the terms and conditions for holding the proposed conference at The Hague, we believe that negotiations between the parties at such a conference would be consistent with the basic purpose and objectives of the Council's resolution of January 28, which of course would remain in full force and effect. We believe it would be appropriate for the Security Council's Commission to consult with the representatives of the Netherlands, the Government of the Republic, and the leaders of the federal conference and assist them in reaching such agreement. If agreement is reached and the conference is held, our Commission could participate therein in accordance with its terms of reference.

STATEMENT BY AMBASSADOR AUSTIN, PLENARY SESSION ON INDONESIA, DECEMBER 7, 1949

When the Round Table Conference was concluded at The Hague a few weeks ago, my Government expressed its gratification at the agreement which had been achieved there through the wisdom and conciliatory spirit exhibited by the representatives of the Netherlands, the Republic of Indonesia and the Federal Consultative Assembly. All of us know, also, that the United Nations Commission for Indonesia, through its participation in the Round Table Conference, contributed much to its success. The peoples of Indonesia and of the Netherlands-and, indeed, all freedom-loving people everywhere-can rejoice that there has been a peaceful settlement of the Indonesian question. That settlement, incidentally, will continue to be a monument to the high statesmanship of the representatives of the Netherlands and Indonesia. I am confident that the majority of the members of this Assembly are already in agreement that the basic principles for which our Organization stands have been advanced by the determined efforts of all those whose labors were recently concluded at The Hague. [The following paragraph was underlined for emphasis by Ambassador Austin:]

The attack on the settlement of the Indonesian question by the representatives of the Soviet Union, the Ukrainian S. S. R. and Poland is not, however, unexpected. They have consistently attacked constructive efforts of the United Nations to solve its problems. The continuation of disputes is essential for the promotion of the Cominform's expansionist ambitions. By the nature of the case, international communism mushrooms in dissension, strife and chaos.

Because the Indonesian leaders, concerned with sparing their people the hardship and debilitation of war, sought the road of peaceful negotiation in their fight for freedom, they are branded traitors. These attacks lay bare the fraudulent efforts of international communism to identify itself with legitimate nationalist independence movements. The legitimate leaders of those movements, however, have not far to look to see that, if they accept the support of international communism in their fight for independence, they merely trade one colonialism for another. No colonial peoples were ever more subjugated than those peoples now under the imperial yoke of the Soviet Union. That a representative of such a regime should say that The Hague agreements deny the Indonesian people self-determination and render them a puppet state is not very convincing. The whole Round Table Conference represents the free expresssion of the self-determination of the Indonesian people.

Although the representative of the Ukrainian S. S. R. argued in committee, and again here this morning, that the members were not competent to adopt the joint resolution because they had not before them the text of the round-table conference agreements, he nevertheless took occasion to pass judgment on those agreements himself. In doing so, he bent his efforts to distort the meaning of the several instruments which are a part of The Hague agreement. Again, this morning, he said that the members of the committee demonstrated complete ignorance of the settlement. But surely he realizes that we know that the Republic of the United States of Indonesia, when it comes into being at the end of this month, will be a sovereign and independent state and will join in a union of voluntary cooperation with the Netherlands. Does he hope, by patently distorting the meaning of The Hague agreements, to confuse the peoples of the Netherlands or of Indonesia? Perhaps so. Fortunately, whatever confusion he may have prompted here cannot be long-lived, for within a very few weeks the agreements themselves will be carried into action.

The draft resolution which the representative of the Ukrainian S. S. R. has reintroduced usurps the Security Council's prerogative and departs from the Indonesian situation of the present time. For the reason that article 12 of the

Charter forbids the General Assembly to make recommendations on issues of which the Security Council is seized unless so requested by the Council, that resolution was not even voted on by the Committee. Since this time last year, hostilities have ceased and agreement has been reached on the timing of the withdrawal of troops. The resolution of the Ukrainian S. S. R. adds nothing to our consideration of the Indonesian question, and we can only conclude that it was submitted solely for propaganda purposes. It was apparently resurrected from drafts which were submitted by the delegation of the Soviet Union to the Security Council a year ago and which were rejected by the Council at that time. Nothing in this draft resolution reflects the developments and progress of the past year.

After giving consideration to the opprobrious remarks of Mr. Manuilsky this morning regarding the great leaders of both Dutch and Indonesians. I am more confident than before that the majority of the members of the United Nations will accord the settlement reached at The Hague their fullest support. It is a settlement to which the United Nations may look with a good deal of hope. After 27 months of effort, agreement has been reached on a Charter of Transfer of Sovereignty, on a Union Statute, and on certain interim arrangements. Although we are aware that much remains to be done and that these agreements are yet to be implemented, we can confidently look forward to the coming into being, before this month is out, of a fully free, sovereign, and independent Indonesia. When it does, the members of this Organization can rejoice that the peaceful methods enjoined upon us by the Charter have prevailed over force.

My Government believes that the joint resolution sponsored by 14 delegations and adopted by the Committee is a fitting expression of approbation of the accomplishments of the round-table conference. We earnestly hope that it will receive the support of an impressive majority of the General Assembly. By such majorities, confidence in the effect of such settlements would be inspired.

INDONESIA'S MEMBERSHIP IN THE U. N.

Senator SPARKMAN. May it be noted that Indonesia became the sixtieth member of the United Nations.

Ambassador AUSTIN. Thank you, sir. That is true.

Senator SPARKMAN. Now, you want to proceed to the Italian colonies?

Ambassador AUSTIN. All right.

Senator SPARKMAN. As I understand, Ambassador Jessup handled that in the General Assembly; is that correct?

Ambassador AUSTIN. Yes: I think his arguments appeared in an ad hoc political committee. Was the Chairman a member of that committee?

Senator SPARKMAN. I handled some specific matters in that committee.

No; I was a member of the Committee No. 2. I think Senator Dulles represented us usually in the ad hoc political committee, but you will remember various members of the delegation handled specific subjects in that committee.

I believe the Senator from Maine would be interested in this. It was my privilege to handle the Spanish matter in the ad hoc political committee.

SOVIET ATTITUDE TOWARD INDONESIAN QUESTION

Senator BREWSTER. Before we leave Indonesia, do you recall what the attitude of the Soviet Government was on the issue as between the independence of Indonesia as against the continued colonial relationship with the Netherlands? Were there votes or other places where that was developed?

Ambassador AUSTIN. I can only say this, that I believe they followed a course which they had been following in all these cases where there was a chance to charge the United States with helping to maintain the old archaic policy of colonialism, and that they used this as a medium for argument; that it was the United States who was to blame for the whole business.

Senator BREWSTER. So that in general it very well may have been true that they would have supported the independence of Indonesia from the Netherlands, and that that might well have been a parallel line with the attitude of the Ambassador, Mr. Austin, and of Mr. Jessup, as well as of myself and many others, that we were all on parallel lines.

Ambassador AUSTIN. If so, it would have been. You see, that is one of the infirmities of our international relations that has its roots in years and years of relations.

Up to this time we have been unable in the United Nations to establish a feeling of confidence on the part of the Soviet Union that we are in good faith. They charge us with imperialism in Asia, Indonesia, and all of that great area in which they have their puppet troops all garrisoned against Japan and Hong Kong, Indochina, Malaya, and all around. All the time that they are shouting "peace" they are making these accusations. That is what they did.

There was a duplicity in it, do you not see, which resulted, I believe, in their abstention-not voting for it, but abstaining and allowing it to go, do you not see.

Frequently, this double play results in abstention.

Senator SPARK MAN. I believe it is fair to say, of course, that in connection with the statement you made there, that the very people whom the Soviets were attacking were the people we were supporting.

Ambassador AUSTIN. Oh, yes. Oh, yes; and those brave Indonesians really won their own battle there through force, against the Communist attacks. It is a great credit to them.

FORMER ITALIAN COLONIES

Now, shall I go on with the Italian colonies point?

One of the most difficult tasks of negotiations in the history of the United Nations was the disposition of the former Italian colonies. Under the Treaty of Peace with Italy, this problem came before the General Assembly for settlement. It was Dr. Jessup's assignment to represent the United States on this question in 1949. Through weeks of tedious harangue and elaborate maneuver by the Soviet delegation, Dr. Jessup created and held together a coalition of antiCommunist United Nations members determined to reach a just and lasting settlement for the colonies. His exposure of the Soviet imperialism, or new colonialism was successful in frustrating the Soviet Union's intended sabotage.

Instead of a Libya controlled by Soviet Russia, there is now emerging an independent Libyan state which soon will take its place in the community of free nations.

Dr. Jessup again spoke for the United States at the 1949 Assembly session on the question of Soviet violation of the Sino-Soviet Treaty of

Now, I am on another subject, you see. I have similar speeches for the committee's use, whatever use they wish to make of them, showing Dr. Jessup's firm position, and I have tried to help you and save your time by putting marks on them.

Senator SPARKMAN. That will be inserted the same as the others. (The material referred to appears in the record, as follows:) AMBASSADOR JESSUP'S STATEMENT, POLITICAL COMMITTEE, SEPTEMBER 30, 1949

The last General Assembly devoted nearly 6 weeks to the consideration of the problem of the former Italian colonies without reaching a decision. Both in the interests of the local inhabitants, who have been held so long in a state of suspense as to their future, and in the interests of the over-all peace settlement, a decision was urgently needed. It still is. Many divergent views were expressed last spring on this complicated question; and, although the Assembly was unable to reconcile these views, discussion served to clarify the question, to instruct those members who had no previous knowledge of the subject, and to enable member states intimately connected with the problem to make necessary adjustments of their views in the light of sentiment then prevailing in the Assembly. Made wiser by this experience, we should now find a solution which will not only meet the three principles enunciated in article XI of the treaty of peace with Italy-namely, regard for the wishes and welfare of the inhabitants, the interests of peace and security, and consideration of the views of interested governments-but which will meet also the principles relating to nonself-governing territories of chapter XI of the Charter. Our task today is urgent. The destinies of some 3,000,000 people are at stake, and it behooves us to achieve a sound and just solution embracing the above principles so that the peoples of Libya, Eritrea, and Italian Somaliland may set forth confidently on the road to building their futures.

The United States Government has given intensive study to the problem, taking into account opinions which were expressed in this committee last spring, and has sought to formulate its position on a balanced consideration of all factors and principles involved.

With regard to Libya, we would support the establishment of an independent and unified Libya at a definite date in the near future, and it was made abundantly clear that there was an overwhelming majority in favor of the independence of this territory. It was the consensus in the last session of the General Assembly that Libya, of all the former Italian colonies, was furthest along the road to self-government. Already the people of Cyrenaica have set up their own internal administration under the Emir Sayid Idris el Senussi, and the Tripolitanians have indicated their desire and readiness to participate more completely in the government of their segment of Libya. We believe that a definite date, which is generally acceptable to the General Assembly for the achievement of early independence, should be set. A reasonable period will be necessary for the orderly achievement of self-government. Secretary of State Acheson declared before the plenary session on September 21 that at this session the General Assembly should work out plans for a united and independent Libya, to be carried to completion in not more than 3 or 4 years. The form of the government to be established should be worked out by the inhabitants of Libya and should not be arbitrarily imposed by any outside power nor by the United Nations. The form of the new state might be federal, unitary, or whatever form is most acceptable to the inhabitants. In order that the peoples' wishes in this respect be given expression, we have thought that the General Assembly might wish to recommend that representatives of the inhabitants of Tripolitania, Cyrenaica, and the Fezzan, at least 1 year prior to the date of independence, consult together to determine the form of association which they desire to establish upon the attainment of independence.

The present British and French administrations should be charged with the responsibility of cooperating in the formation of governmental institutions and of preparing Libya for independence, taking whatever steps the General Assembly deems necessary. They should report annually to the Secretary General of the United Nations for the information of members on measures they have taken during each year of the interim period to prepare Libya for independence.

During this interim period it might be appropriate for an advisory council, on behalf of the General Assembly, to advise the British and French administrations

as to how assistance might be given to the inhabitants with regard to the formation of a government for a unified Libya, and such related problems as common services, a common currency, and boundary changes. Without going into detail regarding possible functions of such a Council, I would point out that we consider that this body should in no way interfere with the administration of the territories.

Coming next to Eritrea, I can but repeat what we maintained at the last session of the General Assembly; namely, that the best solution for the future of this territory would be the incorporation of all except the Western Province into Ethiopia, with provision of appropriate guarantees for the protection of minorities and, without prejudice to the sovereignty of Ethiopia, appropriate municipal charters for the cities of Asmara and Massawa. The Western Province could most appropriately be incorporated into the Sudan. We are dealing here with an artificially created territory, whose inhabitants are almost equally divided between Coptic Christians and Moslems. The Eritrean plateau provinces are a continuation of the Ethiopian plateau, and the majority of the inhabitants of the entire plateau are related by language, race, and religion. It is true that the port of Massawa, as well as the province of the same name, is predominantly Moslem, but it cannot be separated from the Eritrean plateau without economic disruption. Assab and the Danakil coast, which are part of the Province of Massawa, have no lateral communication with the central provinces nor with the capital, Asmara. This area is geographically part of Ethiopia, and the Danakils who inhabit it are part of a tribe whose greatest numbers are within the borders of Ethiopia. In our judgment, a substantital majority of the inhabitants of Eritrea, exclusive of the Western Province, favor union with Ethiopia.

Our suggestion that the Western Province of Eritrea be annexed to the Sudan is based on the following considerations:

(1) The majority of the inhabitants are Moslem, as are the people across the border in the Sudan; (2) Three-fourths of the inhabitants of the Western Province are nomadic or seminomadic and follow a pastoral way of life quite different from the settled agriculturalists on the central plateau of Eritrea; (3) climatically, the heat and aridity of most of the western and the coastal plain comprising this area resemble those of the Sudan; (4) there is a religious tie with the Sudan through the adherence of certain tribes, such as the Beni Amer, in the Western Province to the teachings of the Mazhani “Tariqa” or Confraternity, which is closely related to some 30,000 of its other members of the Sudan; (5) the basis of social organizations for both nomad and sedentary peoples of Eritrea, as well as the Sudan, is the same: the Kinship group. Thus social ties would be respected by changing the political orientation of the Western Province to the Sudan; (6) the Western Province has few economic resources and cannot exist as an independent modern state.

I have purposely gone into some detail regarding our reasons for believing that the future of the Western Province lies with the Sudan, since at the last session certain delegations appeared to doubt the wisdom of this proposal.

In brief, gentlemen, this Assembly is presented with an opportunity to make a long-term settlement of Eritrea, whose artificial borders were created in the era of colonial expansion in Africa; and it is our belief that the reshaping of the map in the manner I have indicated will be a move toward an end we all seek; namely, to reunite racial, cultural, religious, and linguistic groups separated by frontiers arbitrarily established in the nineteenth century. It was gratifying that an impressive majority in the last Assembly supported the return of the eastern part of Eritrea to Ethiopia, and it is our hope that further consideration of the problem will have convinced the delegations here that the most appropriate disposition of the remainder-namely, the Western Province-is in its incorporation into the Sudan.

The United States Government believes that the people of Italian Somaliland aspire to the status of independence and equality which will enable them to develop their culture and their country as a full member of the community of free nations. My Government believes that the people of Italian Somaliland should be assisted toward the goal of independence through the trusteeship system of the United Nations. We are convinced that such a solution will best meet the requirements of the people, and will also provide a solution which will best guarantee the future security and stability of the area.

Italian Somaliland is an area with undeveloped political institutions the organization of whose people is largely tribal and pastoral. We can hardly