Security Council (Indonesia) 28th February 
1. Ro[mu]lo (Philippines). Renville was forced on Republic by Dutch Ultimatum. Federation a device to divide and rule. Movement for freedom stopped by armed force. Only Security Council intervention prevented extinction of Republic. Guarantees necessary for implementation of principles.
Chinese, Colombian and Kirby proposals should be adopted. To remove technical objections  suggested change nature of Committee and give it powers of publicity, observation, immediate report to Council.
2. Arce (Argentine). Rebuttal of Soviet view that Powers forced agreement on Republic. Constitution of Committee ensured free negotiation.
3. judge Kirby. Rejected inference by French and Dutch Representatives that suggestion of positive action by Committee was not agreed to by other members of Committee.  Only difference was as to whether formal Council Resolution was needed.
Van Zeeland was not in favour of formal Council Resolution. Dr.
Graham supported Chinese view that Committee could act without such resolution. Agreed with this.
4. Sastroamijojo (Indonesia). Council should get early report from Committee on West Java Conference. Contradicted Van Kleffens' picture of situation instancing imprisonment and expulsion Indonesian leaders, treatment of political offences as criminal, lack of freedom of speech and present lack of consultation of Republic concerning West Java and suppression of Plebiscite movement. Unilateral action contrary to principles.
5. Van Kleffens (Netherlands) rejected charges. Differences of view as to implementation nothing new. This merely showed Committee still had work to do.
6. Tsiang (China). Netherlands statements on new States not clear.
Essential Council should get impartial picture. Moved formally as follows- 'The Security Council requests the Committee of Good Offices to pay particular attention to the political developments in West Java and Madura and to report to the Council thereon at frequent intervals'. Tsiang went on to give examples of questions in which Council would be interested. How are Conferences set up, how conducted, are they intended to by-pass Plebiscites. Explained that motion not intended to prejudge but Council must have accurate information.
7. Austin (United States). Three Renville requirements- (1) No stifling of popular movements;
(2) At all times freedom of speech and Assembly;
(3) Six to twelve months after political agreement plebiscites.
It is view of United States Government that any new States formally temporarily formed must be under conditions (1) and (2).
Whether conditions observed is question of fact. Therefore supports Chinese proposal.
8. Belgium wished to amend last phrase to read when it thinks fit but agreed not to press when Tsiang said it would be for Committee to interpret.
9. Kirby stated he and Graham would welcome adoption of Chinese proposal which was briefly supported also by Syria, Colombia, Philippines.
10. Chinese Resolution adopted, 8 for, nil against, Argentina, Ukraine and Soviet abstaining.
11. Chairman turned to proposed amendments to Canadian Resolution.
Forsyth stated briefly that in view of Kirby and China Statements felt it unnecessary to urge adoption of Australian proposal.
12. Van Kleffens stated Netherlands Government does not concur in the Australian proposal. 
13. Lopez (Colombia) then made long diffuse speech in support of Colombian proposals (Document S/65z). 
14. Parodi (France). Committee worked for conciliation. Worked in silence.
Results good. Committee can certainly make suggestions but publicity can be given through report to Council. Could not support Colombian proposal. Will vote for Canada proposal.
15. El Khouri (Syria) supported Colombian proposal. Would have supported Australian proposal and its withdrawal does not mean Committee cannot make suggestions.
16. Vote on Colombian proposal by parts- (A) Five for, Belgium against, France, Soviet, Ukraine, Argentine, United Kingdom abstaining.
(B) Four for, Belgium and Canada against, same five abstaining.
(Third paragraph). Same vote as (B).
17. Vote on Canadian Resolution. Seven for, nil against, Soviet, Ukraine, Colombia and Syria abstaining.
18. Van Kleffens (Netherlands). Resolution refers only to our conflict with the Republic and nothing else.
19. Chairman stated context makes this clear.
20. Colombia asked assurance that West Java question was not removed from purview by Van Kleffens' last statement. Chairman in name of Council gave this assurance.