Foreign Relations of the United States, 1955–1957, Southeast Asia, Volume XXII

187. Memorandum of a Conversation, Department of State, Washington, October 29, 1956¹

Washington, October 29, 1956

SUBJECT

• Dutch Position with Respect to Inclusion in the Agenda for the Forthcoming UN General Assembly of the Item Concerning Dutch New Guinea²

PARTICIPANTS

• Dr. J.H. van Roijen, Netherlands Ambassador
• Baron van Voorst, Netherlands Minister
• The Secretary
• EUR—Mr. Elbrick
• WE—Mr. Cameron

The Dutch Ambassador said that he was under instructions from his Government to hand the Secretary an aide-mémoire outlining the position of the Dutch Government concerning the Indonesian request that the question of West New Guinea be included on the agenda for the forthcoming session of the UN General Assembly (copy attached).³ The Ambassador reviewed orally the contents of the aide-mémoire and said that his Government had instructed him to request U.S. support to prevent the inscription of the West New Guinea item on the agenda for the UN General Assembly. He added that in addition the Dutch Government requested U.S. support for its point of view in case the Assembly, notwithstanding the objections of the Netherlands and other like-minded governments, decided to consider the item.

The Ambassador stated that he recognized that for the United States to oppose the inscription of this item would mean a change in its previous policy of neutrality towards the West New Guinea question. He said that his Government was in effect asking the United States to reconsider its previous policy, which he commented was not understood by the Dutch Government or the Dutch people and which was contributing substantially to the unsatisfactory state of U.S.-Dutch relations. The Secretary replied that it was our usual custom to comply with the request of a friendly government that we reexamine a previously established policy. In this case, the Secretary said that we would reappraise our policy of neutrality with respect to the West New Guinea question. He added, however, that the Dutch Government should not draw the implication that the reexamination would necessarily result in a change in our policy.

The Secretary commented that the first Dutch objective appeared to be to keep the question from being inscribed on the agenda of the UNGA. He said that he thought it was unlikely that the Dutch would be successful in this endeavor and mentioned the changes which had taken place in the balance of UN membership since the last General Assembly. Van Roijen appeared to agree when he acknowledged that the Afro-Asian countries, even those which might agree privately with the Dutch point of view, would not vote against inscription. Van Roijen referred to the possibility that the United States might persuade some of the Latin American countries to vote against inscription but the Secretary commented that these countries usually were in favor of adding items to the agenda. Further, the Secretary said that in his opinion, the Dutch case against inscription was not a strong one in the light of what might be called the constitutional law of the United Nations.

The Secretary asked what would be the Dutch plan of action if they did not succeed in preventing the inscription of this item on the agenda. Van Roijen said that he knew that this problem was under most serious consideration in The Hague and that much would depend on how the question was framed and how it developed. He added, however, that the Dutch Government felt that they had discharged all of their obligations under Article 2 of the Charter on the Transfer of Sovereignty and that the United Nations had no competence to consider the question of the sovereignty of West New Guinea. He said his Government would be prepared, however, to discuss other considerations affecting New Guinea such as labor conditions and transportation problems between West New Guinea and Indonesia. The Ambassador referred to the French Delegation’s action during the last Assembly session when they withdrew from the Assembly.⁴ He said that he personally opposed such tactics but he was unwilling to exclude completely the possibility that at some stage in the proceedings the Dutch would follow a similar tactic.

The Ambassador said that he was confident that his Government would welcome the Secretary’s statement that he would reexamine the American policy of neutrality with respect to the West New Guinea question. The Dutch Government would recognize, of course, that reexamination did not imply that there would be any change in that policy.⁵

At the conclusion of the conversation, the Ambassador made several brief remarks on internal conditions in Indonesia. He said that the economic situation was deteriorating and that as a result, he expected not a Communist coup but that Sukarno would assume more and more power, using perhaps some of the techniques he had observed during his trip through the Soviet Bloc and Red China. The Secretary commented that Sukarno appeared to have been impressed by what he had seen on his trip. The Secretary added, however, that Sukarno’s actions had not apparently been pleasing to some Indonesian leaders and referred to Indonesian criticism of the joint Soviet-Indonesian communiqué.

On leaving, the Ambassador and the Secretary agreed that should the former be asked by newspapermen concerning the subject of the conversation, the Ambassador would say that he had had a general, over-all discussion of world affairs with the Secretary. At this point, the Secretary took the initiative in summarizing his views concerning the recent events in Hungary⁶ as well as the seriousness of the developments in the Middle East.

1. Source: Department of State, Central Files, 656.56D13/10–2956. Confidential. Drafted by T.C. Cameron.
2. A letter of October 8 from the representatives of Indonesia and 14 other Asian and African nations to the U.N. Secretary-General had requested the inclusion of “The question of West Irian (West New Guinea)” on the General Assembly’s agenda; for text, see U.N. doc. A/3200. On November 15, the General Assembly decided, by a vote of 47 to 18, with 14 abstentions, including the United States, to include the item on its agenda.
3. Dated October 29, not printed.
4. The French Delegation withdrew from the Tenth Session of the General Assembly after the Assembly voted on September 30, 1955, to include the Algerian question on its agenda.
5. On November 21, Acting Assistant Secretary Elbrick gave Ambassador van Roijen an aide-mémoire stating that, after careful consideration, it had been decided to continue the existing U.S. policy; a copy is attached to a memorandum of conversation by Lancaster, November 21. (Department of State, Central Files, 656.56D13/11–2156)
6. Reference is to the Soviet intervention in Hungary.