Foreign Relations of the United States, 1952–1954, East Asia and the Pacific, Volume XII, Part 2

756D.5 MSP/1–752: Telegram

No. 179
The Ambassador in Indonesia (Cochran) to the Department of State

confidential
priority

Djakarta, January 7, 1952—2 p.m.

963. For State and ECA. When I handed FonMin Subardjo confidential note 182, Jan 4 (Embtel 952) he promised have note acceptance delivered me noon 5th.

At one p.m. 5th Hanifah and Musa of FonOff called on me. They had note addressed to me under date 5th accepting terms my note. It had not yet been signed, however, by Subardjo. They explained Subardjo had carried it to PriMin Sukiman¹ for approval noon 5th. PriMin had taken exception to expression “free world” at end subpara 3 of para 1 my note. They said PriMin afraid this wld cause him trouble with Parl when ratification Econ Coop Agreement on 16 Oct 1950 arises.

I reminded my callers I had submitted that note to FonMin Dec 11,² had discussed it many times with FonMin and repeatedly sought his reaction thereto. It was only on night 3d FonMin had told me agreeable to him I transmit in form I did on 4th. I argued against making at this late date any request of my govt to change expression question. I wld have been against such request at any time. I reminded my callers that mutual security arrangement was involved and they were now trying eliminate or weaken by substituting words “peace loving world” the phase which was really vital part of key para of document. I said I thought my govt was construing legis very broadly to consider Indo eligible for aid thereunder. I showed them the parts of para 1 original subparas 3 and 5, which I had eliminated to meet Subardjo’s objections.³ I showed how I had taken responsibility of substituting wording of para 4. I reminded them Indo Govt had not yet made move seek ratification of 16 Oct 1950 agreement.

Hanifah phoned PriMin from my home setting forth my objections to seeking authority from Dept to make suggested amendment. I refused Hanifah’s request that I speak directly with PriMin. Finally Hanifah and Musa went to Subardjo, who in turn talked with PriMin. Musa called me back at 2:30 5th to say Subardjo had signed note as I had seen it and it wld be registered in FonOff and delivered to me morning 7th.

FonOff confidential note 1155/55R dated Jan 5⁴ reached me 10 a.m. 7th. It begins as fols: “I have honor to acknowledge receipt of Your Excellency’s note dated Jan 4, 1952 No. 182, which reads in substance as fols:” Thereafter it quotes verbatim my note of fourth beginning, “I have the honor” and ending “pending Parl action”. FonOff note thereafter reads: “In this connection I have the pleasure to state that the foregoing provisions are acceptable to the Govt of Indo.

Further, my govt agree to the proposal of the Govt of the United States of Amer that Your Excellency’s note partly quoted above and my reply thereto will constitute an agreement between the two govts, on this subj which shall enter into force on the date of this note”.

Appropriate copies of both notes will be forwarded.

Deptel 701⁵ reached me 4 p.m. 5th after Musa had informed me of Subardjo signing above note. Dept appears reluctantly to concede my wording of para four acceptable. To have used Dept’s preferred draft para four as set forth A–110 was impossible since contrary to fact. I chose to use wording which Indo Govt had given in its note of 27 Oct 1951,⁶ and which my govt had then accepted, since I thought this closely approached alternative wording of A110 “Govt of Indo considers aforementioned Econ Coop Agreement fully effective”. I did not feel I cld safely use final alternative suggested by A–110 involving notice from Indo Govt “re either ratification or lack of necessity for ratification very shortly after beginning calendar year 1952”.

Govt has held that ratification necessary. Indo Parl has been in recess since 2 Dec and reconvenes only today Jan 7. I have strongly urged Indo Govt seek ratification soon as possible after Parl assembles and will not fail to press therefor. With Djuanda, Darmawan, Darmasetiawan and Zain,⁷ leading officials conversant with econ agreement, absent from Indo and not due back until after middle of month, it wld not be wise to try for ratification in their absence. Govt has no authority given written undertaking as to date by which Parl will take any specific action. I wld ask furthermore that wording present exchange of notes be not published unless and until obligatory as this might seriously prejudice chances of govt to obtain ratification original agreement.

Cochran

1. Sukiman Wirjosandjojo, Indonesian Prime Minister.
2. See telegram 846 from Djakarta, Dec. 11, 1951, Foreign Relations, 1951, vol. vi, Part 1, p. 749.
3. See airgram 110 to Djakarta, Nov. 23, 1951, ibid., p. 729.
4. For text, see TIAS No. 2762; printed in 4 UST 23.

5. Dated Jan. 4; it reads as follows:

   “Re Embtel 952 Jan. 4. Language para 4 (Item D) acceptable but since assurance no better than that previously given Emb shld continue efforts obtain assurance requested A–110 regarding ratification.

   “Shld it appear Indo may delay and exchange satisfactory notes by Jan 8 unlikely pls advise.” (756D.5 MSP/1–452)

6. For text of this note, see telegram 660 from Djakarta, Foreign Relations, 1951, vol. vi, Part 1, p. 722.
7. Minister of Communications, Director-General of the Ministry of Trade and Industry, Secretary-General of the Foreign Ministry, and Chief of the Economic Section of the Foreign Ministry, respectively.