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

856D.00 TA/9–1352: Telegram

No. 216
The Secretary of State to the Embassy in Indonesia

secret

Washington, September 13, 1952—1:29 p.m.

392. For Amb from Allison.

1. You have by now received Deptel 385 Sep 12 describing my conversation Sep 9 with Amb Ali and giving text note he presented that date. As you aware, it is difficult overestimate effect which our response this Indo approach will have on US-Indo relations. I appreciate your prompt reply Embtels 429 Sep 2, 435 Sep 3 to my request Deptel 319¹ for your views this problem.

2. Your recommendations Embtel 429 wld require Indos negot an amendment to Constab Agreement Aug 1950 “to permit reimbursable aid for mil as well as civil police”, and wld then tie up question Amer econ and tech aid in one package with question Amer mil aid by insisting Parl ratification both Agreements. You also recommend US Govt not discuss “assurances” until both Agreements ratified.

3. Sudden introduction above requirement at this stage wld be inconsistent with fact that question of assurances acceptable under sec 511 have been subj conversations which I have been holding with Indo Amb leading up to Indo Note Sep 9. As you state Embtel 435 “Indos apparently willing finally submit ECA Agreement for ratification”. Constab Agreement, however, can be counted on to be highly debatable in Indo Parl and its forced companionship wld probably jeopardize or at best seriously delay ratification comparatively acceptable Econ Bilateral. Discussions involved in ratification also wld probably focus Parl attn on delicate aspects Constab Agreement thereby incurring dangers you warn against Embtel 371 Aug 21.²

4. I understand from Embtel 435 that your motive in making above recommendations is “to protect Dept from any possible charge of neglect in seeking proper legal basis for its granting of aid to Indo and in requiring assurances prescribed therefor by Cong”: and that you are concerned lest if Indo give up benefits of 511 (a) it may thereby appear before world as “irresponsible on contracts”.

5. I do not believe there is justifiable cause for alarm above counts. On Jan 5, 1952 acting in full accord your instructions and in face most difficult conditions you brought about Indo agreement under sec 511 (a) MSA. Jan 8 I sent you, with hearty concurrence every directly interested Agency US Govt (Deptel 709), expression our admiration this achievement. This, however, proved to be bigger step toward US than Indo cld accept. It precipitated fall Sukiman Cabinet and flareup unfortunate publicity over MSA for reasons which recently best set forth Embtel 115 July 18² reporting your conversation with V.P. Hatta who said “… we shld not expect Indo choose sides publicly now”³ and pointed to unfortunate example of Chi Amb who “had overplayed his hand with resultant setback to Commie Chi cause”. Despite Cabinet fall and public flareup over MSA Agreement, however, Indo Govt has steadfastly adhered Jan 5 Agreement pending its replacement by new agreement. Indo might indeed appear “irresponsible on contracts” if it had unilaterally abrogated its 511 (a) Agreement but Indo wld not be first country to renegot uncomfortable internatl agreement. Indo also acting correctly in expressing its desire pay cash to US for mil equipment for which it will no longer be eligible on grant basis with cessation 511 (a) assurances. Wording new agreement proposed Sep 9 Note meets requirements sec 511b MSA Act.

6. Indo Parl ratification Econ Agreement Oct 16, 1950 wld be desirable, and further prolonged delay may be significant, but Indo ratification not requisite US law. Indo Govt has given written assurance Oct 27, 1951 that Agreement is binding pending Parl action. Indo Amb has given official oral assurances his Govt has decided present Agreement to Parl for ratification. Under these conditions it wld not be correct or necessary US Govt look behind official Indo assurances and insist upon Indo ratification as US legal requisite to continued validity Agreement.

7. In harmony advice Embtel 128 July 21, 1952, we have let Indos “work out MSA/TCA problem in their own tortuous way and their own time”. We are gratified by recent indications (Embtel 441 [411] Aug 28, 431 Sep 2, 442 Sep 4)⁴ of improvement in attitude shown by responsible Indo leaders toward US. From these tels and Embtel 429 it appears that Indos Sep 9 Note may represent achievement of agreed position by dominant Muslim and Nationalist polit parties on MSA issue.

8. Under these conditions it wld appear consonant not only with US dignity and legal requirements but also with best interest US to avoid upsetting mutually satis agreement which both Govts have been seeking. Projected agreement in essence wld consist of replacement Jan 5 (511 (a)) Agreement with new agreement under sec 511 (b) as means continuation econ and tech aid, and replacement of grant with reimbursable basis for mil assistance. Steps to be taken toward this end are described in Deptel 393 which fols.⁵ I am confident that I can count on your full coop in concluding this new agreement. I believe that in this manner we will have regained and strengthened position in US-Indo friendship which you had achieved as result your laborious and able contribution to creation and progress new Indo State.

Acheson

1. Document 212.
2. Not printed.
2. Not printed.
3. Ellipsis in the source text.
4. Telegrams 431 and 442 are not printed. Regarding telegram 411, see footnote 1, Document 212.
5. Infra.