No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 22 May 2009
On July 29, 1948, the Security Council devoted two sessions to a further consideration of the Indonesian question. The occasion for the discussion was the receipt from the Committee of Good Offices of a previously requested report on restrictions of trade in Indonesia and the reason for the delay in the implementation of Article 6 of the Renville Truce Agreement. The committee reported that, six months after the Truce Agreement, Republican controlled areas of Java and Sumatra suffered from “grave deficiencies” of transportation equipment and supplies which acted to cause local dislocations and shortages of all categories of materials needed for rehabilitation reconstruction. Factors creating these shortages were listed by the committee as 1) the division of Indonesia into two separate administrative compartments; 2) the damage of World War II followed by political dispute, military conflict and scorched earth policies; 3) the inadequate implementation of Article 6 of the Truce Agreement arising, primarily, from the “regulations governing domestic and international trade promulgated by Netherlands Indies civil and military authorities between January 1947 and the signing of the Truce Agreement and which have been continued in effect to date.”3 After summarizing Dutch and Indonesian positions on these regulations, the committee, after declining to allocate responsibility as between the two parties, concluded that it was “indisputable” that pending an agreement restoring economic and political unity to Indonesia the economic plight of Republican controlled areas could not be substantially ameliorated “until a way is found to relax existing regulations,” and that this development would require a basic improvement in the attitude of the parties.
1 For previous summaries of the Indonesian question see International Organization, I, p. 77–78; II, p. 80–85, 297–299, 500–502.
2 Document S/919.
3 Ibid., Paragraph 3.
4 Ibid., Paragraph 25.
5 Ibid., Paragraphs 27 and 30.
6 Document S/P.V.341.
7 Documents S/P.V.341, S/928 and S/926/Add.1.
8 Ibid.
9 Document S/931.
10 Document S/P.V.342.
11 See International Organization, II, p. 502.
12 Document S/P.V.342.
12a Documents S/1085 and S/1085/Add.1.
12b Documents S/1085.
13 Relevant documents include: the three quarterly reports of the administration of the British United States Zone, S/879, S/781 and S/953; the Joint Declaration on Trieste made by the United States, United Kingdom and France, S/707; and three notes of protest from the Yugoslav government, S/598, S/600 and S/927, by the last of which the matter was placed on the agenda of the Security Council.
14 Documents S/781, Appendix G, and S/953, Appendix I.
15 Document S/P.V.344.
16 For texts, see document S/781, Appendix G, and document S/953.
17 Following is the text of the various documents under dispute in this case:
Treaty of Peace with Italy, Article 21, paragraph 2: Italian sovereignty over the area constituting the Free Territory of Trieste, as above defined, shall be terminated upon the coming into force of the present Treaty.
On the termination of Italian sovereignty, the Free Territory of Trieste shall be governed in accordance with an instrument for a provisional regime drafted by the Council of Foreign Min-isters and approved by the Security Council. This Instrument shall remain in force until such date es the Security Council shall fix for the coming into force of the Permanent Statute which shall have been approved by it. The Free Territory shall thenceforth be governe d by the provisions of such Permanent Statute …
Permanent Statute of the Free Territory of Trieste (Annex VI of the Treaty of Peace with Italy), Article 24, paragraph 4: Economic union or associations of an exclusive character with any State are incompatible with the status of the Free Territory.
Instrument for the Provisional Regime of the Free Territory of Trieste (Annex VII of the Treaty of Peace with Italy), Article 10: Existing laws and regulations shall remain valid unless and until revoked or suspended by the Governor. The Governor shall have the right to amend existing laws and regulations in agreement with the majority of the Provisional Council of Government. …
Article II: Pending the establishment of a separate currency regime for the Free Territory the Italian lira shall continue to be the legal tender within the Free Territory. The Italian Government shall supply the foreign exchange and currency needs of the Free Territory under conditions no less favorable than those applying to Italy,
Italy and the Free Territory shall enter into an agreement to give effect to the above provisions as well as to provide for any settlement between the two Governments which may be required.
18 Document S/P.V.345.
19 Ibid.
20 Document S/P.V.346.
21 Document S/P.V.348 and S/P.V.353.
22 Ibid.
23 Document S/P.V.354.
24 Ibid. Editor's note: On November 4, 1948, the Annual Report of the Yugoslav Army Military Government on the administration of the Yugo-slav Zone was circulated to members of the Security Council (Document S/1066).
25 For previous summaries of this question see International Organization II, p. 306/311, 491/500; for consideration of the question by the General Assembly and by the Arab League, see ibid., p. 478 and 543; also this issue, p. 55/8.
26 For text, see document S/P.V.340.
27 Document S/P.V.339.
28 Documents S/898 and S/905.
29 Document S/P.V.343. See also documents S/948, S/957, S/964 and S/965.
30 Documents S/961, S/963 and S/966, See also document S/P.V.349.
31 Documents S/P.V.343, S/P.V.349, and S/P.V.352 passim.
32 Documents S/977.
33 Document S/983.
34 Document S/P.V.354. The basis for abstention in regard to point (c) was that it was intervention contrary to Article 2(7) of the Charter.
35 Document S/1002.
36 Document S/P.V.358. Meetings of the Security Council from the 358th on September 18, 1948 to the end of the period under review were held at the Palais de Chaillot, Paris.
37 The reports of the Acting Mediator appear as documents S/1022 and S/1018; the cable from Mr. MacDonald is document S/1023.
38 Document S/1018.
39 Document S/1022.
40 Ibid.
41 Document S/1023.
42 Document S/1023.
43 Document S/P.V.365.
44 Document S/1042.
45 Document S/P.V.367.
46 Document S/1042.
47 Document S/P.V.367.
48 Document S/1055.
49 Document S/P.V.373.
50 Document S/P.V.374.
51 Ibid.
52 Document S/P.V.375.
53 Document S/P.V.377. Colombia abstained from voting when the paragraph naming it a member of the committee was separately considered.
54 Document S/1076.
55 Document S/1079.
56 Document S/P.V.380 and S/P.V.381, passim.
57 Prior to voting on the joint Canadian-Belgian-French draft, the Council had, after some argument as to which draft had precedence, accepted a ruling of the President (Arce) that the Acting Mediator/s original draft had been moved formally by the Soviet representative before Mr. McNaughton had introduced his draft. The Soviet resolution lost when it received the affirmative votes of the Soviet Union and the Ukrainian SSR with the other members abstaining.
58 Document S/P.V.381.
59 Document S/1020.
60 Document S/1020/Add.l. See also The Berlin Crisis, A Report on the Moscow Discussions, 1948, United States Department of State Publication 3298, European and British Commonwealth Series 1, September, 1948. 61 p.
61 See International Organization, II, p. 522.
62 Fot text of this rule, see International Organiztion, I, p. 202.
63 Document S/P.V.361.
64 Ibid.
65 Documents S/P.V.361 and S/P.V.362.
66 Document S/P.V.362.
67 Editor's note: agreed to in the European Advisory Commission, prior to the decision to admit France to occupation responsibilities.
68 Document S/P.V.363.
69 Document S/P.V.364.
70 Document S/P.V.366.
71 Ibid.
72 Document S/P.V.368.
73 Ibid.
74 Document S/1048.
75 Document S/P.V.372.
76 Ibid.
77 Document S/986.
78 Documents S/998 and S/1000.
79 Document S/P.V.357.
80 Document S/P.V.359.
81 Document S/1011.
82 Document S/1015.
83 Document S/P.V.360.
84 Documents S/1084 and S/P.V.382.
85 For previous summaries of Security Council discussions on this question, see International Organization, II, p. 299–306, 488–489.
86 86 The outgoing president of the Council, Jacob Malik (USSR), convened the meeting in order to discuss a cablegram from the chairman of the United Nations Commission for India and Pakistan that it might be necessary to detail military observers to the commission for the observance of cease-fire arrangements. The other members of the Council felt that the provision of military observers fell within the terms of the April resolution and further action was not necessary. Mr.Malik and Mr. Manuilsky took exception to the appointment of military observers as an administrative matter, but refusal to adopt the agenda made discussion of this matter impossible.
87 Document S/995.
88 Ibid.
89 Ibid.
90 Document S/1009.
91 Document S/1087.
92 Document S/1100.
93 Document S/P.V.382.
94 For previous summaries of this question, see International Organization, I, p. 95, 98, 349.
95 Document S/969.
96 Document S/P.V.360.
97 Document S/991. Also bears symbol as document A/623.
98 Document S/P.V.369.
99 Document S/P.V.371.
100 Documents S/820 and S/859.
101 Documents S/C.2/SR.26 and S/C.2/SR.26/Corr.1.
102 Document S/951.
103 Document S/P.V.351.
104 Document S/956.
105 Document S/982.
106 Document S/1036.