that the status quo of the residency of New Guinea shall be maintained with the stipulation that within a year from the date of transfer of sovereignty to the Republic of the United States of Indonesia the question of the political status of New Guinea be determined through negotiations between the Republic of the United States of Indonesia and the Kingdom of the Netherlands.

157. INDEPENDENCE OF INDONESIA !

Statement by Secretary Acheson, November 3, 1949

Upon this most auspicious occasion, the successful termination of the round-table conference at The Hague, this government wishes to congratulate the Netherlands and Indonesian representatives on the high statesmanship which both have exhibited in the course of the Conference. The conferees, in finding a settlement of those differences, both political and economic, which have separated them some years, have accorded the Indonesian people full independence and sovereignty, at the same time preserving interests of the Netherlands in the Indonesian Archipelago which are legitimate and just. The new and sovereign Republic of United Indonesia is to join the Netherlands in the Netherlands-Indonesian Union, a voluntary association of equal partners thus offering the world a bright prospect for practical collaboration between East and West. It is the firm expectation of this Government that the agreements reached at the Conference will mark a renewed growth of Dutch-Indonesian friendship and cooperation, which in our opinion will surely further the welfare of both nations.

By its courageous action against a subversive Communist movement last September, the Indonesian Republic has demonstrated its genuine nationalist character. The Indonesian Federalists have joined with the Indonesian Republic in compounding a genuine all-Indonesian nationalist position at The Hague Conference. The Government of the Netherlands, under whose auspices the round-table conference has been held, has during the course of negotiations demonstrated full fidelity to its principle of independence for Indonesia and faith in the integrity of the new state.

The dispute has been before the Security Council since July 1947. The United Nations Good Offices Committee, the name of which was subsequently changed to United Nations Commission for Indonesia, was formed through the selection of Belgium by the Netherlands, of Australia by the Indonesian Republic, and the selection by Australia and Belgium of the United States as the third member. The United States' contribution to the solution of the Indonesian problem has been made through the discharge of its responsibility as a member of the United Nations Commission for Indonesia.

Negotiations, under the auspices of the Committee of Good Offices, which were suspended in 1948, were resumed on April 14, 1949 under the auspices of the United Nations Commission for Indonesia which was created by the Security Council resolution of January 28, 1949. This same resolution called upon both parties for a cease fire order,

1 Department of State Bulletin of November 14, 1949, pp. 752, 753.

for a release of all political prisoners, and for the restoration of the Republican Government at Jogjakarta, to be followed by staged withdrawals of Netherlands forces from areas occupied by them after December 18, and made several recommendations to the parties. The parties agreed on May 7 to the restoration of the Republican Government to the Residency of Jogjakarta, the issuance of a cease fire, the release of Republican prisoners by the Dutch, and the holding of a conference at The Hague leading to a definitive political settle

ment.

The new Republic of United Indonesia will be faced with great tasks and must assume heavy responsibilities. It can count upon the sympathy and support of all who believe in democracy and the right of self-government. For its part, the United States Government is engaged in study of ways and means by which it may be of assistance, should such assistance be requested.

The United States will be gratified to welcome into the community of free nations the United Republic of Indonesia and looks forward to Indonesia's membership in the United Nations which the Netherlands has undertaken to propose. With their record of genuine nationalism, the Indonesian people may be expected successfully to resist all efforts of aggressive foreign dictatorships to subvert their newly won independence.

NAVIGATION ON THE DANUBE

158. REJECTION OF THE SOVIET DRAFT CONVENTION BY THE UNITED STATES, THE UNITED FRANCE, AND AUSTRIA i

KINGDOM,

Statement by Ambassador Cavendish Cannon, August 18, 1948

The Delegates of ten Governments have now sat round this table, flanked by deputies and experts, for nearly three weeks. We have made speeches, appointed committees, and discussed specific articles of a proposed new treaty. To all outward appearances, we have gone through the motions of a normal international conference.

But anybody who has been seated in this hall or in the gallery knows that this has been a deception. This has been a unique performance in the history of international negotiations. I know of no previous international conference where a majority of the participants, with cynical solidarity, have refrained from proposing even minor changes in the text laid before them for discussion. The document about to be put to the final vote is the document which the Delegate of the Soviet Union brought to this Conference to receive its stamp of approval.

It had been our hope that the delegates around this table would be able really to work out a new regime of free navigation on the Danube. We had been thinking of an agreement which would have these objectives:

1. To promote river trade within the entire Danube basin, and to invite the trade of other nations into the Danube river ports.

2. To assure that merchant ships of any flag could use without discrimination these waters and port facilities, subject only to equitable regulations.

1 Department of State, Documents and State Papers, November and December 1948, pp. 504-506.

3. To set up a regime for the regulations of navigation adapted to the special problems of a great river system serving many States, and responding to the expanding requirements of modern shipping traffic. 4. To coordinate the administration of this great waterway with other international undertakings through a relationship with the United Nations.

5. To provide an efficient and impartial means for the conciliation of differences and for the settlement of disputes.

The draft agreement laid before us by the Soviet Delegate at the beginning of this Conference did none of these things. That draft, with no significant changes, is the document we are now offered for final vote and signature. There has been no negotiation. There has been no attempt to reconcile differences of technical opinion. There has been no compromise, even in matters of form. In order to explain this extraordinary situation, we must say something about the character of the Conference itself.

At the opening ceremony the Soviet Delegate said:

"The convention adopted here will not have to be referred to anyone. It will be adopted by the majority of the conference and signed by those who wish to sign and will come into force without the consent of a small minority if there is a small minority."

And on our first real working day, July 31, it was made brutally clear that there was to be no real discussion of the problem for which we were brought together. There was a solid phalanx of seven Governments which were already committed to the adoption of this Soviet text, and already determined to disregard whatever proposals the Delegations of the United States, the United Kingdom or France might present. On that first working day we were told that:

"The door was open to come in; the same door is open to go out, if that is what you wish."

We did not go out; we have stayed on; trying every day to persuade this Conference to take some step toward a genuine agreement. The Soviet draft convention was laid before us on August 2. Six other Delegations accepted it without reservation. Some of them declared it to be a perfect instrument.

To the United States Delegation, the Soviet draft, for all its declarations of good intent, does not provide the basis for reopening of the river to freedom of trade and navigation. It does not implement the recommendations of the Paris Conference or the decisions of the Council of Foreign Ministers. We think that it is a backward step in that it represents a new and determined effort to cut off certain Danubian states from their normal, and indeed their essential, intercourse with the rest of the world.

The United States objections to the Soviet draft can be summarized very briefly under five points.

First. The draft fails to prevent discrimination against shipping on the river. It provides nondiscriminatory treatment only for such minor things as port dues and sanitary regulations. On the basic issues such as access to ports and facilities, the draft would leave the door open to a continuation of the exclusive and discriminatory practices that have been followed for the past three years.

Second. The draft fails to recognize the interest of the riparian states in the rest of the world and the interest of the rest of the world in trade with this region. This draft would provide a mechanism for control

ling economic intercourse with outside areas, even to the detriment of some of the riparian states themselves. There has been explicit rejection of any relationship with the United Nations.

This convention also eliminates non-riparian representation on a new Danube Commission. The members of this Conference must surely realize that non-riparian representation would be the best assurance of a more effective utilization of the river and stimulation of trade and shipping.

Third. The Convention presents a weak, badly organized Commission with a river system too narrowly defined since tributaries and important lateral canals are omitted, and only one of the outlets to the Black Sea is included. To complete the picture of an ineffectual Commission, provision has been made for the establishment of autonomous river administrations outside the Commission's real control.

Fourth. Austria, which is one of the most important riparian states with its great Danubian trade, is barred from participation for the time being. The question of participation by Germany is ignored entirely.

Fifth. The convention attempts arbitrarily to nullify the 1921 Convention. These provisions are contrary not only to the rights of certain participants of this Conference, but also to the rights of other signatories of the 1921 Convention such as Belgium, Greece and Italy.

After examining the Soviet draft, the Delegations of the United States, Great Britain and France submitted twenty-eight amendments. Every one of these amendments on which a vote was taken was rejected, with seven negative votes. Every one of the articles of the Soviet draft was accepted, thanks to the votes of these same seven states.

With that on the record, it was strange to hear the talk at this table about dictatorship of the minority. There was no minority machine. The record shows even no uniformity in the minority voting.

Behind each Delegate at this table are specialists and experts. Experts in maritime law, in the practical problems of merchant shipping, in the technical problems of hydraulic works and river control, have sat here day after day listening to these dreary political debates. Not once have they, or their chief delegates with their advice, grappled with the practical problems we had hoped to solve.

When we came here the Danube River was dead to international trade, as the world understands that term. When we leave here there will be no change-no change except that the present regime of rigid Soviet control from Bratislava to the Black Sea will have been acknowledged by seven Governments at this Conference.

The United States Delegation has been perfectly frank in its opinion that the special privileged position of the Soviet-controlled joint companies in Hungary, Rumania and Yugoslavia is a major obstacle to free navigation on the Danube. We maintain that this system of interlocking enterprises constitutes a huge monopolistic combine which in effect excludes the commerce of other countries from the lower Danube. So long as this exclusive system continues, we do not see how the shipping of other countries can operate in these reaches of the Danube at all. We think this was one of the major problems of this Conference, but each mention of it brought forth the charge of American "economic domination" and "imperialism."

That was one of the strange things about this Conference, for the history of the relations of the United States with these Danubian nations has proved to the world the disinterested concern of the American people in their welfare. Most of the delegates here have talked a great deal about this sovereignty, as though the merchant ships of other nations in their river ports could bring them harm. That has a hollow sound when one considers the economic price a nation pays when trade and intercourse are throttled to the advantage of a single powerful neighbor. It has a hollow sound when one considers the instances of interference in the internal affairs of the states of this region in the past few years.

Freedom of navigation is an important objective of American foreign policy. We regret that it has not been possible for us to reach agreement here on a convention which would guarantee that freedom on the Danube. In the absence of such guarantees we cannot accept the treaty which is now before the Conference.

When ships can again freely go up and down the river, the revival of trade should bring immediate benefits to the nations of both Eastern and Western Europe. It is, in fact, one of the conditions for Europe's recovery.

The American people have undertaken an unprecedented program of long-term aid to Europe. They have a real and abiding interest in what happens on the Danube. They will not lose that interest merely because this Conference has not found agreement on a way to restore the Danube to its great usefulness to the peoples of Europe.

159. UNITED STATES PROTEST ON ESTABLISHMENT OF 1 DANUBIAN COMMISSION 1

Note to the Governments of Bulgaria, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, Rumania, the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics, and Yugoslavia, November 15, 1949 2

The Secretary of State presents his compliments to His Excellency the Ambassador of [country concerned] and has the honor to refer to the meeting held November 11, 1949 at Galatz, Rumania under the terms of the Convention signed at Belgrade August 18, 1948, by the U. S. S. R., the People's Republic of Bulgaria, the Republic of Czechoslovakia, the Hungarian Republic, the People's Republic of Rumania, the Ukranian S. S. R., and the Federal People's Republic of Yugoslavia.

The Government of the United States desires to advise the Government of the (country concerned) that the Government of the United States does not recognize that Convention as having any valid international effect.

The Convention signed by seven delegations over the objections of the Governments of France, the United States, Austria, and the United Kingdom and, in contravention of the well-established rights of Belgium, Greece and Italy, violates the concept of international waterways which has been recognized in Europe for more than 130 years.

Department of State Bulletin of November 28, 1949, p. 832.

* Parallel notes were delivered by the Governments of France and the United Kingdom,