, Indo abstaining vote on Soviet proposal invite Commie China Frisco drew strong criticism from Parl reps PSI, PIR, Parkindo and left parties. Pedoman reports even political circles favoring signature regretted action because feel it neglect of friendly relations Commie China and that active independent policy does not imply purely negative stands.5
- This vote was taken the evening of September 7.↩
- The last few words of this sentence are apparently garbled. PNI and PSI both opposed the treaty.↩
- In telegram 407 from Djakarta, September 10, Ambassador Cochran indicated in part that the position taken by the PNI leadership and cabinet members against signature was contrary to his previous expectations. In the course of his message Mr. Cochran pointed out that texts of the recent exchanges of notes between Japan and Indonesia had not reached Djakarta at the time of the Cabinet’s vote but did not indicate whether in his opinion this fact had any bearing on the outcome. (694.001/9–1051)↩
- Ambassador
Cochran reported in part in telegram 506 from Djakarta, October
1, as follows:
“Visited Subardjo noon today his request. He said PNI Party Council yesterday decided follow earlier decision party executives. He said this means PNI will not withdraw members from Cabinet but favor delay ratification Jap Peace Treaty until bilateral agreements negotiated with Jap on reparations and fisheries. He is convinced from his experience San Francisco that Indo will be able procure agreements directly with Japan, if supported by US, which will lead PNI vote favorably in Parliament for ratification all three treaties.” (694.001/10–151)
The mentioned bilateral negotiations were not undertaken during 1951. However, since the (two countries appeared at times to be on the verge of holding talks with regard to fisheries, certain American officials several times received instruction as to the nature and extent of the support to be rendered Indonesia in talks concerning both fisheries and reparations. Documentation on this subject is not printed; it is contained in files 611.006, 611.006 NP, 611.946, and 656D.94 for 1951. Of particular value are Instruction No. 67 to Tokyo, November 2, with enclosed memorandum of October 29 from Mr. Rusk to William C. Herrington, Special Assistant to the Under Secretary; telegram 1277 to Tokyo, November 28; and telegram 603 to Djakarta, December 7 (656D.946/11–251, 694.006/11–2251, and 694.006/12–351, respectively).
↩ - In telegram 301 to Djakarta, September 8, drafted in the Office of Philippine and Southeast Asian Affairs, the Department stated in part: “Indo Govt decision to sign Jap Peace Treaty in San Francisco despite Indian abstention and Sov opposition is considered most significant step which Indo Govt, historically jealous of its policy of ‘independence’, has taken toward aligning itself with free world.” (694.001/9–851)↩