379 Throssell to Shann

Minute CANBERRA, 16 October 1947


Why can't we face the withdrawal issue squarely.

2. The Consular Commission has satisfied itself that Dutch mopping up was [1] responsible for breaches of the cease fire order.

3. Eaton has said that complete retirement of both sides is necessary to attain cessation of hostilities.

4. We know that the Dutch police action constituted a breach of the United Nations Charter.

5. Notwithstanding all this a Soviet Resolution for withdrawal is opposed. If we are pinning our faith on the C. of 3 recommending withdrawal is [it] not a flimsy hope to expect the Belgian and U.S. representatives to agree? 6. The Soviet Union, Poland and Syria and Colombia seem to favour withdrawal.

7. I suggest a resolution proposing withdrawal of Dutch to Batavia and Indonesians to Djokja[karta] with a United Nations supervision of disputed areas might gain support required. [2]

8. Telegram attached. [3]

1 The word 'Primarily' was inserted by Shann at this point.

2 Shann replied to Throssell on 17 October as follows:

'I have discussed this both with the Secretary and with Mr.

McIntyre. We are all three agreed that the step you propose is impracticable and would very likely lead to more shooting than it would avoid. Moreover, it is in contradiction to policy outlined in a recent telegram to New York which was given very careful consideration before despatch by the Secretary, McIntyre and myself, and which was discussed with (and agreed to by) Spence.

Keep your ideas in mind, however, and raise them again when we have the chance to see how the Committee of 3 gets on.' The cablegram referred to is Document 373.

3 Not printed.

[AA:A1838/274, 854/10/4/2, i]