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

856D.00 TA/10–652: Telegram

No. 235
The Acting Secretary of State to the Embassy in Indonesia

confidential

Washington, November 7, 1952—6:29 p.m.

711. 1. FonMin Mukarto called on Secy NY Oct 31 accompanied by Amb Ali and Palar, Chief Indo UN del.¹ Mukarto mentioned Indo desire for early conclusion TCA Agreement. Amb Ali said substantial agreement already reached but certain legal questions “having largely to do with phraseology” still unresolved. Secy said he was glad such progress achieved and assured FonMin it our desire arrive at mutually satis Agreement soon as possible. He did not anticipate any great difficulty in resolving legal questions and made suggestion that negots be resumed by legal and tech experts both sides with view reaching definitive Agreement. This suggestion welcomed by Mukarto and Ali. Pursuant this conversation, Indo Emb Officer Maramis called his request Nov 6 at Dept to ascertain US Govt position re inclusion legal provisions in proposed new Agreement.

2. Indo position set forth in FonMin’s draft Notes Sept 25 which omit legal provisions because, as Mukarto informed Amb Cochran Oct 6, PriMin “fear to submit to Parliament ‘for psychological reasons,’ drafts which contained conditions similar to those included in exchange of notes of last Jan” (Embtel 644 Oct 6)

3. US reply presented to FonMin by Amb Cochran in memo Sep 29, based on Deptels 471 and 472 Sep 27, stated Indo drafts “cld in their present form become part of new Agreement desired by Indo Govt, if modified solely to include certain tech and legal provisions.…” When Allison met FonMin Djakarta Oct 14, FonMin asked if it wld be possible “to consummate exchange of ltrs on aid program.…”² Amb answered US Govt studying questions tech provisions.

4. As result discussion various possible US responses to current Indo inquiry, Dept with Amb Cochran’s concurrence has adopted fol alternative positions: (1) that US Govt (a) reaffirm its desire have legal provisions included in exchange of notes constituting new Agreement, (b) recognize and attempt meet PriMin’s objection by revising “phraseology” so that these provisions will be simple, clear, no longer worded as in Jan 5 Agreement, and so their complete innocuousness will be obvious. (2) If Indos find this unacceptable, US Govt wld accept inclusion newly worded legal provisions in separate Note from FonOff as integral part new Agreement.

5. Dept officers, acting on first position para 4 above, have informed Maramis (1) that US law does not permit US Govt waive substance legal provisions set forth US draft Notes Sept 29, (2) that US Govt, however, appreciates views Indo FonMin and PriMin on difficulty which these legal provisions may present, (3) that disadvantage these provisions as they appear in Jan 5 Agreement may in part have been accounted for by complicated legal wording which obscures their actual innocuousness, (4) that US Govt accordingly suggests and wld be prepared to accept new wording these legal provisions in simplified and clear language. Maramis was handed suggested wording (which fols Deptel 712)³ for each provision, which he will bring to attn Ali and Mukarto NY.

8. Our best knowledge indicates Mukarto acting under gen Cabinet instr to obtain new Agreement but has not yet communicated successive Indo and US positions to Cabinet members other than PriMin. If Mukarto accepts US position Dept expects he may inform PriMin but will not present it for Cabinet approval until his return Djakarta. As result his negots so far he will be able state he has (1) obtained US concurrence on basic issue of replacing old with new Agreement; (2) secured improved wording legal provisions which in themselves not expected present any substantive problems Indo. Cabinet approval wld be followed by formal Notes from Indo Govt. Date US acknowledgment wld be date new Agreement replaces old.⁴

Bruce

1. See Document 233.
2. Ellipses in the source text.

3. Telegram 712, Nov 7, reads:

   “Dept has suggested to Indo Emb fol new wording legal provisions Deptel 472 Sep 27:

   “1. ‘Equipment and materials which have been provided on a grant basis under the Constab Agreement of Aug 15, 1950, will be retained by the Govt of Indo on the terms and conditions contained in that Agreement so long as required for the purposes for which originally made available and if no longer required for these purposes will be offered for return to the Govt of the US.’

   “2. In recognition of the mutual interest of the two Govts in promoting the objectives of the Economic Coop Agreement of Oct 16, 1950, the Govt of the Republic of Indo will safeguard any funds allocated to or derived from programs of assistance carried out under that Agreement from seizure, attachment, or other legal process unless both Govts agree that such process wld not interfere with the attainment of these objectives.’” (856D.00 TA/11–752)

4. On Nov. 14, Bonsal called on Foreign Minister Mukarto at the Indonesian Embassy in Washington. Responding to the latter’s query on reimbursable aid for the armed services, Bonsal said that Indonesia could negotiate an appropriate amendment to the Aug. 15, 1950, Constabulary Agreement or negotiate an entirely new exchange of notes as a separate reimbursable aid agreement. The Department of State preferred the second approach and Bonsal indicated that the Indonesian Ambassador would be furnished with an unsigned draft U.S. note (transmitted to Djakarta in telegram 812) to be regarded as an example of an adequate basis for such an agreement. (Telegram 811 to Djakarta Nov. 16; 756D.5 MSP/9–2252)