756D.5 MSP/7–3052: Telegram
No. 211
The Secretary of
State to the Embassy in
Indonesia
priority
153. 3.1 Jul 29 Allison informed Ali that draft agreement proposed by Indo Govt (as set forth in para 5 Ali’s Note Jul 28) wld in itself be acceptable under sec 511 (b) of MSA Act and satis to US [Page 307] govt, but that its acceptability seriously diminished by fol introductory phrases used in Ali’s Note:
- a.
- First sentence second para “… Indo Govt although willing to continue acceptance of technical aid for econ development from US Govt …“. Ali said difficulty may have been caused by his lack facility English language. He said he had not meant imply any lack real desire on part Indo Govt for Amer technical aid, and in fact his Govt wishes such aid continue.
- b.
- First sentence second para “Indo Govt … cannot agree that such aid be based on sec 511 (a) or (b) …”. Also, last sentence third para “… new exchange of letters which will not be based on MSA Act”.2 Allison stated that both of these references to MSA unnecessary and wld very probably prevent US Govt from regarding Indo draft note as conforming see 511 (b) MSA Act.
4. In this connection, Ali stated he had recd strict instrs from his Govt to present a note which made clear that chief Indo difficulty is with MSA Act. He said it wld be most helpful if his Govt cld report to Indo Parliament that it is “in no way bound” under MSA Act. If such a statement cld be made, he said it wld “solve all our problems about MSA”. Allison replied that no sovereign state is “bound by” legis of another. He said that if US Govt chooses to consider that proposed draft Indo note meets purposes of sec 511 (b), this is unilateral US decision taken on sole responsibility US Govt. Similarly, if Indo Govt decides present draft note, this wld be unilateral decision Indo Govt and Indo Govt wld be “bound” only by existing Econ and Technical Bilateral Agreement and to commitments specifically made in proposed draft. It was pointed out that latter commitments consist entirely and solely of reaffirmation of existing Indo internatl obligations.
5. Ali replied that he understood Indo Govt cld say to Indo Parliament that ECA Bilateral of Oct 1950 and proposed exchange of ltrs wld be entire extent of Indo commitments to US re technical aid. It was suggested to Ali that there are several alternative methods of handling new agreement. One such alternative wld be possibility use text of proposed exchange of notes as amendment to Econ and Technical Bilateral, and subsequently withdraw Jan 5, 1952 agreement in separate exchange. Ali stated he wld want to give further thought to entire problem but that he did not believe there wld be difficulty in reaching mutually satis solution.
6. Ali volunteered his understanding that his talks at Dept only exploratory and that final agreement to be handled Djakarta. It was agreed by Allison and Ali that latter’s note of July 28 wld be temporarily regarded as informal and unofficial provisional draft and that Ali wld consult with his own Govt and wld confer later [Page 308] with Dept re alternative note. Allison gave Ali informal paper containing suggestions for possible use this connection, being supplied Emb in separate msg.3
7. Re mil assistance, Ali emphasized its Govt’s desire continue Constabulary Agreement of Aug 15, 1950 and his Govt’s understanding that grant assistance thereunder wld necessarily term on date Indo-US Jan 5 Agreement replaced by new exchange notes under sec 511 (b) instead of 511 (a). Ali said he understood undelivered balance constabulary equipment wld be made available his Govt on reimbursable aid basis: “My Govt wld pay cash to your Govt”. Allison replied this correct (para 3 Deptel 83 Jul 17), although it wld probably be necessary to receive written request for this purpose from Indo Govt, and certain legal assurances in Jan 5 Agreement wld probably have to be supplied in other forms. Allison added, with specific ref to third para Indo Amb’s note, that Constabulary Agreement Aug 15, 1950 may continue valid until terminated by an option either party three months notice, but that statement Constabulary Agreement, “not related to MSA”, is possibly ambiguous. Obviously any implementation this Agreement wld be subj to provisions of MSA Act.
8. In subsequent comment to Dept officer, Ali said he felt much reassured by Allison’s exposition of precise limits to which Indo wld be “bound by” proposed new agreement. He said, “I hope I can make my Govt understand this”. He gave strong impression sincere desire avoid break in continuity technical aid program.