S/PV.171 Security Council

In explanation of the agenda, l should like to recall rule 8 of our rules of procedure, which reads: "The provisional agenda for a meeting shall he communicated by the Secretary-General to the representatives on the Security Council at least three days before the meeting, but in urgent circumstances it may be communicated simultaneously with the notice of the meeting." Unfortunatdy, however, aIl efforts by individual Governments, all offers of mediation have so far been unavailing. Hostilities continue, and my Government has feIt it imperative ta bring the situation to the attention of the Council without further de1ay. The Government of India, which has throu.ghout shared Australia's concern, and with which my Government had been in cOlllJultation in the hope that a peaceful settlement might be reached, had also decided that action by the Council was required, and yesterday drew the situation to the Council's attention. In view of the urgent circumstances, we asked Uat a meeting of the Council should be called immediately, and that the Indonesian question should be pJaced on the provisional agenda. 1 was glad to find that the President shared our . opi.llÎen regarding the urgep..cy of this matter, and 1 am confident that the Council will take a similar view. , l, therefore, propose that the Council should proceed immediately ta a consideration of this matter. 1 hope that this may be agreed without de1ay so that we may examine promptly what action is appropriate. In the situation with which we are faced, with hostilities in progress and further lives being lost hourIy, it is certainly ta be hoped that we can avoid prolonged argument on procedural questions. It is our hope that the Council will not attempt ta reach any decisiop. as regards the merits of the case and will confine its deliberation ta deciding on a course of action to bring about a cessation of hostilities. We feel that the Council should proceed with its work even though one or more of the Governments concerned may not be in a position ta participate immediately. lunderstand that representatives of the Netherlands and India are present in the Council chamber and may be authorized to participate if invited. 1 am not sure whether the same is true of the Republic of Indonesia, but 1 am certain that neither the members of the Council nor the other countries 1 shall not go into further details at this stage. 1 wish simply to urge the Council ta adopt the ' agenda without debate as a first step towards that prompt and effective action on behalf of the United Nations which is the duty of the Council, and, indeed, the very reason for its creation. With the permission of the President 1 shall seek leave to introàuce a resolution as soon as the agenda is adopted. Mr. VAN LANGENHOVE (Be1gium) (translated trom French): 1 presume that we are now discussing the provisional agenda and 1 should like to submit a few brief remarks on this subject. Thè Securjty COUil.cil has before it communications from the representatives of India and Australia. These communications represent an initiative taken by two States 'Members of the. United Nations who invoke certain provisions of the Charter in their appeal. to the Council. For this reason alone, these communications seem to be admissible and thus ta qualify for mc1usion in theCouncil's agenda. This deci.sion on admissibility does not, however, prejudge the Council'scompetence in any way. By admitting their admissibility, the Council in no way decides whether the subject of the communications thus placed on the agenda does or does not fall within its competence. In th1s particular case, we are concerned with a matter which has just been referred to the Council. But, 1 repeat, communications are admissible. Otherwise, failure to place them on its agenda would mean that the Councilcould not even consider whether their subject was within its competence and hence whether it could proceed to an examination of their substance.

1 should like to make it clear that the adoption of this item on the agenda doès not in any way prejudge either the competence of the Security Council in the matter or any of the merits of the case. . 264. Discussion of the Indofiesian questie!/n ' Mr. VAN LANGENHOVE (Be1gium) (tr~nsl..lted trom French): TlJ.e Council has just decided to place this matter on its agenda. Having done this, the Council obviously cannot proceed·fur- ther without the participation of the three States concerned. Two of these States, the Netherlands and India, are not members of the Council. 1 have the honour to move that these States be called urlOn immediately to take part,in.our 1 think the Council shoulc! postpone all discus- sion until the Netherlands and India are repre- sented on it, unless such representation can be arranged immediately. In that event, the ques- tion could be discussed without delay. Justice demands that these States should be able to make their views known to the Council from the out"et.

The representatlve of Belgium is correct. According to Article 31, the Netherlands and India, as well as Australia, have the right to participate in the debates on this issue. We aIso have requests for participation from the Governments of the Netherlands and India. - Colonel HODGSON (Australia) ; 1 assume that, after granting the right to participate to the , Netherlands and India, the Council would aIso immediate1y authorize the sending of an invitation to the Government of Indonesia to participate in a similar manner. We do not know whether Indonesia has a representative available, but, at least, the invitation should be sent immediate1y. Mr. VAN LANGENHOVE (Be1gium) (translated trom French): 1 do not think the question raised by the Australian represenative should be discussed in the absence of the representatives of the Netherlands and India. séances lui

1 should like to remind the representatives of the Netherlands and Inma of rule 14 of our rules of procedure, which states that "Any Member of the United Nations not a member of the Security Council . • . if invited to participate in a meeting or meetings of the Security Council, shall submit credentials for the representative appointed by it for this purpose." et Secrétaire 1 invite the representatives of the Netherlands and India to settle this matter with the Assistant Secretary-General. socialistessoyiétiques) n'en la des les et sécurité, République Mr. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): 1 think we have not yet finished with the question of in· viting representatives of the Governments concemed. We have invited the representative's of two Governments-India and the Netherlands; Australia is with us on the Security Council, but there is no representative of the Republic of Indonesia. The Council, therefore, should take tha~ military operations are going on in IndoneSla. Mr. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): l wish to thank the members of the Security Council for the opportu~ty accorded us to present our point of view, without vote. l take the liberty of asking ta be heard at this early! stage because the question of admitting representatives of the Republic of Indonesia ta this Cpuncil table seems tome ta prejudge the whole question at issue before the Council at this time. What is the Republic of Indonesia? l wish ta remind the Council that this is a mislea.dil name. Indonesia is that whole archipclago reach: ing from Sumatra in the west to New Guinea in the cast, in which at the present moment there is not only the Republic of Indonesia which comprises geographically only the islands of Java and Sumatra and is not designed to comprise any more than that-but there are also the States of Eastern Indonesia-eomprising Celebes, the Moluccas, the Lesser Sunda Islands, and a number of other islands in the east of the archipelago -and the State of Borneo. These t'Wo States, together with the Republic of Indonesia-which, l cannot repeat often enough, comprises only the islands of Java and Sumatra-are destined to be affiliated, associated, and federated into something which, according to the Agreement of Linggadjati-'With which the Council, l take it, is familiar-is to be called the "United States of Indonesia". The State-to-be, and no other state in those regions, is, according to that Agreement which bears the signature of the representative of the Republic of Indonesia, to be a sovereign, democratic State on a federal basis. The Republic of Indonesia is not a sovereign State any more than the State of Eastern Indones~a or of Borneo. It never has been a sovereign State. It is a political entity to be affiliated ultimately with the two other States l have named, and to be part of a federation. It has a Government which isonly de facto. But the government of what? Of a sovereign State? No, not of a sovereign State, but a State in the nature of-I mention this with aIl due respect to these States with which the Republic of Indonesia, plus EaStern Indonesia and Borneo, is comparable-let us say, New York or Utah or New South Wales or Parahiba in Brazil, or astate Mr. SEN (India): On behalf of my Government, l shoUld like to thank the mernbers of the Security Council for the opportunity. they have given me to speak on the question which is before us today. As the Council is aware, my Government has treated this Council with the respect and seriousness which it deserves. Today we come to this Counci! as a last resort, after a11 our efforts by other methods have apparently failed. Fighting on a large scale is continuing in Indonesia and, at the moment, my Goverment's most immediate concern is to put an end to this warfare. There will be time enough to discuss the merits of the case and to examine its various aspects, but the urgent need now is to call off hostilities, which all men of conscience must deplore. l wish to offer a word of explan:ation on the apparent difference of outlook between Australia ,and India on the provisions of the Charter under which action by the Security Council has been sought. India has asked for action under Chapter VI, which relates to disputes the continuance of which is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and tranquillity. Australia has applied under Chapter VII which relates to actual threats to the peace. There is really no difference of opinion between Australia and India in this matter. We did not, however, invoke the more urgent provisions of Chapter VII, for we feIt that, not being a member of the Security Gouncil, we were not entitled to do so. Y"e rejoice that Australia has taken up this matter under the provisions of Chapter VII, and we are most grateful for this action. We warmly associate ourselves with the Australian ~roposal pending careful consideration of ours. We are anxious that the matter should be disposed of by the Security Council with the greatest possible expedition. We are, however, under certain difficulties. The representative of my Government specificalIy ~ntrusted with this work has not yet arrived; he is now in London and even the fastest transport will not bring him here for aIJother two or three days. Also, many documents have Ilot yet been translated. Still, wc urge the Council ta act with all possible speed. The Council has many important pro~km.s before it, and sorne are urgent. The Egyptian Prime Minister has been waiting here for several days for a hearing before the Council. The Balkan question still remains to be settIed. These are weighty consideratiops, but l arr.. sure that the President and the members of the Council will agree that the situation in Indonesia is such that the Indonesian question must be taken up before all otl~ers. l am confident that Egypt will understand and sympathize with this proposai. This Council is the last hope of humanity for peace and security. We have drawn up a Charter and given our solemn pledge to it. Let us live up to its obligations and responsibilities. My Government did not bring this matter before the Council in a light-hearted manuel'. For da~'s we have waited for someone, for anybody, ta bring better counsel to the Netherlands Government; for days we have watched with horror and dis· appointment this senseless war by one of our own Members. Even patience must come to an end, and we have feIt, that we should be failing 'in our dutYin e\ cry respect if we delayed bringing this case to the Council. We have acted humbly and patiently, as indeed is the tradition in my countrY. l have no doubt that this Council will act wïth the ,fullest sense of responsibility, as indeed is its tradition. Colonel HODGSON (Australia) : Mr. President, 1 appreciate the point of view you have taken. With your concurrence, 1 propose ta speak on the second point, linking it up directly with the immediate question before this Council, and in the course of my remarks 1 shall meet the views raised by the representative of the Netherlands. Then, 1 suggest the Council will be in a position to decide upon the proper action to be taken both on the case itself and with regard to the invitation. It is with a deep sense of responsibility that the Australian Government has drawn the attention of the Council under Article 39 of the Charter of the United Nations to the situation in Indonesia. We had certainly hoped that circumstances would never arise which would make it necessary for Chapter VII to be invoked, and we have done so only after making strenuous attempts, in consultation with other Governments, particularly the United Kingdom, the United States and India, to bring about a solution by negotiation and mediation. However, although the parties to any dispute are bound to seek a solution by mediation and negotiation under Article 33, aIl attempts to bring the parties together have failed, and it is feIt that further delay is not justified because of the loss of life being sustained. The events of the last few days have been most disturbing to the Australian Government. Not only is Indonesia adjacent to our territory, but we are bound by the closest possible economic and commercial ties with this important area. Therefore, we not OlÙy share the concern which all Members of the United Nations must have in the restoration of peace and security, but vve feel that the interests of Australia are especial1y affected by the dispute between the Government of the Republic of Indonesia and the Government of the Netherlands, as the result of which hostilities have been in progress in Java and Sumatra during the last ten days. We feel further that we have a responsibility to bring this situation to the attention of. ,he Council, for it is one of international CG.!.cern and already has far-reaching repercussions. It affects the well-being and stability of the whole That hostilities are in progress is now well established. The Security Council should take cognizance of the substance and reality of what is taking place. There have been large-scale military operations involving the use of naval units, l:i.Ïrcraft and tanks, and regular communiqués have been issued by the respective commanders. From these communiqués, it is apparent that fighting has taken place over a wide area between organized forces, that there have been substantial casualties, and that hostilities are continuing. These are the essential facts of the military situation in Java and Sumatra. The Council should also note that the hostilities proceeding are not rnerely police action but are in fact warfare; that is, in international law, armed conflict between two States. It can be clearly established that the Republic of Indonesia doesconstitute aState. First, the original Netherlands-Indonesian Draft Agreement of 15 November was negoû- ated and initialled by representatives of the two Governments, the Netherlands and the Republic of Indonesia. Secondly, the Government of the Republic of Indonesia has been recognized by the Netherlands Government as exercising de facto authority over Java, Madura and Sumatra by the Linggadjati Agreement, article 1. Thirdly, the Republic of Indonesia has been given de facto recognition by a number of other Governments including the United Kingclom, United States, India, members of the Arab League and Australia. We understand also that Egypt, Syria, and Iraq have given diplomatic recognition, and that Egypt and Syria have concluded treaties of friendship with the new State. Indeed, the Arab League as far back as 18 November of last yea.r, proposed that the Arab States should consider recognizing the Republic. Lastly, in the Linggadjati Agreement under article XVII, there is provision for the President of the International Court of Justice to nominate the Chairman of an arbitration body. This is significant. As the members are aware, onIy States may he parties in cases before that Court. There is another set of facts bearing on the present situation, which l should also mention briefly, because these facts are important new developments since the situation in Indonesia was discussed in this Council eighteen m,mths ago. l refer to article XVII of the Linggadjati Agreement between the Netherlands and the Government of the kepublic of Indonesia signed at Batavia on 25 March 1947. Members of the Council will recall that the representative of the Netherlands advised that this Agreement had been reached in a letter to the Secretary-General date 27 March 1947, the text of which Ïscontained in document S/31 LI l am sure that the members of the Council are familiar with the terms of that Agreement but .li. wish to draw attention ln particular to article XVII, which reads as follows: 1 Fol1owing is the text of the letter: Document 8/311 27 March 1947 [Original text: English] You will recaH that, in the course of its twelfth and following meetings held in the period from 7-13 February 1946, the 8ecurity Council considered whether the situation which had arisen at that time in Indonesia created a threat to the maintenance of international peace and security. In the course of a final statement l made as representative of the Netherlands on the 8ecurity Council, before the President declared the matter closed, l had the honour to observe: "1 can very weIl understand that this Council is interested in the conversations which are now taking place in Batavia. They are in fact not merely news in the technical sense of that word, as so many domestic questions are, but they quite naturally touch a chord in the human heart, quite apart from whatever the Charter does or does not provide. For that reason, and for that reas'On alone, This envisages a method of justice not on1y agreed upon but immediately available, whereas the Security Council itself without a prolonged investigation is not in a position to cast judgment où the merits of the situation or to recommend a solution. It is clear that this dispute, which has merged into hostilities, arose out of that Agreement, for that is expressly stated in the letter from the representative of the Netherlands to the Secretary- General of the United NatiONS, dated 22 July {document S/426) 1. Under the Agreement rel shaH be glad to suggest to my Government that this Council be informed of the outcome of the discussion, as an act of deference and courtesy towards this Council on our part." Accordingly, the conversations referred to, having resuIted in an agreement signed at Batavia on 25 March 1947, my Government has instructed me to bring this to the knowledge of the Security Council. l shall be grateful if you will be so good as to iuform the Council to that effect, and to add that l shaH be glad to present copies of the agreement signed as soon as l shall be in receipt of the official text. (Signed) E. N. VAN KLEFFENS 1 Following is the text of the letter: Document S/426 22 July 1947 [Original text: English] In pursuance to the letter addressed to you by Ml'. E. N. van KIeffens, then representative of the Netherlands to the United Nations, on 27 March 1947, No. 174/51, l have the honour, under instructions from my Government, to communicate the following to you: Froin the discussions which have been carried on with the Indonesian Republic sinee the signing of the Linggadjati Agreement on March 25, it has become clear that the present Government of the Republic is either not prepared or not able to implement that Agreement. Furthermore the truce concluded on October 14, 1946 has in reality never been complied with by the Republic forces; the Government of the Republic themselves have not denied that hostilities were committed by their forees. During the last few months acts of violence both on demarcation lines in Java and Sumatra and against East Indonesia and Western Borneo have rather increased than decreased. They were accompanied by a senseless destruction of valuable economic assets. By maintaining the food blockade a part of the population of Indonesia was brought to the verge of starvation. Hostages are still being imprisoned and held in Republican territory and a hostile and inflammatory propaganda was maintained. The Netherlands as the State with whom the sovereignty of this territory rests and which consequently is ultimately responsible for maintaining law and order car not allow these inimical actions to continue. It has becon"~ patently clear that the present Republican Government is incapable of maintaining security, law and order in their territory whilst refusing to co-operate with the Netherlands Government to create the necessary conditions thereto. In these circumstances Hel' Majesty's Government have with the utmost reluctance been compelled to authorize the Lieut. Governor General to resort to policemeasures of a strictly limited character. In the opinion of my Government, therefore, the appropriate measures of a provisional nature which this Council shQuld take are: (1) demand for cessation of hostilities; (2) arbitration under article XVII of the Linggadjati Agreement. To that end, the Australian delegation submits the following resolution to the Security Council: "Noting with concern the hostilities in progress between the armed forces of the Netherlands and of the Republic of Indonesia, and "Having determined that such hostilities con- stitute a breach of the peace under Article 39 of the Charter of the United Nations, "CaUs upon the Governments of the Nether- lands and of the Republic of Indonesia, under Article 40 of the Charter of the United Nations, to comply with the following measures, such measures to be without prejudice to the rights, daims, or position of either party: "(a) To cease hostilities forthwith, and " (b) T 0 settle their disputes by arbitration in accordance with article XVII of the Linggadjati Agreement, signed at Batavia on 25 March 1947." This is one of the most urgent problems which have come before the Security Council. The Australian Government has raised this matter in a way which, if is hoped, will enable the Council to deal with the situation speedily and effectively. We are not in any way prejudging the issue. We are not condemning anybody. We ask only for cessation of hostilities so that independent arbi- tration can decide on the merits of the case, and so that further destruction of lif~ and property can be avoided. We feel this decision should be taken unanimously, as no Government will want to be responsible for the continuation of hostili- ties and the suffering and loss involved. Nor should there be any difference of opinion on the question of procedure,that the two parties should be called upon to arbitrate under their Agreement. If these steps are taken"the Security The Netherlands Government 'wish to stress that it maintains its unalterable decision to carry out the polit- ical programme based upon the principles underlying the Linggadjati Agreement. The Netherlands Government confidently hopes that circumstances will soon permit to resume constructive co- operation with the Republic as desired by innumerable Indonesians in Republican territory, which co-operation already successfully exists with the States of East Indo- nesia and Borneo. We have very much in mind the words ex- pressed at the hundred and sixty-ninth meeting by the representative of Colombial when he spoke about the lack of progress in the Security Council·in important matters such as the control of atomic energy, the Military Staff Committee's report, the question of conventional armaments, the Greek question, and other matters with which this Council has been seized during the last year. We feel that this is a case whereby the reputation and status of the Security Council may very weil stand or fall, according to its ability to take speedy and effective action in the interest of world peace. We say this is a chal- lenge to the Security Council, and we hope that we will meet that challenge. With regard to the point raised concerning a representative of the Republic of Indonesia, if the Council is prepared to adopt a resolution along the lines we have proposed, sorne members will probably consider that there is no need to wait for a representative of the Republic of Indo- nesia t~ be present here. As the representative of the Netherlands said, the membership of the United Nations is cer- tainly based on the equality of sovereign States; yet many of them fail by that test. But nowhere in t.he Charter is it said that this Council cannat act in a dispute between States, and certainly when aState is involved which is already inter- nationally recognized and indeed has received.a very wide international recognition. For those reasons, l leave in the hands of the Council the question as to whether or not, at this stage, the Council should invite a representa- tive of the Republic of Indonesia. If the Council doesextend such an invitation, l suggest that the invitation should be extended under Article 32 of the Charter, that is, on the same terms and conditions as those of the i'1vitations ex- tended to Albania and Bulgaria-namely, that the Republic of Indonesia accepts the obliga- tions of settlement provided for in the Charter of the United Nations. Mr. SEN (India): l should like to deal very briefly with the point raised by the representative of the Netherlands concerning whether, in view of the present status of Indonesia, the Security Council can extend it an invitation to present its case, without infringing international law. The representative of Australia has dealt exhaustively with the de facto position of Indonesia. He has shown that many Governments, including the ln so far as the Netherlands Government it- self is concerned, it might interest the Sectirity Council to hear article 1 of the Linggadjati Agreement itself. Article 1 states: "The Nether- lands Government recognizes the Government of the Republic of Indonesia as exercising the de facto authority over Java, Madura an'd Sumatra." The question has been raised as to whether a State can legally be regarded as a State, if it is not sovereign, 1 am not myself an expert on internationallaw, but 1 should like to refer the members of the Security Council to certain authorities on the subject. 1 refer the Council to the well-known book on international law by Lord Birkenhead. On page 31 of the sixth edi- tion of that book it is stated: "The requirement that, in order that it may be regarded as aState within the meaning of international law, the society must be a sovereign independent State is however in no way essential to the conception of juridical relations between States." 1 should aIso like to quote Hall, another au- thority on the subject. In A Treatise on Inter- national Law he states on page 21 of the eighth edition: "The internal constitutional changes in the govemment of a State do not affect the identity of a State. A community is able to assert its rights and to fulfil its duties equally weIl, whether it is presided over by one dynasty or another, and whether it is clothed with the form of a monarchy or a republic. It is unneces- sary that governments, as such, shall have a place in international law, and they are consequently regarded merely as agents through whom the conimunity expresses its will, and who, though duly authorîzed at a given moment, may be superseded at pleasure. This dissociation of the identity of aState from the continued existence of the particular kind of government which it may happen to possess is not oruy a necessary consequence of the nature of the State person; it is aIso essential both to its indepenGence and to the stability of aIl international relatiom." 1, therefore, submit that it will not be an in- fringement of international law if the Security Council extends an invitation to the Republic of Indonesia to attend the meetings of the Security Council. 1 should also like to say here that the dispute with which we are dealing todayi threatens the peace and security of the whole of South-east Asia. 1 submit very humbly that it is not a matter which should be approached in a put'ely legalistic way, as is being attempted by the rep- resentative of the Netherlands Governinent. The second point is that neither the Charter nor our rules of procedure stipulate that any State, to be considered aState, should have complete independence. We know that sorne States of the world do not have complete inde- pendence; they are independent, but not com- pletely so, by virtue of certain agreements and certain treaties which bind them to other nations or to the United Nations, and which limit their independence to a certain extent. But that does not alter their independence and deprive them of the right to be treated as independent Statès. For this reason we consider that Indonesia should be considered an independent State and should have the right to enjoy the same privileges as other States. The representative of the Netherlands stated today that this Republic does not include all Indonesia. We are not now defining the frontiers For these reasons, our attitude is. that in the Security Council the Republic of Indonesia should be dealt with as an independent State and should have the right to share the privileges of such States. Mr. LÔPEZ (Colombia): l should like to make a suggestion, in view of the urgency of the case. My delegation is of the opinion that perhaps the best thing to do would be to proceed to a discussion of the draft resolution submitted by the Australian representative; after we have reached a decision on that subject, we can then discuss the question of whether or not we should invite the representative of the Republic of Indo- nesia to our discussions.

l shall follow the'suggestion made by the representative of 'Colombia. It seerns to me very urgent that we should discuss the resolution introduced by the representative of Australia, which is the oo1y resolution now before us. It may be possible for us to finish this discussion and reach a decision today. In that case, the question of the invitation to the representative of the Republic of Indonesia would be beside the point. If we do not finish the discussion today, then at the close of this meeting l shall submit to the Security Council the proposaI concerning an invitation to the representative of Indonesia. In the meantime;I invite the members of this Council to discuss the resolution presented by the representative of Australia. l should also like, as President, to express the hope that we reach a decision this evening. Mr. EL-KHOURI (Syria): l believe there would be no difficulty in adopting the resolution presented by the representative of Australla before this meèting adjourns. We need not postpone the matter ta another meeting. It is urgent; the sooner hostilities and bloodshed are stopped, the better. l think it would be appropriate to take a decision to accept this resolution 1 should like to add a few words. We have not yet heard from the representatives of the N~therlands, India and Australia what is going on in Indonesia. We know that military operations are in progress there, but we have not yet heard fuller statements from these representatives setting forth in detail the position of their Government. In particular, we have not heard the position of the Netherlands representative. We must hear these representati ves. Mr. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): 1 await the President's ruling asto the sequence of tms debate; 1 only wish to say now that 1 am at the disposaI of the Council now and at aIl times.

1 shall ask the Council to discuss, and if possible reach a decision upon, the resolution presented by the representative of Australia, or any alternative proposaI which may be made. 1 reserve the question of the invitation to the representative of Indonesia for the end of the meeting. If we wish to give the representatives of all the parties concemed an equal opportunity to express their points of view, 1 would sugge.st that this nùe should be applied. Although the Council is delighted to have the representative of the Netherlands and the representative of India present, the point is that it is not necessary ta have a representative of the Indonesian Republic in order ta call for a cessation of hostilities. If we are all agreed, we can very well postpone the question of issuing an invitation until we have decided what to do about th~ actual warfare that is going on in Indonesia. parties intéressées une égale possibilité leurs soit tants de représentant hostilités. la remise convient en nécessaire midi la inviter qui Jes nécessairement que rait, en le consultant, MI'. JOHNSON (United States of America): 1 wonder if it is necessary for the Council to' take a legal decision this aftemoon on the question of the participation of the Indonesian sccalled Republic. Could not the Council jnvite that territory to send a representative who 'Would be available for consultation by the Council? Later, if it became necessary during the course of the discussion of the case which has been brought up by the Indian and Australian representatives, the Council might finally make a juridical decision; but it does not seem to me that the Council need give up the advantage of having a representative of that territory here. It would be an advantage from the point of view both of allowing that group of people a spokesman and of making it possible to consult them in sorne way. 1 make these remarks as an inquiry.

ln reply ta the representative of the United States, according to rule 39 we can invite anybody we wish for consultation. AState which participates in a dispute must be invited according to Article 32 of the Charter, under certain conditions which the Security Council may lay down. It is quite possible to adopt the procedure of inviting a representative of the Indonesian Republic and leaving until later the matter of deciding his legal status, and the legal basis of the representation. There would certaines sécurité. un en Mr. VAN LANGENHOVE (Be1gium) (translated Irom French): Mr. President, 1 asked to speak , in arder ta draw the Council's attention to rule 39 of our rules of procedure, which you quoted just now. 1 think this rule would provide a satisfactory method of implementing the suggestion made by the United States representative. The application of this rule would make it unnecessary ta prejudge au important question of principle, on which, 1 think, the Council is at present insuffiCiently informed. -Mr. TSIANG (China): My de1egation is of the opinion that the resolution submitted by our calleague from Australia meets the requirements of the case exactly and completely. It does not attempt ta judge. In fact, it expressly excludes prejudging the rights, daims or position of either party. It calls on this Council ta perform its primary duty-a duty which it cannat escapeta stop the fighting and ta solve the dispute by peaceful means. Now, 1 have a modest suggestion which 1 would request our colleague from Australia to consider. Would he be willing ta add at the end of paragraph (b) the phrase "or by other peaceful means"? 1 suggest that phrase not because 1 am opposed ta the present formulation but in arder to cover possible contingenCies. A situation may develop where arbitration may not be' immediately available, ,or sorne other quicker or more direct means may be available. We should leave that possibility open. It is only for that reason that 1 suggest the addition of the phrase "or by other peaceful means". 1 should like to add another ward. We have been discussing this resolution. We are also discussing the question of an invitation to a representative of the Government of the Republic of Indonesia. For our immediate purposes, the two questions are independent. We can act upon one without acting upon the other. Of dIe two questions, it seems to me that this resolution certainly should have priority.

1 should like ta ask the representative of Australia whether he accepts the proposaI made by the representative of China. Colonel HODGSON (Australia) : My delegation welcomes that suggestion. It is most useful, help- I should like to say that it seems abundantly c1ear that, whether or not we pass the whole o~ , this resolution tonight, we should at least pass the preamble and that portion re1ating to the cessation of hostilities. Now, in that respect, my Government has a1ways taken the view that the members of this Council are not here to represent their particular countries, particuIar groups or interests; they are not here to present a particular point of view of their own Governments but to act in the interest of the whole of the United Nations. This is a case and a time when we can act in the interest of the United Nations. My delegation would .be very disappointed if the representatives present, who are aU men of high responsibility hi the trust uf their Governments, made a suggestion that we shouId defer consideration on the ground that they have to consult their Governrnents. Sure1y every Government wants the cessation of hostilities. A member has suggested that there may be a doubt as to whether or not point (b) is appropriate. 1 think it is quite praper and fitting for us to take a vote on the whole thing this evening. However, if sorne members wouId prefer to defer decision on point (b) for a day, then let us immediate1y pass the preamble and point (a) concerning the cessation of hostilities, and defer point (b) until tomorrow. . Ml'. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): The members of the Council will not find any tendency on my F~rt to protract these debates; 1 am quite ready to proceed. l'anglais): du prolonger suivre question République que la If at the present time we do not have before us the question of the admission of a representative of the Republic of Indonesia, in whatsoever capacity or under whatsoever provision of the Charter or the rules of procedure, theh, in the interest of rapid progress, I shall reserve the remarks I have to make on that point untillater. On the other hand, if the President rules that this question shouId be discussed now, I wish to make certain observations on that point. alors à Président examiner alors de

ThG resolution presented by the representative of Australia is now Ulh Nous faite tion la '~r discussion, and we are postponing the ques'..lOn of the invitation to the representative of the Republic of Indonesia. Ml'. PARODI (Fra,nce) (translated trom F1'ench): In spite of the urgent appeal made to us by the Australian representative, 1 am somewhat anxious about the course which we seem to be following. pressante l'Austra:lie, dans Since the representatives of India and Australia are well acquainted with the question, and since the Netherlands representative is here, l would suggest that we at least begin the dèbate on the substance of the question; since the matter is considered urgent, and l understand why this is so, we might discuss it later-this evening for instance, or tomorrow, as we have two meetings fixed-but we could at least hear brief explanations on the substance now. This is only a question of procedure, but one which l think is essential if we are to do seriol1s work. I, therefore, insist that we should at least hear preliminary explanations on 'the substance of the question. l do not know if any of my colleagues are better informed than l am, but l must admit that l personally know very little about the substance of the matter and would be very reluctant to take any decision whatever. . Ml'. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated tram Russian): We can hardly consider this matter without discussing it. This is an important and urgest question and merits the serious attention of the Security Council. So far no one, neither the Netherlands representative nor the Australian representative nor the Indian representative, has told us in detail . what is going on in Indonesia and what is the origin of the situation which has arisen there. The Australian representative has made a general statement which is undoubtedly of interest; the Indian representative made a short statement; the representative of Indonesia is not yet here at the Security Council meeting; the Netherlands representative has so far said nothing about what is happening in Indonesia. And yet we are now being asked to discuss a resolution on arbitration and amendments to this resolution, and aIl this without due deliberation. . Perhaps it is to someone's advantage not to discuss this question and to be satisfied merely with the formaI adoptioI'. of a resolution on arbitration, but l cannot accept that point of view. As to the question cf compelling the parties concerned to cease hostilities immediately, l am ready, as l have already stated, to vote DOW for such a decision, as it is absolutely necessary. But this question and this decision are only part of the wider issue. 1t may not be enough to decide only this part of the question; perhaps, in addition to snch a decision, the Security Council l do not think l need again repeat that we can at any time, even now, take a decisioIlj to put an end to hostilities, but it is absolutely necessary to consider the Indonesian situation, and to do so from the right angle. In any case, such questions as to whether it is necessary ta set up arbitration or choose sorne other means in order to establish normal relations between the Indonesian Republic and the Netherlands, or whether a decision merely to put an end to hostilities is or is not sufficient, calI for detailed consideration by the Council. Urgency and inexcusable haste are two different things. We cannot, under the pretext of suiting; our action to the urgency of the matter, confine ourselves to the discussion of purely formal and unimportant measures. hostilités, Linggadjati. ne résolution n'avons renseignements actueHement. gation des de sécurité Je sécurité décision immédiate de quer .en plus sécurité Mr. SEN (India): The resolution moved by the representative of Australia has two stibstantial recommendations: one dealing with the immediate cessation of hostilities, the other with the settlement of the dispute by arbitration in accordance with the article of the Linggadjati Agreement. So far as the first recommendation is concerned, there seems to be no reason why that resolution, at least, should not be adopted today. For that we do not need any more facts than we have before us at present. It is admitted on alI sides-and l am sure that the delegation of the Netherlands Government would not dispute itthat hostilities have taken place. It is the function of the Security Council to maintain peace and security. Therefore, l submit, there should be no hesitation on the part of the Security 'Council in coming to an immediate decision on this first part of the resolution. So far as we are concerned, l made it clear in my opening remarks that we consider this to be the most immediate and urgent matter for consideration, and we request the Security Council to come to a decision with regard to this recommendation. With regard to the second point, namely, settlement of the dispute by arbitration, the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist du l'Union So far as India is concerned, we have certain facts before us. However, events have moved very fast during the last ten days, and if the Security Council is to do justice to this case, it would naturally expect to have all the facts placed before it. If, in dealing with the second part of the resolution, we have only the facts which the delegates of India or the Netherlands can produce today or tomorrow, then 1 submit that the Security Council may run the risk of coming to a decision without having aIl the facts. The Security Council will, therefore, be in the situation of playing Hamlet without the Prince of Denmark. The Indonesians have their side of the case to place before the Security Council. It is only bare justice that they should be allowed to present their case. . . Mr. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): 1 think it was rightly stated by at least one of the members of the Council that before the resolution is adopted there should be, at any rate, sorne exposé of the case by Australia, India and my own country. 1 asked to be heard before any resolution was put to a vote. 1 think that is in conformity with good procedure, as has befn pointed out by other members, and is the natural requirement for an orderly debate. The only thing 1 am going to ask, if 1 may, is whether the representatives of Australia and India, who are here in the position of claimants -1 am only the respondent-have anything more to say than what they have said so far, before 1 present the picture as 1 see it. 1 think it is only right that the respondent should r('<;pond after the case of the c1aimants has first been put in full. In case the representatives of Australia and India have nothing to add at this time to their very general opening remarks, 1 am ready to make my'Statement now. Colonel HonasoN (Australia): 1 regret exceedingly that the representative of the Netherlands has completely misjudged the attitude of my Government, the point of view of my Govemment and the stand my Government has taken in this particular case. We did not come to this Council either as a respondent or as a claimant. 1 was very careful to say throughout IllY speech that we are not here to pass judgment and we are not taking Gides. 1 further said that we are in no way prejudgmg the issue. Wé are not condemninganybody. We asked the Council to take note of certain facts which do not require investigation, which We stand on the case we put before the Council this afternoon. We stand on the arguments we advanced. We particularly requested before that the merits of the case should not be discussed. Consequently, 1 have nothing further to add before the representative of the Netherlands replies. Mr. SEN (India): 1 have already made it clear that so far as the first part of the resolution dealing with the cessation of hostilities is concerned, the Security Council should be able to come to a decision without h~ving any further evidence presented to it. As regards the second part dealing with the settlement of the di'Spute, 1 suggest following the course prbposed by the representative of the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, who said that this is a matter which we cannot discuss today with any hope of a satisfactory decision, unless we have further evidence. 1 have also suggested in this connexion that, in hearing further evidence, the Security Council should hear not only what the representative of the Netherlands or the representatives of Australia and India have to say, but also what the representative of Indonesia has ta say. In this respect, 1 declaLe that my position is slightly different from that of Australia. Australia has taken the stand that it is not going into the merits of the case. The position of India is slightly different. We feel that the Security Council should go into the merits of the case and come to a decision. We feel that it is not enough merely to say to the two parties that they should settle the dispute according to the Agreement arrived at last year. We feel that the Security Council has its own positive duty in this matter. It should not merely leave it to the parties to settle the dispute according to a particular agreement. Mter all that has happened during the last ten days the Indonesians may not wish to adhere to the articles of the Agreement referred to here. They may wish direct mediation. We do not know which choice they will make. It seems to us only proper that the Security Council should hear the representative of Indonesia before it cornes to a decision on this second part of the resolntion. At this stage 1 repeat that, though we have certain facts with regard to what is going on in Colonel HODGSON (Australia): I should just like to add that, under the procedure now suggested, we shall have the case fully argued and debated by the representative of the Netherlands. He suggests we hear aU that before we pass any resolution, even that portion of the resolution relating to the cessation of hostilities. If we are going into the merits of the case, we must then, in aU fiirneE:s, wait for the appearance of a representative of Indonesia, if he can get here, in order to hear the other side. Therefore, it may be a very, very long time before we have a vote on even the first portion of the resolution. I put ,that for the consideration of the Council.

Before calling upon the representative of the Netherlands, I should like to make a suggestion. The resolution consists of two parts: a proposaI to cease hostilities, and a proposal for the settlement of the dispute. Quite a number of representatives expressed sorne doubt as to whether we could make a decision on the second point without going into the details in an extensive debate. I think that everybody who spoke agreed with the first point. The representative of Australia also expressed his willingness to have considered for the moment the first part of the resolution, which includes me preamble and the point about the cessation of hostilities. I should like to take up this proposaI, because I think it will facilitate our debate. I think it is a point which -We might settle today, and we could then postpone the discussion of the rest of the resolution to the next meeting. 1 should also like to suggest to the representative of Australia that, if we consider oruy the part of the resolution contained in point (a), then it might be better to use, instead of the 'words "to cease hostilities forthwith", "to cease hostilities immediately". Whether or not we add something, or what we do about the settlement of the dispute, would be discussed at the next meeting. Mr. VAN KLEFFENS (Netherlands): Even if that procedure is folIowed, I am very anxious to be heard. I shall endeavour to show the Council that, although this is admittedly a case re'!~aling any secret when 1 say that the Go"'· ernments of these two States-and 1 use me word "States" in the sense of States to be merged into the federation, not sovereign and independent States-of Eastern Indonesia and Borneo have asked us more than once to take such action earlier, but we were anxious to exhaust every possibility of avoiding a clash before resorting to these measures. What was it that made us take this action in Java and Sumatra, and what is the true nature of the action? The Council will recall that, in the Linggadjati Agreement, many points were settled about the future nature of the United States of Indonesia and the forro in which the United States of Indonesia-to-be would be affiliated with the Kingdom of the Netherlands under the House of Orange. However, although we supposed that it went without saying, the Agreement did not settle such matters as cessation of the loathsome practice of keeping of hostages, or of the Indonesian Republic's acting as if it were a sovereign State, which over its signature in the Linggadjati Agreement it has said it was not. It did not settle then that there would be no more direct agreements with other States; that there would be no more blockade of territories held by Dutch troops in such areas as Batavia and Semarang and Soerabaya and elsewhere; that there would be at last an observance of the truce which was signed at the end of last year and for violations of which we have had innumerable complaints. ' 1 heard only yesterday that this matter was to be put before the Council, and it appeared a little later that this was to be done with unprecedented haste. l,do not complain at all about that haste, but 1 hope members of the Council will understand that for that reason it has not been possible for me to bring before this Council and lay upon the Council table aIl that wealth of documentary material to reinforce my statements which 1 shall be glad to present at a later stage, if the Council so desires. 1 have asked the Government of the Indies for documentary evi- The food blockade of the areas held by Dutch troops continued until we took this action. The hostilities against our troops continued unabated. AlI these points had been put before the Government of the Republic time after time; and in a little while-for which 1 ask the Council's indulgence-I shall put documentary material before this Council on the basis of which that is made abundantly clear. But in spite of aU our endeavours, no result whatsoever was achieved. Let it not be said that this action was undertaken merely because we still continued ta differ over one point in connexion with the execution of the terms of the Linggadjati Agreement, namely, the constitution of a joint gendarmerie. Misrepresentation has been taking place on this as weU as on other points, and 1 am very glad It follows-and 1 think this is pure. logichat if the matters 1 have just mentioned, which were of the very gravest import to us and to everybody concerned, especially to those poor hostages, were not regulated under the Linggadjati Agreement, the arbitration clause in that Agreement as such was not applicable to these questions. 1 should like to compare this situation with that of two people who agree to build a house. They make an agreement that if they disagree on the furniture or the general lay-out of the house, they will submit those points to the better judgment of a third impartial party. But if one of the parties shows by his acts that he is not going to build at all, the arbitration clause c1early is not operative. So it was in the case of the Linggadjati Agreement; and that was the reason why there was no obligation at all on the part of the Government of the Netherlands to have recourse to arbitration. It may be asked why we did not resort to arbitration even if there was no obligation to do so. 1 think our record shows that we went to the làst l;mits of patience and forbearance before resorting to this action. 1 beg the Council to nous que donne nous et Conseil de nouveaux que accrues. ces gnance la déci'jion d'ailleurs approuvés l'Indonésie 1 ponder, what would it have meant, if wehad resorted to arbitration? It would have meant more delay, more sufiering, and no chance of bringing agreement closer within a reasonable time. That is why, in view of all those considerations taken together, we decided reluctantly, but with the backing of the whole country and the whole-hearted approval of the States of Eastern Indonesia and Borneo, to take this action. The chief characteristic of the Republic has been-and this is very pertinent to the discussion in progress here-that it had no authority at home; it was not obeyed. This is not because 1 say so, but because these are incontrovertible facts; and 1 shall make that clear to the Council, if 1 may. Time and again emissaries of the Republican Government entered into discussions with representatives of the Netherlands Government. Many times they came to an agreement which they said they had to refer back to their capital. Though, of course, we gave them every opportunity to refer to their authorities in the capital the points agreed upon, invariably, or at least in very many cases, they were disavowed on the spot. ment remarque cours propre ne part, à envoyés d'Indonésie négociations Bas: projet devait Nous quer être l'immense immédiatement désavoués. armées courir terrorisant Moreover, undisciplined troops and lawless anned bands continued to range the countryside, living on the population of the land by terrorizing the inhabitants. We know-and here The average native has had more than enough of this. The people of Java are not an industrial proletariat. They are smaIl landowners, as there is a law which forbids any white person to have land there-a law which we made years and years ago, to be quite correct in 1870, in order that the land should belong to the inhabitants. These people are peaceful folk, like everybody here in the United States or in the country of any other member, and they ask for protection. They want to get rid of the Republic or at least of the Republican Government, because l must point out very clearly that we have nothing at aIl against the Republic as ,an institution. They want to get rid of that Republic; that is the explanation of the fact that our troops have been so weIl receiyed. You may say, "Ah, but we see in the papers aIl the stories about plantations being set on fire, ~tc." That may weIl be. But it does not undermine my statement in any way, because those are precisely the acts of the bands and disobedient troops of which l have just spoken. l shall if necessary summon witnesses to that facto May l say another word about those troops and their general character of lawlessness. Why do they possess arms? They possess arms because the Japanese left them with arms when they had to surrender, left the arms as a thorn in our side, as a sort of time-bomb, if l may use that expression, to create trouble after the defeat of Japan. Those arms were accepted, and unfortunately they have been used in an irregular m~er. In other words, an intolerable situation has arisen on aIl sides. The administration of the Government degenerated visibly. Profit-seekers, people who have taken over houses which did not belong to them, and so on, were the ones who sought to extend its existence; they were the vested interests of that Republican Government. There was nothing which seemed to point to an improvement. The people, the honest, common agricultural folk of Java and Sumatra, could no longer be abandoned to their oppressive government, a government which has at aIl times had a totalitarian character, l may add. The President, who Wal? placed in power by the Japanese, saw fit to arrogate to himself the fullness of public authority, dismissing ministers at will without appointing others in harmony with the Parliament of the Republic, and acting as if he were the sole authority in the State. Of course, we could not tolerate such wanton destruction. Our troops went in and met with very little opposition. To the joy of the inhabitants, our troops restored arder, closed the dikes, repaired the locks and saw that the people could live there without.being molested. Now, did we ask that the Republic should withdraw its authority there? No, sir, we did not. On the contrary, we asked the Republican authorities, ü they cared to, to continue not in the employ of the Netherlands Government but as Republican authorities. AlI we care about is that anarchy, chaos and lawlessness should cease and that the great masses of the people, on behalf of whom we act as the guardians of their security and true liberty, should at last be enabled again ta live in peace. This is clearly not war. What we are doing now is what we did in Modjokerto on a large scale. We are compelled ta do sa by circumstances and much against our will. This is not war. The best words we have been able ta find for it-but 1 do not wish to quarre! about words -were "police action". 1 repeat that we do not wage war against the Republic. We shall be quite happy to continue negotiations with the Republic, but we cannat go on with a Government which is divided within itself, is not obeyed by those u.nder its de facto authority, and is generally evasive, unconstructive, and unco-operative. Is this the re-establishment of colonialism, as has been said here and there? It is not, 1 can assure the Council. Here, 1 must ask Y0llto believe us. Judge us by our acts. We ask you to believe us, and we feel we are entitled to ask for that. I beg to obse;"e that no State which is not a sovereign State is eligible for membership. Let me add that Committee 1 of the San Francisco Conference, in its report to Commission I,stated that sovereign equality includes the following element: " ... 2. That each State enjoys the right inherent in full sovereignty;" There is on the side of the Republic of Indonesia no question of full soyereignty. The $OVereign Power-and I think this has never been disputed yet-is the Netherlands, whose Government has difficulties with one of its constituent e1ements, not with an external element. We therefore contend: First, the Charter is not applicable to what is now happening in Java and Sumatra; and Secondly, that while it seems to' us that that contention is adequate to rule out action of any kind, including an affirmative vote on the Australian draft resolution now before us, we consider, in addition, that this is a matter essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of the Netherlands. Article 2, paragraph 7 of the Charter reads as follows: "Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any State or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII." Now, I come to Chapter VII. Assuming purely and simply for argument's sake that the Charter is applicable-which I deny-to what is now taking place in Java and Sumatra, where then, 1 ask, is there any danger to international peace or security, let alone breaches of the peace or acts of aggression in the sense of the Charter? In what countries outside the Netherlands' territory are there any signs of danger to peace caused by this action? Therefore, with regard to paragraph (b) of the Australian draft resolution, as I have already said, the Lin!{gadjati Agreement is not applicable here. The Australian resoliItion says that we are invited with the Republic of Indonesia to settle disputes by arbitration, in accordance with article XVII of the Linggadjati Agreement. WeIl, l have aIready This does not mean that we are not anxious ta proceed ta a settler. ,nt with the Republic of Indonesia, Java and Sumatra on the basis of the Linggadjati Agreement at the earliest possible moment. We anticipate that conditions in Java and Sumatra will very soon be such, thanks ta our action, that discussions can be resumed with the Government of the Republic of Indonesia. Once arder is restored and the common man is free again ta express his opinion and is not cowering under threats of lawlessness and chaos, we shall be happy ta inaugurate such talks promptly. This means, 1 hope, that our action will be concluded very saon. If a helping hand of sorne friendIy Power-for instance, of the United States of America-could be useful, we shaH be only tao glad ta avail ourselves of it. The Charter has its limitationE. The Security , Council has no right to extend its limits. If the Council thinks that the Charter is inadequate, let the United Nations write a better Charter. But let the Council not overstep the boundaries laid clown in that Charter as it now, fortunate1y or unfortunately, is at present. As long as the text of the Charter is what it is today, it must be applied a.c: it is. Sorne of us may regret that, but it is well-known the Charter was never mearll: ta be a cure for all the evils and ills in this world. In one of his earlier statements this afternoon, 1 heard the representative of Australia mention t.h.at this was a matter of international concern. When 1 had the honour and privilege of being the representative of my country on the Security Council, 1 had occasion ta hear that expression. 1 heard it, if 1 recall, in the course of the discussion of the Spanish question about a year aga. 1 had occao:ion then ta say that 1 could not warn the Cot.ncil enough against the loose use of that expression. It does not figure in the Charter, and it is an easy way ta let the douncil assume responsibilities for which it has not been instituted. There are many matters of international concern which rI,a not fûIl within the terms of the Charter. When there are internaI dil'lDutes of a Cf am magnitude, in any given Stat~, fedcral or nonfederal, public opinion is easily aroused, especially when there are questions of different races involved. Last year when the matte.r of British troops in Indonesia came up for discussion in the Security Council, 1 remember very weIl what 1 said on that occasion. The Council decided it had found no reason for taking action; and this was based very largely on considerations identical with or ak!::t to those which 1 have just advanced. 1 said that, nevertheless, my Government realized very We are faithful to the conviction that we und-::rstand this question not ta be a matter for the Security Council ta deal with, any more than when there is bloodshed and when troops are being sent ta quell di<;turbances, let us say, in connexion with a strike of any magnitude; in such a case also there may be casualties on bath sides. AIthough that is our contention, we continue ta realize that this matter· interests many people in spite of the fact-and 1 must repeat it -that this is of no concern ta the Security Conncil under the tenns of the Charte.-, as it reads. Therefore, 1 am glad ta announce that my Government is going ta invite a number of other Governments ta send a representative ta Indonesia, and not only ta the Republic, but aIso ta Eastern Indonesia and Borneo, with the request that, as honest men, they will report their findings ta the worId. Much as it has been misunderstood and misrepresented, we feel our case is a simple, straightforward, honest case and we can afford ta let the full light of public.ity be shed on Ît. 1 hope that, whatever the Couneil does, it will think twice and even more often before it does anything that will ]"'nd comfort ta lawless and unco-operative elements and cause dejection and despair to those millions of people-and in Java alone there are forty million people-who expect that the day will at last dawn when constructive . enterprise in the constitutional sense will take the place of chaos and terror. The responsibility of the Council in this case is a very heavy one. Do not be misled by those who brand our action as being directed against the forces of liberalism in Eastern countries. On the contrary, if the Council embarrasses our honest constructive efforts, the responsibility for

1 want to repeat only the fust part of the Australian resolution, which calls for cessation of hostilities. We have heard a discussion of whether or not such a decision is within the jurisdiction of this Council. 1 should like to know whether any members of the Council want to speak on this subject further, in which case, 1 will adjourn the meeting until tomorrow. If no member wishes to speak further on the subject of cessation of hostilities, then we will submit paragraph (a) to a vote. Mr. VAN LANGENHOVE (Belgium) (translated trom French): 1 should like to speak again on the proposai to which you have just referred. 1 understand that in that event you would postpone the meeting until tomorrow. Is that indeed so? Mr. LAWFORD (United Kingdom): 1 should like to speak aIso, but 1 am not prepared to speak tonight. Mr. JOHNSON (United States of America): 1 should like to make a simple statement. The fact is that hostilities exist in Indonesia, and the United States views that fact with genuine concern. My Government has today tendered its good offices in this situation. . Before any formai vote is taken on a resolution, however, 1 should like to have a litde more time for consideration of the matter, and should Eke to hear some other views expressed. There are very important issues involved in the action to be taken in tlüs case, which have been very forcibly drawn to my attention in the debate today. 1 do not think that anything substantiaI would be gained by the Council'f trying to force the vote today, even on the first clause.

Tomorrow there will be two meetings, one at lO.30 a.m. and one at 3 p.m. The agenda will contain the Indonesian question and the Greek question. Colonel HODGSON (Australia): At the meeting at lO.30 a.m., will you proceed with the Indonesian question, that is, continue the discussion from where we left off this aftemoon?

The Pr.esident tomorrow will be the representative of Syria, and he agrees to a continuation of the discussion. MI'. KERNO (Assistant Secretary-General in Charge of l,egal Affairs): This Agreement was distributed on 16 June 1947. One copy was circulated to each delegation. l should like to poir.t out that budgetary considerations are very important at present, and that is why we have not re-distributed copies of the Agreement. If members of the Security Council insist upon it, we can have them circulated again, but it is expensive. MI'. PARODI (France) (translated from French): We have aIl been very busy since 16 June last; but if the document has been distributed, l am sure that my secretariat has it and it will certainly be found. l do not ask for a fresh distribution. MI'. JOHNSON (United States of America) : l have a question to ask of the new President. Will tomorrow afternoon's meeting be devoted to the Greek question? MI'. EL-KHOURI (Syria): As both items will he on the agenda for tomorrow's meetings, during the morning meeting we shall consider that point, namely, whether the aftemoon meeting will be confined to the Greek question. We shall decide that in the morning meeting, but both questions will appear on the agenda. MI'. JOHNSON (United States of America): l should merely like to express the view of my delegation. Tt is our view that we should not drop the Greek case temporarily, in order to continue long juridical discussions on the Indonesian case. l should like to have the assurance, if possible, that a portion of the meetings tomorrow will be devoted to a continuation of the Greek case, and that we may not be faced with the possibility that all of both meetings will be confined to the Indonesian case. MI'. GROMYKO (Union of Soviet Socialist Republics) (translated from Russian): Would it not be better to leave tomorrow's business until tcmorrow? There is a Russian proverb to that efIect which says: "Let us sleep on it". MI'. LÔPEz (Colombia): l am beginning to worry about tomorrow. Therefore, l should suggest that we come prepared to have an evening meeting tomorrow. The meeting rose at 7.23 p.m. China--Chine Haiti--Haïti The Commercial Press Ltd. Max Bouchereau Librairie "A la 211 Honan Road Boîte postale SHANGHAI PORT-AU-PRINCE Costa Rica-Costa-Rica India-Inde Trejos Hermanos Oxford Book & Apartado 1313 Co. SAN JOSÉ Scindia House Cuba NEW DELHI La Casa Belga Iran René de Smedt Bongahe Piaderow O'Reilly 455 731 Shah Avenue LA HABANA TEHERAN Czechoslovakia Iraq-Irak Tchécoslovaquie Mackenzie & F. Topic The Bookshop N l.rodni Trida 9 BAGHDAD PRAHA 1 Lebanon-Liban Denmark--Danemark Librairie universelle Einar Munskgaard BEYROUTH Norregade ~ Luxembourg KJOBENHAVN Librairie J. Schummer Dominican Republic Place Guillaume LUXEMBOURG République Dominicaine Netherlands-Pays-Bas Librerîa Dominicana Calle Mercedes No. 49 N. V. Martinus Apartado 656 Lange Voorhout CIUDAD TRUJILLO S'GRAVENHAGE