501.BC Indonesia/3–2149: Telegram
The United States Representative at the United Nations (Austin) to the Secretary of State 1
391. Remytel 390, March 21. Following is text statement prepared by McNaughton on Indonesian question:
Text of statement on the Indonesian question by General the Honorable A. G. L. McNaughton, Permanent Delegate of Canada to the United Nations, in the Security Council on March 21, 1949.2
“A number of questions have been raised at the last two meetings of the Council by several representatives with regard to my statement in the Council on March 11, and I should like to take this opportunity to provide the further development of that statement which is apparently desired by members of the council and by the representatives of the states who are particpating in this debate.
[Page 334]“In the first place, I wish to make it clear that the suggestion embodied in the Canadian statement on 11 March was put forward in the hope that it might represent a practicable course of action leading to the resumption of direct negotiations between the parties. In advancing the suggestion for exploratory discussions, I put forward an idea, not the final text of a proposal. I fully recognize that the text of any final proposal could not appropriately be drafted until we had the benefit of the discussions in the Council to indicate a consensus of the Council’s opinion.
“In the two meetings which have been held since I made my statement, the debate has revealed that the suggestion, as it was originally advanced on Friday, 11 March, has secured the support of a number of delegations; on the other hand, there are some representatives who, while expressing general support for the idea of preliminary discussions, under the auspices of our Commission, have urged that the first and foremost subject for consideration at any such preliminary discussions must be the terms and conditions on which the restoration of Jogjakarta to the administration of the Government of the Republic of Indonesia might be accomplished. I as I understand these representatives, their position is, that once agreement has been obtained on this matter, such preliminary discussions would then turn to the further question of examining the time and conditions under which there could be acceptance of the very welcome initiative of the Government of The Netherlands in proposing a conference at The Hague, which would include representatives of all parties to the Indonesian dispute including, of course, qualified representatives of the Government of the Republic of Indonesia.
“I believe that no real difference exists on this point which might prevent the Council from reaching a consensus of opinion. Indeed, the principal object of my remarks on 11 March was to suggest a procedure by which our Commission in Indonesia would be able to take the initiative in an endeavor to remove the present obstacles which exist to the attendance of Republican Representatives at The Hague Conference. Clearly the chief obstacle to the attendance of these representatives is the question of the return of the Government of the Republic to Jogjakarta and the reestablishment of the Republican Government as an effective administration.
“To put it briefly, our position is this:
- “(a) We welcome The Netherlands offer to seek early agreement for the transfer of sovereignty over Indonesia to the United States of Indonesia and the suggestion that a conference be held at The Hague to negotiate this agreement, provided arrangements are made that this conference takes place with the agreement and cooperation of all parties directly concerned.
- “(b) In order to enable this conference to take place, it must be regarded as a ‘practicable and acceptable’ procedure by all the parties concerned in the proposed negotiations. To this end, UNCI should, in the first instance, seek, within the powers conferred upon it by the Resolution of 28 January, a way of bringing about an acceptable and voluntary agreement between the representatives of The Netherlands and of the Republic, which would enable the latter to participate in The Hague Conference as one of the parties to the negotiations leading to the transfer of sovereignty in Indonesia.
- “(c) The principal obstacle to the participation of the republic in The Hague Conference is the question of implementing Article 2 of the operative part of the Resolution of 28 January, calling upon The Netherlands Government ‘to facilitate the immediate return of the officials of the government of the Republic of Indonesia to Jogjakarta.’ An endeavor should therefore be made, with the assistance of UNCI, without prejudice to the Council’s Resolution of 28 January (including Article 2) to seek agreement on the manner in which this restoration should take place and also on the time and conditions for holding the proposed conference at The Hague.
- “(d) As one of the members of the Council which supported the Resolution of 28 January and contributed to its drafting, we continue to regard it as providing the procedures best suited to achieve a just and lasting settlement of this Indonesian dispute. What we propose at this time is that the Council, acting through its Commission, should help The Netherlands Government and the Government of the republic to work out an agreement regarding the implementation of those parts of the resolution which are essential to enable further direct negotiations between all parties concerned in the Indonesian dispute to take place, leading to a peaceful settlement whereby sovereignty may be transferred from The Netherlands Government to the United States of Indonesia.
“We welcome the acceptance by The Netherlands Government of our suggestion, in terms in which I put it forward, and we also welcome the statement made by the distinguished Representative of The Netherlands on Wednesday, 16 March, when, in referring to the Chinese and Canadian statements, he said ‘we realize that the implementation of their suggestions will require concessions from both parties.’
“On 14 March the distinguished Representative of the Republic of Indonesia raised some questions with regard to the proposal made in my statement of 11 March. I hope that what I have said today will have served to dispel any misconception which might have arisen at that time.
“In our view the preliminary discussions in Indonesia, which I and others in this Council have suggested, are not only desirable, but absolutely necessary. Before this Council could sanction the presence of the UNCI at The Hague Conference, we would need to know that our Commission was satisfied that the proposal of The Netherlands [Page 336] government had been developed into one from which the Commission itself believed some useful progress toward eventual settlement would result. It would clearly be necessary also that The Netherlands Government and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia were likewise satisfied on this point; also that they were mutually agreed as to the respective conditions or stipulations, on which they felt they could need assurance, before The Hague Conference could assemble.
“It is clear to the Canadian Delegation, and I hope other members of the Council will agree, that it would be impracticable for the Council itself to attempt to specify in detail the conditions and procedures which might enable the parties to undertake the direct negotiations at The Hague as proposed by The Netherlands Government. These are questions which, in our opinion, should be worked out in the preliminary discussions and with the assistance of our Commission, acting by virtue of the Council’s Resolution of 28 January and with the powers conferred upon it by that resolution. These powers include the duty to make recommendations to the parties as well as to the Security Council on matters within the competence of the Commission.
“The distinguished Representative of the Republic of Indonesia raised another question with regard to the statement of the Canadian Representative on 11 March, when he suggested that our proposal was founded on the mistaken impression that the aims of The Netherlands Government, as set forth in its proposal of 26 February, are identical with the aims of the Security Council and of the Republic of Indonesia. The distinguished Representative of The Netherlands has already twice replied to this question regarding the ultimate objective of Netherlands’ policy on the transfer of sovereignty. On 14 March he declared ‘I would now like to state most emphatically that the transfer, according to the Agreement of Renville, will be real, complete and unconditional.’ Moreover, if there is any difference between the Government of The Netherlands and the Government of the Republic of Indonesia as to how this objective is to be attained, the place to clarify the matter is in the conference between the two parties which, as a result of the preliminary discussions we have proposed, we hope may take place subsequently at The Hague.
“In speaking again today it has been my thought, Mr. President, that, having taken the responsibility for bringing before this Council a suggestion for a preliminary discussion, under the auspices of the UNCI, you might feel it appropriate if I were to summarize the suggestions which I think should be made by this Council to our Commission. This suggestion is that you, sir, on behalf of the Council, might write to the Commission in the following terms:
“‘It is the sense of the Security Council that UNCFI, in accordance with the Council’s Resolution of 28 January and without prejudicing [Page 337] the rights, claims and position of the parties, should assist the parties in reaching agreement as to: (A) The implementation of the Council Resolution of 23 January and in particular the most effective means by which the restoration of the Government of the Republic to the administration of Jogjakarta may be accomplished, and (B) the time and conditions for holding the proposed conference at The Hague, to the end that the negotiations contemplated by the Resolution of 28 January may be held as soon as possible. It is further the sense of the Council that, if such an agreement is reached, the holding of such a conference and the participation by UNCFI in accordance with its terms of reference would be consistent with the purpose and objectives of the Council’s Resolution of 28 January, 1949.’”
- Last paragraph of this telegram repeated in telegram 181, Usgoc 338, March 22, 4 p. m., to Batavia, preceded by “Following is communication from Pres SC to UNCFI proposed by Canad rep:”.↩
- This draft, slightly revised, was made at the SC meeting on March 23; for text, see SC, 4th yr., No. 24, pp. 2–5.↩