Sunday, December 27, 2009

Indonesië werd onafhankelijk in 1945. Erken dit

NRC Handelsblad

Gepubliceerd: 22 december 2009 14:39 | Gewijzigd: 22 december 2009 14:54

Nog steeds is Nederland officieel van oordeel dat Indonesië pas in 1949 onafhankelijk werd. Maar Indonesiërs denken daar zelf anders over. Kom hen toch eens tegemoet.

Door Adriaan van Dis, Nelleke Noordervliet, Geert Mak e.a.

Over de gebeurtenissen in Indonesië in de jaren 1945-1949 en de gevolgen daarvan is in de afgelopen zestig jaar in Nederland een officiële verhaallijn gevolgd, gebaseerd op de beslissing van de toenmalige regering om de Republiek Indonesië niet te erkennen en te trachten de soevereiniteit van Nederland met militaire middelen te handhaven. Behalve die officiële verhaallijn is er een ander verhaal: dat van de tegenstanders van het regeringsbeleid, het verhaal van de bevolkingsgroepen die door de gebeurtenissen tussen wal en schip vielen, het verhaal van discriminatie en uitsluiting, het verhaal van gruwelijkheden aan beide kanten, het verhaal van het zoeken naar de waarheid.

Het is tijd om die twee lijnen bijeen te brengen en een plaats te geven in de gezamenlijke geschiedenis, een plaats die rekening houdt met het recht van een volk zelf te beslissen over het moment de eigen onafhankelijkheid af te kondigen. Daarom hebben wij een verzoek aan de Nederlandse regering opgesteld, dat als volgt luidt:

Regering!

Erken 17 augustus 1945 als de datum van de Indonesische onafhankelijkheid!
Op 17 augustus 1945 proclameerden Soekarno en Hatta de onafhankelijkheid van Indonesië.

De soevereiniteitsoverdracht door Nederland vond vier jaar later plaats op 27 december 1949 in het Paleis op de Dam en in het paleis van de gouverneur-generaal aan het Koningsplein te Jakarta. In de tussenliggende jaren voerde Nederland een steeds uitzichtlozer politiek en militair offensief.

Op 17 augustus 2005 sprak minister Bot, toenmalig minister van Buitenlandse Zaken, aanwezig bij de viering in Jakarta van 60 jaar onafhankelijkheid, een spijtbetuiging uit, die door de Indonesische regering is opgevat als een impliciete erkenning door Nederland van deze datum als de datum van onafhankelijkheid. De Nederlandse regering echter heeft tot op de dag van vandaag deze slechts politiek en moreel geaccepteerd.

Het ontbreken van volledige politieke erkenning door Nederland is een historische nalatigheid die wij onrechtvaardig achten jegens het Indonesische volk. Het feit dat de Indonesische regering zelf met begrip voor Nederlandse gevoeligheden niet aandringt op politieke erkenning, neemt die onrechtvaardigheid niet weg.

Veel Nederlanders, vooral uit de generaties die nog nauwe banden hebben met Indonesië, willen deze al zestig jaar bestaande nalatigheid wegnemen. Als het niet gedurende hun leven plaatsvindt, zal het in de vergetelheid raken en door jongere generaties als afgedaan worden beschouwd.

De gevoeligheid van de veteranen voor deze kwestie is zeer begrijpelijk; zij hebben zware offers gebracht in opdracht van de toenmalige Nederlandse regering.

Eind dit jaar is het zestig jaar geleden dat Nederland de soevereiniteit aan de Verenigde Staten van Indonesië overdroeg. Dat is een uitstekend moment om 27 december 1949 voortaan te zien als de datum waarop de soevereiniteit haar juridisch beslag kreeg, daarbij volledig erkennend dat de onafhankelijkheid al vanaf 17 augustus 1945 een politiek feit is. Wij beschouwen daarmee de proclamatie van Soekarno en Hatta als een rechtmatige politieke daad; het Indonesische volk heeft immers zelf bepaald wanneer het onafhankelijk is geworden.

Met expliciete politieke erkenning nu kan ook het gevoel weggenomen worden dat het Nederland van nu zich nog steeds identificeert met de opstelling van de Nederlandse regering toen.

De betrekkingen tussen Indonesië en Nederland zijn goed en ontwikkelen zich voorspoedig. De president van Indonesië zal ons land komend voorjaar bezoeken. Bij die gelegenheid zou de expliciete politieke erkenning door Nederland van 17 augustus 1945 als onafhankelijkheidsdatum een passend welkom zijn. Dat kan natuurlijk ook 65 jaar na dato, op 17 augustus 2010.

/Peter de Reuver, Nico Schulte Nordholt, Nelleke Noordervliet, Adriaan van Dis, Joty ter Kulve, Claudine Helleman, Norbert van den Berg, Jan Hendrik Peters. Comité van aanbeveling: Hans Blom, Theo van Boven, Peter Broekveldt, Frances Gouda, Rudy Kousbroek, Susan Legêne, Ad van Liempt, Geert Mak, Ulli d’Oliveira, Gert Oostindie, Pamela Pattynama, Henk Schulte Nordholt, Erry Stoové, Elsbeth Locher-Scholten. /








                                               ********

With Prof. Henk Schulte Nodholt and Mr. Mulyo Wibisono, Leiden, October 2007
With Ad van Liempt, Hilversum, December 2005

With Prof. Henk Schulte-Nordhold and Mrs. Farida Ishaja, Leiden, October 2013

Thursday, December 10, 2009

Weduwen klagen staat aan voor bloedbad Rawagedeh

dinsdag 8 december 2009 21:41

De weduwen van de mannen die precies 62 jaar geleden werden geëxecuteerd door Nederlandse militairen in Indonesië, eisen dat Nederland erkent onrechtmatig gehandeld te hebben en willen financiële compensatie.

Ze klagen de Nederlandse Staat aan heeft hun advocaat Liesbeth Zegveld vandaag bekendgemaakt.

Het is de eerste keer dat Nederland wordt aangeklaagd door Indonesische slachtoffers van de strijd tussen Indonesië en Nederland na de Tweede Wereldoorlog tot 1949.

Aanklacht
Op 9 december 1947 vielen Nederlandse troepen het dorp Rawagedeh op Java (Indonesië) binnen. Daar doodden ze toen honderden mannelijke dorpsbewoners. Ook gevangenen en vluchtende mensen werden doodgeschoten.

De weduwen dagvaarden Nederland voor de executies en voor het uitblijven van strafrechtelijk onderzoek naar de moorden.

Niet vervolgd
Zegveld: 'De legerofficier onder wiens leiding het bloedbad werd aangericht, majoor Wynen, is na overleg tussen de toenmalige legercommandant en de procureur-generaal om opportuniteitsredenen niet vervolgd.'

De nabestaanden vinden gezien de rechtsgelijkheid dat hun vordering niet anders moet worden behandeld, dan de eisen van de slachtoffers van de Tweede Wereldoorlog.

Door Maartje Willems

Source: http://www.elsevier.nl/web/Nieuws/Nederland/252827/Weduwen-klagen-staat-aan-voor-bloedbad-Rawagedeh.htm?rss=true

Indonesia widows to sue Netherlands over killings

December 9, 2009

The widows of nine Indonesians killed by Dutch soldiers during the country's war of independence plan to sue the Netherlands for damages, their lawyer said on Wednesday.
The Hague--The nine women want compensation for the death of their husbands at the hands of the Dutch army in 1947 when soldiers attacked their village, Rawagedeh, on the Indonesian island of Java.

"The victims want the Dutch state's responsibility to be recognised and compensation to be paid," lawyer Liesbeth Zegveld told AFP.

Authorities in the Netherlands say 150 people died in the attack, while a victims' association claims 431 lost their lives.

"The Netherlands has never taken any legal action against those responsible for this bloodshed," Zegveld said. "There is no reason why this case should not be heard by the court, when charges relating to World War II are still being considered today."

Aad Meijer, a spokesman for the ministry of foreign affairs, said: "The Dutch government has repeatedly expressed its deep regret."

"The Netherlands and Indonesia agreed in 2005 to draw a line under this painful part of their shared history," he added, recalling that there had never been any question of a "discussion on a compensation."

The Netherlands first colonised Indonesia in 1800. It gained its independence in 1949.

AFP/ Expatica

Source: http://www.expatica.com/nl/news/dutch-news/Indonesia-widows-to-sue-Dutch-government-over-killings_58703.html

Tuesday, December 1, 2009

Prins Bernhard wilde coup in Indonesië

DEN HAAG - Prins Bernhard en zijn stafleden zouden in 1950 betrokken zijn geweest bij een complot tegen de nieuwe Indonesische regering van Soekarno. Dat zou blijken uit onderzoek van de Koninklijke Marechaussee uit die tijd.
© ANP

Dat stellen journalist Jort Kelder en historicus Harry Veenendaal in hun boek ZKH, hoog spel aan het hof van Zijne Koninklijke Hoogheid dat maandag in Den Haag werd gepresenteerd.

Een bron heeft het over een complot waar Bernhard ''tot z'n nek toe in zit''. De prins had onderkoning van Indonesië willen worden naar het voorbeeld van Lord Mountbatten die eind jaren veertig onderkoning was van India.

Dit blijkt onder meer uit brieven van de prins aan onder anderen de Amerikaanse generaal Douglas MacArthur.

Van Maasdijk

Kelder en Veenendaal baseren zich vooral op de dagboeken van Gerrie van Maasdijk, destijds stafmedewerker van de prins.

Volgens het onderzoek van de marechaussee waren er ook aanwijzingen dat er contacten waren tussen stafleden van de prins met de beruchte kapitein Raymond Westerling, die in 1946 een bloedige campagne leidde op Celebes en in 1950 op Java een mislukte couppoging deed. De coup mislukte omdat Maasdijk de coup zou hebben verklikt.

De auteurs spraken onder meer met studenten van de Leidse professor Jan Duyff. Die werkte in de jaren veertig jarenlang zeer nauw samen met de prins. Duyff sprak volgens ooggetuigen geregeld over zijn plannen om de regering van Soekarno omver te werpen.

Meeschrijvende hand

Historicus Cees Fasseur, die vorig jaar een boek schreef over Juliana en Bernhard, velde een negatief oordeel over Maasdijk en Duyff. De auteurs suggereren dat de historicus zich liet mogelijk leiden door een ''(onzichtbare) meeschrijvende hand van het hof''.

De auteurs stellen dat het ''lastig is definitieve conclusies te trekken, omdat niet alle archieven zijn ingezien en veelal ook gesloten blijven wegens de 'Veiligheid van de Staat'. Bovendien werd het onderzoek volgens hen gehinderd door allerlei beperkingen en bleven veel deuren gesloten.

De Wet op Openbaarheid van bestuur (WOB) biedt volgens hen geen soelaas, omdat bij deze procedure altijd naar de bekende weg wordt gevraagd, waardoor onbekende archieven gesloten blijven. Want ''wat niet weet, wat niet wobt''.

Source: http://www.nu.nl/algemeen/2133875/prins-bernhard-wilde-coup-in-indonesie.html

Sunday, November 15, 2009

United Nations Charter (1945)

Signed at San Francisco, 26 June, 1945.
Entered into force on 24 October, 1945

Preamble
WE THE PEOPLES OF THE UNITED NATIONS DETERMINED

to save succeeding generations from the scourge of war, which twice in our lifetime has brought untold sorrow to mankind, and

to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small, and
to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained, and to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,

AND FOR THESE ENDS

to practice tolerance and live together in peace with one another as good neighbours, and to unite our strength to maintain international peace and security, and

to ensure, by the acceptance of principles and the institution of methods, that armed force shall not be used, save in the common interest, and
to employ international machinery for the promotion of the economic and social advancement of all peoples,

HAVE RESOLVED TO COMBINE OUR EFFORTS TO ACCOMPLISH THESE AIMS


Accordingly, our respective Governments, through representatives assembled in the city of San Francisco, who have exhibited their full powers found to be in good and due form, have agreed to the present Charter of the United Nations and do hereby establish an international organization to be known as the United Nations.

CHAPTER I: PRINCIPLES AND PURPOSES

Article 1
The Purposes of the United Nations are:

1. To maintain international peace and security, and to that end: to take effective collective measures for the prevention and removal of threats to the peace, and for the suppression of acts of aggression or other breaches of the peace, and to bring about by peaceful means, and in conformity with the principles of justice and international law, adjustment or settlement of international disputes or situations which might lead to a breach of the peace;

2. To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace;

3. To achieve international co-operation in solving international problems of an economic, social, cultural, or humanitarian character, and in promoting and encouraging respect for human rights and for fundamental freedoms for all without distinction as to race, sex, language, or religion; and

4. To be a centre for harmonizing the actions of nations in the attainment of these common ends.

Article 2
The Organization and its Members, in pursuit of the Purposes stated in Article 1, shall act in accordance with the following Principles.

1. The Organization is based on the principle of the sovereign equality of all its Members.

2. All Members, in order to ensure to all of them the rights and benefits resulting from membership, shall fulfil in good faith the obligations assumed by them in accordance with the present Charter.

3. All Members shall settle their international disputes by peaceful means in such a manner that international peace and security, and justice, are not endangered.

4. All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.

5. All Members shall give the United Nations every assistance in any action it takes in accordance with the present Charter, and shall refrain from giving assistance to any state against which the United Nations is taking preventive or enforcement action.

6. The Organization shall ensure that states which are not Members of the United Nations act in accordance with these Principles so far as may be necessary for the maintenance of international peace and security.

7. Nothing contained in the present Charter shall authorize the United Nations to intervene in matters which are essentially within the domestic jurisdiction of any state or shall require the Members to submit such matters to settlement under the present Charter; but this principle shall not prejudice the application of enforcement measures under Chapter VII.

The Atlantic Charter

The Atlantic Charter was the product of the Atlantic Conference, which was an historic meeting between President Franklin D.Roosevelt and British Prime Mister Winston Churchill. Meeting from August -12, 1941, in great secrecy aboard the U.S. heavy cruiser USS Augusta and the British battle cruiser HMS Prince of Wales, the two leaders and their staffs discussed the general strategy of the war against the Axis Powers. The major public outcome of the Atlantic Conference was the Atlantic Charter, issued by President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill on August 14, 1941. The Atlantic Charter formed the basis of the United Nations Charter.

__________________________________________________

Joint Statement by President Roosevelt and Prime Minister Churchill, August 14, 1941:

The following statement signed by the President of the United States and the Prime Minister of Great Britain is released for the information of the Press:

The President of the United States and the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, representing His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, have met at sea.
They have been accompanied by officials of their two Governments, including high ranking officers of the Military, Naval and Air Services The whole problem of the supply of munitions of war, as provided by the Lease-Lend Act, for the armed forces of the United States and for those countries actively engaged in resisting aggression has been further examined.

Lord Beaverbrook, the Minister of Supply of the British Government, has joined in these conferences. He is going to proceed to Washington to discuss further details with appropriate officials of the United States Government. These conferences will also cover the supply problems of the Soviet Union.

The President and the Prime Minister have had several conferences They have considered the dangers to world civilization arising from the policies of military domination by conquest upon which the Hitlerite government of Germany and other governments associated therewith have embarked, and have made clear the stress which their countries are respectively taking for their safety in the face of these dangers.

They have agreed upon the following joint declaration:
--------------------------------------------------------
The President of the United States of America and the Prime Minister, Mr. Churchill, representing His Majesty's Government in the United Kingdom, being met together, deem it right to make known certain common principles in the national policies of their respective countries on which they base their hopes for a better future for the world.

First, their countries seek no aggrandizement, territorial or other;

Second, they desire to see no territorial changes that do not accord with the freely expressed wishes of the peoples concerned;

Third, they respect the right of all peoples to choose the form of government under which they will live; and they wish to see sovereign rights and self government restored to those who have been forcibly deprived of them;

Fourth, they will endeavor, with due respect for their existing obligations, to further the enjoyment by all States, great or small, victor or vanquished, of access, on equal terms, to the trade and to the raw materials of the world which are needed for their economic prosperity;

Fifth,
they desire to bring about the fullest collaboration between all nations in the economic field with the object of securing, for all, improved labor standards, economic advancement and social security;

Sixth, after the final destruction of the Nazi tyranny, they hope to see established a peace which will afford to all nations the means of dwelling in safety within their own boundaries, and which will afford assurance that all the men in all the lands may live out their lives in freedom from fear and want;

Seventh, such a peace should enable all men to traverse the high seas and oceans without hindrance;

Eighth, they believe that all of the nations of the world, for realistic as well as spiritual reasons must come to the abandonment of the use of force. Since no future peace can be maintained if land, sea or air armaments continue to be employed by nations which threaten, or may threaten, aggression outside of their frontiers, they believe, pending the establishment of a wider and permanent system of general security, that the disarmament of such nations is essential. They will likewise aid and encourage all other practicable measures which will lighten for peace-loving peoples the crushing burden of armaments.

Signed by: Franklin D. Roosevelt & Winston S. Churchill

Woodrow Wilson's 14 Points Program of the World's Peace

In January 1918, ten months before the end of World War I, President Woodrow Wilson appeared before a joint session of Congress and made this address suggesting possible peace terms to end the four-year-old conflict in which soldiers from England, France, Germany, Russia and many other nations had died by the millions. The United States under Wilson had remained out of the war until 1917. The Fourteen Points outlined in this speech served as both the basis for peace and the hopeful establishment of a better post-war world at the conclusion of "the culminating and final war for human liberty."
_____________________________________________________

Gentlemen of the Congress:
Once more, as repeatedly before, the spokesmen of the Central Empires have indicated their desire to discuss the objects of the war and the possible basis of a general peace. Parleys have been in progress at Brest-Litovsk between Russian representatives and representatives of the Central Powers to which the attention of all the belligerents has been invited for the purpose of ascertaining whether it may be possible to extend these parleys into a general conference with regard to terms of peace and settlement.

The Russian representatives presented not only a perfectly definite statement of the principles upon which they would be willing to conclude peace, but also an equally definite program of the concrete application of those principles. The representatives of the Central Powers, on their part, presented an outline of settlement which, if much less definite, seemed susceptible of liberal interpretation until their specific program of practical terms was added. That program proposed no concessions at all, either to the sovereignty of Russia or to the preferences of the populations with whose fortunes it dealt, but meant, in a word, that the Central Empires were to keep every foot of territory their armed forces had occupied--every province, every city, every point of vantage as a permanent addition to their territories and their power.

It is a reasonable conjecture that the general principles of settlement which they at first suggested originated with the more liberal statesmen of Germany and Austria, the men who have begun to feel the force of their own peoples' thought and purpose, while the concrete terms of actual settlement came from the military leaders who have no thought but to keep what they have got. The negotiations have been broken off. The Russian representatives were sincere and in earnest. They cannot entertain such proposals of conquest and domination.

The whole incident is full of significance. It is also full of perplexity. With whom are the Russian representatives dealing? For whom are the representatives of the Central Empires speaking? Are they speaking for the majorities of their respective parliaments or for the minority parties, that military and imperialistic minority which has so far dominated their whole policy and controlled the affairs of Turkey and of the Balkan States which have felt obliged to become their associates in this war?

The Russian representatives have insisted, very justly, very wisely, and in the true spirit of modern democracy, that the conferences they have been holding with the Teutonic and Turkish statesmen should be held within open, not closed, doors, and all the world lies been audience, as was desired. To whom have we been listening, then? To those who speak the spirit and intention of the resolutions of the German Reichstag of the 9th of July last, the spirit and intention of the liberal leaders and parties of Germany, or to those who resist and defy that spirit and intention and insist upon conquest and subjugation? Or are we listening, in fact, to both, unreconciled and in open and hopeless contradiction? These are very serious and pregnant questions. Upon the answer to them depends the peace of the world.

But whatever the results of the parleys at Brest-Litovsk, whatever the confusions of counsel and of purpose in the utterances of the spokesmen of the Central Empires, they have again attempted to acquaint the world with their objects in the war and have again challenged their adversaries to say what their objects are and what sort of settlement they would deem just and satisfactory. There is no good reason why that challenge should not be responded to, and responded to with the utmost candor. We did not wait for it. Not once, but again and again we have laid our whole thought and purpose before the world, not in general terms only, but each time with sufficient definition to make it clear what sort of definite terms of settlement must necessarily spring out of them. Within the last week Mr. Lloyd George has spoken with admirable candor and in admirable spirit for the people and Government of Great Britain.

There is no confusion of counsel among the adversaries of the Central Powers, no uncertainty of principle, no vagueness of detail. The only secrecy of counsel, the only lack of fearless frankness, the only failure to make definite statement of the objects of the war, lies with Germany and her allies. The issues of life and death hang upon these definitions. No statesman who has the least conception of his responsibility ought for a moment to permit himself to continue this tragical and appalling outpouring of blood and treasure unless he is sure beyond a peradventure that the objects of the vital sacrifice are part and parcel of the very life of society and that the people for whom he speaks think them right and imperative as he does.

There is, moreover, a voice calling for these definitions of principle and of purpose which is, it seems to me, more thrilling and more compelling than any of the many moving voices with which the troubled air of the world is filled. It is the voice of the Russian people. They are prostrate and all but helpless, it would seem, before the grim power of Germany, which has hitherto known no relenting and no pity. Their power, apparently, is shattered. And yet their soul is not subservient. They will not yield either in principle or in action. Their conception of what is right, of what is humane and honorable for them to accept, has been stated with a frankness, a largeness of view, a generosity of spirit, and a universal human sympathy which must challenge the admiration of every friend of mankind; and they have refused to compound their ideals or desert others that they themselves may be safe.

They call to us to say what it is that we desire, in what, if in anything, our purpose and our spirit differ from theirs; and I believe that the people of the United States would wish me to respond, with utter simplicity and frankness. Whether their present leaders believe it or not, it is our heartfelt desire and hope that some way may be opened whereby we may be privileged to assist the people of Russia to attain their utmost hope of liberty and ordered peace.

It will be our wish and purpose that the processes of peace, when they are begun, shall be absolutely open and that they shall involve and permit henceforth no secret understandings of any kind. The day of conquest and aggrandizement is gone by; so is also the day of secret covenants entered into in the interest of particular governments and likely at some unlooked-for moment to upset the peace of the world. It is this happy fact, now clear to the view of every public man whose thoughts do not still linger in an age that is dead and gone, which makes it possible for every nation whose purposes are consistent with justice and the peace of the world to avow now or at any other time the objects it has in view.

We entered this war because violations of right had occurred which touched us to the quick and made the life of our own people impossible unless they were corrected and the world secured once for all against their recurrence.

What we demand in this war, therefore, is nothing peculiar to ourselves. It is that the world be made fit and safe to live in; and particularly that it be made safe for every peace-loving nation which, like our own, wishes to live its own life, determine its own institutions, be assured of justice and fair dealing by the other peoples of the world, as against force and selfish aggression.

All the peoples of the world are in effect partners in this interest, and for our own part we see very clearly that unless justice be done to others it will not be done to us.

The program of the world's peace
, therefore, is our program; and that program, the only possible program, all we see it, is this:

1. Open covenants of peace must be arrived at, after which there will surely be no private international action or rulings of any kind, but diplomacy shall proceed always frankly and in the public view.

2. Absolute freedom of navigation upon the seas, outside territorial waters, alike in peace and in war, except as the seas may be closed in whole or in part by international action for the enforcement of international covenants.

3. The removal, so far as possible, of all economic barriers and the establishment of an equality of trade conditions among all the nations consenting to the peace and associating themselves for its maintenance.

4. Adequate guarantees given and taken that national armaments will be reduced to the lowest points consistent with domestic safety.

5. A free, open-minded, and absolutely impartial adjustment of all colonial claims, based upon a strict observance of the principle that in determining all such questions of sovereignty the interests of the population concerned must have equal weight with the equitable claims of the government whose title is to be determined.

6. The evacuation of all Russian territory and such a settlement of all questions affecting Russia as will secure the best and freest cooperation of the other nations of the world in obtaining for her an unhampered and unembarrassed opportunity for the independent determination of her own political development and national policy, and assure her of a sincere welcome into the society of free nations under institutions of her own choosing; and, more than a welcome, assistance also of every kind that she may need and may herself desire. The treatment accorded Russia by her sister nations in the months to come will be the acid test of their good will, of their comprehension of her needs as distinguished from their own interests, and of their intelligent and unselfish sympathy.

7. Belgium, the whole world will agree, must be evacuated and restored, without any attempt to limit the sovereignty which she enjoys in common with all other free nations. No other single act will serve as this will serve to restore confidence among the nations in the laws which they have themselves set and determined for the government of their relations with one another. Without this healing act the whole structure and validity of international law is forever impaired.

8. All French territory should be freed and the invaded portions restored, and the wrong done to France by Prussia in 1871 in the matter of Alsace-Lorraine, which has unsettled the peace of the world for nearly fifty years, should be righted, in order that peace may once more be made secure in the interest of all.

9. A re-adjustment of the frontiers of Italy should be effected along clearly recognizable lines of nationality.

10. The peoples of Austria-Hungary, whose place among the nations we wish to see safeguarded and assured, should be accorded the freest opportunity of autonomous development.

11. Romania, Serbia, and Montenegro should be evacuated; occupied territories restored; Serbia accorded free and secure access to the sea; and the relations of the several Balkan states to one another determined by friendly counsel along historically established lines of allegiance and nationality; and international guarantees of the political and economic independence and territorial integrity of the several Balkan states should be entered into.

12. The Turkish portions of the present Ottoman Empire should be assured a secure sovereignty, but the other nationalities which are now under Turkish rule should be assured an undoubted security of life and an absolutely unmolested opportunity of autonomous development, and the Dardanelles should be permanently opened as a free passage to the ships and commerce of all nations under international guarantees.

13. An independent Polish state should be erected which should include the territories inhabited by indisputably Polish populations, which should be assured a free and secure access to the sea, and whose political and economic independence and territorial integrity should be guaranteed by international covenant.

14. A general association of nations must be formed under specific covenants for the purpose of affording mutual guarantees of political independence and territorial integrity to great and small states alike.


In regard to these essential rectifications of wrong and assertions of right, we feel ourselves to be intimate partners of all the governments and peoples associated together against the imperialists. We cannot be separated in interest or divided in purpose. We stand together until the end.

For such arrangements and covenants we are willing to fight and to continue to fight until they are achieved; but only because we wish the right to prevail and desire a just and stable peace such as can be secured only by removing the chief provocations to war, which this program does remove.

We have no jealousy of German greatness, and there is nothing in this program that impairs it. We grudge her no achievement or distinction of learning or of pacific enterprise such as have made her record very bright and very enviable. We do not wish to injure her or to block in any way her legitimate influence or power. We do not wish to fight her either with arms or with hostile arrangements of trade, if she is willing to associate herself with us and the other peace-loving nations of the world in covenants of justice and law and fair dealing.

We wish her only to accept a place of equality among the peoples of the world--the new world in which we now live--instead of a place of mastery.

Neither do we presume to suggest to her any alteration or modification of her institutions. But it is necessary, we must frankly say, and necessary as a preliminary to any intelligent dealings with her on our part, that we should know whom her spokesmen speak for when they speak to us, whether for the Reichstag majority or for the military party and the men whose creed is imperial domination.
We have spoken now, surely, in terms too concrete to admit of any further doubt or question. An evident principle runs through the whole program I have outlined. It is the principle of justice to all peoples and nationalities, and their right to live on equal terms of liberty and safety with one another, whether they be strong or weak.

Unless this principle be made its foundation, no part of the structure of international justice can stand. The people of the United States could act upon no other principle, and to the vindication of this principle they are ready to devote their lives, their honor, and everything that they possess. The moral climax of this, the culminating and final war for human liberty has come, and they are ready to put their own strength, their own highest purpose, their own integrity and devotion to the test.

Woodrow Wilson - January 8, 1918

MONTEVIDEO CONVENTION. Convention on Rights and Duties of States

Convention signed at Montevideo December 26, 1933; Senate advice and consent to ratification, with a reservation, June 15, 1934; Ratified by the President of the United States, with a reservation, June 29, 1934; Ratification of the United States deposited with the Pan American Union July 13, 1934; Entered into force December 26, 1934; Proclaimed by the President of the United States January 18, 1935; Article 8 reaffirmed by protocol of December 23, 1936.
49 Stat. 3097;
Treaty Series 881

CONVENTION ON RIGHTS AND DUTIES OF STATES
The Governments represented in the Seventh International Conference of American States:
Wishing to conclude a Convention on Rights and Duties of States, have appointed the following Plenipotentiaries:

Honduras:
MIGUEL PAZ BARAONA
AUGUSTO C. COELLO
LUIS BOGRAN

United States of America:
CORDELL HULL
ALEXANDER W. WEDDELL
J. REUBEN CLARK
J. BUTLER WRIGHT
SPRUILLE BRADEN
Miss SOPHONISBA P. BRECKINRIDGE

El Salvador:
HECTOR DAVID CASTRO
ARTURO RAMON AVILA
J. CIPRIANO CASTRO

Dominican Republic:
TULIO M. CESTERO

Haiti:
JUSTIN BARAU
FRANCIS SALGADO
ANTOINE PIERRE-PAUL
EDMOND MANGONES

Argentina:
CARLOS SAAVEDRA LAMAS
JUAN F. CAFFERATA
RAMON S. CASTILLO
CARLOS BREBBIA
ISIDORO RUIZ MORENO
LUIS A. PODESTA COSTA
RAUL PREBISCH
DANIEL ANTOKOLETZ

Venezuela:
CESAR ZUMETA
LUIS CHURTON
JOSE RAFAEL MONTTLLA

Uruguay:
ALBERTO MANE
JUAN JOSE AMEZAGA
JOSE G. ANTUNA
JUAN CARLOS BLANCO
Senora SOFIA A. V. DE DEMICHELI
MARTIN R. ECHEGOYEN
LUIS ALBERTO DE HERRERA
PEDRO MANINI RIOS
MATEO MARQUES CASTRO
RODOLFO MEZZERA
OCTAVIO MORAT6
LUIS MORQUIO
TEOFILO PINEYRO CHAIN
DARDO REGULES
JOSE SERRATO
JOSE PEDRO VARELA

Paraguay:
JUSTO PASTOR BENITEZ
GERONIMO RIART
HORACIO A. FERNANDEZ
Senorita MARIA F. GONZALEZ

Mexico:
JOSE MANUEL PUIG CASAURANC
ALFONSO REYES
BASILIO VADILLO
GENARO V. VASQUEZ
ROMEO ORTEGA
MANUEL J. SIERRA
EDUARDO SUAREZ

Panama:
J. D. AROSEMENA
EDUARDO E. HOLGUIN
OSCAR R. MULLER
MAGIN PONS

Bolivia:
CASTO ROJAS
DAVID ALVESTEGUI
ARTURO PINTO ESCALIER

Guatemala:
ALFREDO SKINNER KLEE
JOSE GONZALEZ CAMPO
CARLOS SALAZAR
MANUEL ARROYO

Brazil:
AFRANIO DE MELLO FRANCO
LUCILLO A DA CUNHA BUENO
FRANCISCO LUIS DA SILVA CAMPOS
GILBERTO AMADO
CARLOS CHAGAS
SAMUEL RIBEIRO

Ecuador:
AUGUSTO AGUIRRE APARICIO
HUMBERTO ALBORNOZ
ANTONIO PARRA
CARLOS PUIG VILASSAR
ARTURO SCARONE

Nicaragua:
LEONARDO ARGUELLO
MANUEL CORDERO REYES
CARLOS CUADRA PASOS

Colombia:
ALFONSO LOPEZ
RAIMUNDO RIVAS
JOSE CAMACEO CARRENO

Chile:
MIGUEL CRUCHAGA TOCORNAL
OCTAVIO SENORET SILVA
GUSTAVO RIVERA
JOSE RAMON GUTIERREZ
FELIX NIETO DEL RIO
FRANCISCO FIGUEROA SANCHEZ
BENJAMIN COHEN

Peru:
ALFREDO SOLE Y MURO
FELIPE BARREDA LAOS
LUIS FERNAN CISNEROS

Cuba:
ANGEL ALBERTO GIRAUDY
HERMINIO PORTELL VILA
ALFREDO NOGUEIRA

Who, after having exhibited their Full Powers, which were found to be in good and due order, have agreed upon the following:

ARTICLE 1
The state as a person of international law should possess the following qualifications: a ) a permanent population; b ) a defined territory; c ) government; and d) capacity to enter into relations with the other states.

ARTICLE 2
The federal state shall constitute a sole person in the eyes of international law.

ARTICLE 3
The political existence of the state is independent of recognition by the other states. Even before recognition the state has the right to defend its integrity and independence, to provide for its conservation and prosperity, and consequently to organize itself as it sees fit, to legislate upon its interests, administer its services, and to define the jurisdiction and competence of its courts.
The exercise of these rights has no other limitation than the exercise of the rights of other states according to international law.

ARTICLE 4
States are juridically equal, enjoy the same rights, and have equal capacity in their exercise. The rights of each one do not depend upon the power which it possesses to assure its exercise, but upon the simple fact of its existence as a person under international law.

ARTICLE 5
The fundamental rights of states are not susceptible of being affected in any manner whatsoever.

ARTICLE 6
The recognition of a state merely signifies that the state which recognizes it accepts the personality of the other with all the rights and duties determined by international law. Recognition is unconditional and irrevocable.

ARTICLE 7
The recognition of a state may be express or tacit. The latter results from any act which implies the intention of recognizing the new state.

ARTICLE 8
No state has the right to intervene in the internal or external affairs of another.

ARTICLE 9
The jurisdiction of states within the limits of national territory applies to all the inhabitants.
Nationals and foreigners are under the same protection of the law and the national authorities and the foreigners may not claim rights other or more extensive than those of the nationals.

ARTICLE 10
The primary interest of states is the conservation of peace. Differences of any nature which arise between them should be settled by recognized pacific methods.

ARTICLE 11
The contracting states definitely establish as the rule of their conduct the precise obligation not to recognize territorial acquisitions or special advantages which have been obtained by force whether this consists in the employment of arms, in threatening diplomatic representations, or in any other effective coercive measure. The territory of a state is inviolable and may not be the object of military occupation nor of other measures of force imposed by another state directly or indirectly or for any motive whatever even temporarily.

ARTICLE 12
The present Convention shall not affect obligations previously entered into by the High Contracting Parties by virtue of international agreements.

ARTICLE 13
The present Convention shall be ratified by the High Contracting Parties in conformity with their respective constitutional procedures. The Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Uruguay shall transmit authentic certified copies to the governments for the aforementioned purpose of ratification. The instrument of ratification shall be deposited in the archives of the Pan American Union in Washington, which shall notify the signatory governments of said deposit. Such notification shall be considered as an exchange of ratifications.

ARTICLE 14
The present Convention will enter into force between the High Contracting Parties in the order in which they deposit their respective ratifications.

ARTICLE 15
The present Convention shall remain in force indefinitely but may be denounced by means of one year's notice given to the Pan American Union, which shall transmit it to the other signatory governments. After the expiration of this period the Convention shall cease in its effects as regards the party which denounces but shall remain in effect for the remaining High Contracting Parties.

ARTICLE 16
The present Convention shall be open for the adherence and accession of the States which are not signatories. The corresponding instruments shall be deposited in the archives of the Pan American Union which shall communicate them to the other High Contracting Parties.

Source: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/intam03.asp

Monday, November 9, 2009

Last Dutch WWII war criminal goes on trial in Germany

Published: 27 October 2009 16:26 | Changed: 27 October 2009 16:26

On Wednesday 88-year-old former SS member Heinrich Boere goes on trial in Germany for the murder of three Dutch citizens during World War II. Boere is probably the last Dutch war criminal to face justice.
By Bart Funnekotter

Nazi hunter Ulrich Maass is a satisfied man. The assassin he has been chasing for years is going to stand trial at last. In Aachen on Wednesday, Maass, the state prosecutor at Dortmund and the head of the German Nazi crimes unit, will deliver his opening arguments in what is probably the last trial against a Dutch war criminal from World War II.
Former SS member Henirich Boere (88) is accused of the murders of three Dutch citizens: Fritz Bicknesse, Teun de Groot and Frans Kusters. The son of a Dutch father and a German mother, Boere was a member of the SS Sonderkommando Feldmeijer, which killed more than fifty Dutch citizens between September 1943 and September 1944 in retaliation for anti-German actions by the resistance.
Life sentence asked
At the beginning of this year it looked like Boere had slipped through Maass' fingers. The court in Aachen ruled that Boere was physically unable to stand trial. But Maass appealed the verdict, and the constitutional court in Karslruhe overruled the Aachen court, clearing the way for Boere's trial. Maass is asking for a life sentence.
Boere was sentenced to death in the Netherlands in 1949 for his part in the murders - in absentia. He had escaped in 1947 from a mine in the south-east province Limburg where he had been sentenced to forced labour, and fled to Germany. Because he had a German mother, Boere qualified for German citizenship, and since Germany doesn't extradite its own citizens, he was out of the reach of the Dutch courts.
But in 2000 a Dutch documentary maker, Rob van Olm, tracked Boere down in Aachen. In the film Boere showed nog sing of remorse. "I don't feel guilty. That's why I have always made sure they couldn't catch me," he said.
Boere served for two years with an SS division on the Eastern front. It had made him indifferent to violence, he said. "We would eat our lunch sitting on top of dead Russians. The resistance to me were the enemy."
Heinous crimes
After the documentary was broadcast, Dutch and German authorities became interested in Boere again. Germany has lately stepped up tracking an trying the last living Nazi war criminals. In August, Josef Scheungraber was given a life sentence for 14 murders in Italy. John Demjanjuk, who is charged with complicity in 28,000 murders in the concentration camp Sobibor, was recently extradited from the US and faces trial in November.
Maass took Boere's Dutch court file from 1949 to the court in his place of residence, Aachen. The court initially adopted the Dutch ruling, but was later overruled by the appeals court in Cologne because Boere did not have legal representation at the time. As a result Maass now has 13 court days to construct his case against Maass from scratch.
He is not expecting any major problems. "After all, Boere has confessed. Now it is up to me to prove the murders were heimtückisch (heinous), otherwise the statute of limitations on them has expired. I also have to prove that there was no Befehlsnotstand: the situation wherein a person's life is in danger if he refuses to follow orders. Many war criminals have hidden behind that excuse in the past, but times have changed. Judges no longer just accept this argument."
Germany allows relatives of victims of war criminals to become Nebenkläger or co-plaintiffs in their trials. They have the right to enter evidence and to question the accused. Nebenklager Teun de Groot from Heillo plans to sit in the front row at the Aachen court house on Wednesday to get a good look at the man who murdered his father on September 3, 1944.
Too little too late
De Groot's father helped people hide from the Germans, but that was not the reason he was killed, says his son. "If the Germans had known this they would have arrested him much sooner. No, it was well-known that my dad was anti-German. The NSB [the Dutch Nazi party] had staged a demonstration outside his bicycle repair shop. The Nazis wanted to send a signal: actions by the resistance would be reciprocated with extreme violence."
After the war, De Groot heard that Boere had been sentenced in absentia, but he didn't hear anymore about him until 2000. When the documentary aired it made him very angry. "He didn't show the least bit of remorse. I hope he gets a life sentence, life with interest, for every day he has evaded justice."
In preparing for the trial De Groot was assisted by German historian Stephan Stracke, who wrote his PhD about the treatment of Nazi war criminals. Stracke says it is "a disgrace" that Boere is only now facing trial. "We began protesting outside his door and that of Herbertus Bicker ten years ago," he says. Bicker, aka the Butcher of Ommen, was another Dutch war criminal living in Germany; he died last year at 93 without ever having stood trial.
Stracke is not impressed by Germany's new-found zeal in bringing war criminals to justice. "Now that there are only a few them left they are suddenly being put on trial. If they had done this ten years ago it could have been hundreds. Those old Nazis have long been protected by friends in high places. Now they are finally gone, but a lot of people have escaped justice because of them. At least Boere will get what he deserves."

Source:
http://www.nrc.nl/international/Features/article2398518.ece/Last_Dutch_WWII_war_criminal_goes_on_trial_in_Germany

SS trial halted over prosecutor's statements

News, Opinion and Background - Thursday 29 October 2009

Published: 28 October 2009 16:51 | Changed: 28 October 2009 17:16
By Bart Funnekotter in Aachen

The trial of the Dutch SS officer Heinrich Broere (88) in the western German city of Aachen was adjourned on Wednesday.
Lawyers for Broere, who is standing trial for killing three Dutch civilians during World War II, challenged the prosecutor on statements he made in the Dutch and German press.
The defence argued that state prosecutor Ulrich Maass is not out to "find the truth" but to get Broere convicted. "According to the law, the prosecutor has to be open to exculpatory evidence," lawyer Gordon Christiansen said at the beginning of what is one of the last World War II trials. Christiansen urged Maass' superiors to remove him from the case. He deemed the prosecution's proposal to have Maass' assistant Andreas Brendel read the opening statements unacceptable.
This left the presiding judge no option but to adjourn the trial, until next Monday, to give the prosecution time to come up with an answer to the accusation. "I assume I can resume the case on Monday," Maass said after the court's decision. "It is a simple legal fact that I cannot prosecute unless I am convinced it will lead to a conviction."
The adjournment ing was a great disappointment for Teun de Groot junior, who travelled to Aachen from the Netherlands to give a statement to the court against the man who killed his father, Teun de Groot senior. That co-plaintiff's statement will now be read by his attorney as soon as the case resumes.
De Groot did get a chance to see the man who murdered his father in September 1944 for the first time. "A pathetic little man," De Groot called Broere, who attended the trial in a wheelchair and was accompanied by two physicians.
Broere, a son of a Dutch father and a German mother, was part of a secret commando unit that killed over 50 Dutch people for resistance attacks on collaborators in 1943 and 1944. He is on trial 65 years later for his part in the killings, known as the Silbertanne-Aktion.
The prosecution does not have to prove he killed Teun de Groot, Fritz Bicknesse and Frans Kusters - Broere has admitted to doing so on several occasions - but that the killings were heimtückisch (heinous). If not, the statute of limitations on them has expired.
In the 1980s German investigators concluded the murders were a legitimate retaliation, under martial law, for attacks by the Dutch resistance. Maass, or his replacement, will try to prove otherwise.
The fact the executions took place in secret runs contrary to this theory. Teun de Groot jr.'s lawyer Detlev Hartmann meanwhile intends to prove the war started by Germany was criminal and therefore excluded from martial law. "That makes the whole defence obsolete that the Silbertanne murders were legal retaliations."

Source:
http://www.nrc.nl/international/article2399530.ece/SS_trial_halted_over_prosecutors_statements

Boere und das Killerkommando


NS-Kriegsverbrechen

27.10.2009, 15:41
Nach langem juristischen Tauziehen steht Heinrich Boere in Aachen vor Gericht - der Greis soll in den Niederlanden für die SS gemordet haben.

Der mutmaßliche SS-Mörder Heinrich Boere im Jahr 2003 (Foto: AP)
Heinrich Boere zählt zu den zehn meistgesuchten Nazi-Kriegsverbrechern des Simon-Wiesenthal-Zentrums in Jerusalem und lebte trotzdem über Jahrzehnte ein normales Leben. Alle Versuche der Justiz, den mutmaßlichen SS-Mörder zu bestrafen, scheiterten.
Doch jetzt, im hohen Alter von 88 Jahren, holt Heinrich Boere in einem Altenheim in Eschweiler bei Aachen die Vergangenheit ein. Von diesem Mittwoch an steht er in einem der letzten Kriegsverbrecherprozesse vor dem Aachener Landgericht. Er ist wegen dreifachen Mordes angeklagt.
Immer ein neues Schlupfloch
Als Mitglied eines Killerkommandos von Hitlers SS soll der damals 23-Jährige drei Niederländer erschossen haben. Mehrfach war ihm die Justiz auf den Fersen. Immer hatte er ein Schlupfloch gefunden, um der drohenden Haftstrafe zu entgehen. Diese Strategie ging zuletzt nicht auf, auch wenn es zunächst anders aussah.
Das Landgericht Aachen hatte Anfang des Jahres die Eröffnung des Prozesses gegen Boere wegen dessen angeschlagener Gesundheit zunächst abgelehnt. Das Oberlandesgericht Köln kam zu einem anderen Schluss. Trotz der schweren Herzerkrankung könne der Prozess stattfinden. Das Bundesverfassungsgericht bestätigte diese Einschätzung. Wegen des hohen Alters war es wohl die letzte Chance für einen Versuch von Gerechtigkeit.
Oberstaatsanwalt Ulrich Maaß hatte die Mordfälle neu aufgerollt, nachdem diese schon seit 1949 Gerichte und Regierungen beschäftigt hatten. Da kaum noch Zeugen leben, griff der Leiter der nordrhein-westfälischen Schwerpunkt-Staatsanwaltschaft für NS-Verbrechen auf alte Vernehmungsprotokolle zurück.
Demnach hatte das SS-Sonderkommando "Feldmeijer" den jungen Boere rekrutiert. Die Einheit wurde nach Johannes Hendrik Feldmeijer benannt, einem niederländischen Faschisten, der ebenfalls Mitglied in der SS war.
Mord an Apotheker, Mord an Fahrradhädler
Heinrich Boeres Mutter war Deutsche, der Vater Niederländer. Nach Anschlägen auf deutsche Besatzungseinrichtungen sollte das Sonderkommando niederländische Untergrundkämpfer töten.

Namensgeber von Boeres Mordkommando: der niederländische Nazi Johannes Hendrik Feldmeijer (Foto: Bundesarchiv, Bild 101III-Stenzel-026-22)
Das erste Opfer war laut Anklage am 14. Juli 1944 der Apotheker Fritz Bicknese aus Breda, den der Angeklagte mit einem Komplizen erschoss. Monate später dann die Order, den Fahrradhändler Teunis de Groot und Frans-Willem Kusters in Voorschoten und Wassenaar zu töten.
Etwa ein Jahr danach, inzwischen war Hitler-Deutschland besiegt, wurde der heute 88-Jährige festgenommen. Doch er konnte fliehen und tauchte zunächst in den Niederlanden unter. Ein Sondergerichtshof in Amsterdam verurteilte ihn 1949 in Abwesenheit zum Tode. Die Strafe wurde später in lebenslange Haft umgewandelt.
Reges Interesse in den Niederlanden
Ende 1954 kehrte der verurteilte Dreifachmörder in seine Geburtsstadt Eschweiler zurück und arbeitete dort als Bergmann. Einen Antrag der Niederländer auf Auslieferung lehnte Deutschland 1980 ab, weil die Nationalität nicht eindeutig geklärt war und Deutsche damals nicht ausgeliefert wurden.
Gegen die spätere Entscheidung des Landgerichts Aachen, dass der Mann die Strafe in Deutschland verbüßen solle, legte der Angeklagte erfolgreich Beschwerde ein. Gut 60 Jahre nach Kriegsende wird der Fall in den Niederlanden noch immer aufmerksam beobachtet.

Quelle:
http://www.sueddeutsche.de/politik/127/492483/text/

Monday, October 26, 2009

Foreign Minister Ben Bot Answers the Petition of KUKB

28 Juni 2006
Directie Azië en Oceanië
Bezuidenhoutseweg 67
Postbus 20061
2500 EB Den Haag


Aan de Voorzitter van de Tweede Kamer der Staten-Generaal
Binnenhof 4
Den Haag

Graag bied ik u hierbij de reactie aan op uw verzoek van 13 juni 2006 met kenmerk 06BuZAB49 inzake mijn reactie op de petitie ‘Misdaden Nederlandse militairen in Indonesië’.

Vertegenwoordigers van veteranengroeperingen en het Comité Nederlandse Ereschulden hebben op 20 mei 2005 een petitie aan de Nederlandse ambassadeur in Indonesië aangeboden om “de Onafhankelijkheid van Republiek van Indonesië op 17 augustus 1945 te erkennen en excuus aan te bieden aan het Indonesische volk voor de kolonisatie, slavernij, de serieuze schending van mensenrechten en de misdrijven”. De indieners van de petitie zijn op de ambassade ontvangen en hebben gesproken over de inhoud van de petitie. De petitie is vervolgens naar mij doorgeleid in de veronderstelling dat met dit gesprek het gestelde in de petitie afdoende was beantwoord. Gaarne ben ik bereid een verdere toelichting op de twee punten uit de petitie te geven.

Vorig jaar heb ik tijdens mijn bezoek aan Indonesië uitdrukking gegeven aan de Nederlandse politieke en morele aanvaarding van 17 augustus 1945. Dit is het Komite Utang Kehormatan Belanda (KUKB) in een brief van 4 april 2006 reeds kenbaar gemaakt. Die stap lag in de lijn van het feit dat Nederland de onafhankelijkheidsverklaring van 17 augustus 1945 al sinds jaar en dag ziet als een historisch vaststaand feit. Daar is in de loop der tijd op verschillende manieren vorm aan gegeven. Wat de stap van de Nederlandse regering in augustus 2005 desondanks bijzonder maakte was dat één en ander expliciet werd uitgesproken tijdens de zestigste viering van de onafhankelijkheidsdag te Jakarta.

Namens de Nederlandse regering betuigde ik aan de vooravond van de viering van de onafhankelijksheidsdag in een rede voor de Indonesische regering tevens diepe spijt over de pijnlijke en gewelddadige wijze waarop de wegen van Nederland en Indonesië in de daaropvolgende periode, als gevolg van het toenmalige Nederlandse optreden, zich hebben gescheiden.

De Nederlandse en Indonesische regering waren het erover eens deze stap te zien als historisch, waarmee een hoofdstuk in de geschiedenis werd afgesloten. Zowel de Indonesische als de Nederlandse regering hebben tevens duidelijk gemaakt dat een discussie over compensatie niet aan de orde was en aangegeven dat het van ondergeschikt belang was welke terminologie precies werd gebruikt om een streep te zetten onder dit deel van de gezamenlijke geschiedenis. De relatie tussen Nederland en Indonesië zou nu een toekomstgerichte kunnen zijn, waarbij samenwerking op velerlei terrein mogelijk is.

De Minister van Buitenlandse Zaken,

Dr. B.R. Bot

Wednesday, October 21, 2009

Ben Bot. Toespraak ter gelegenheid van de 15 augustus-herdenking bij het Indië-monument

(Pernyataan Ben Bot, MENERIMA 17.8.1945 sebagai de facto kemerdekaan Republik Indonesia)

Toespraak door dr. Bernard Bot, minister van Buitenlandse Zaken van het Koninkrijk der Nederlanden, ter gelegenheid van de 15 augustus herdenking bij het Indië-monument

Den Haag, 15 augustus 2005

Geachte aanwezigen, dames en heren,
De Stichting Herdenking 15 augustus 1945 ben ik dankbaar voor de mogelijkheid vandaag de herdenkingstoespraak te houden. Dat is voor mij, als minister van buitenlandse zaken en vertegenwoordiger van de regering, een eervolle taak. Maar ik sta hier ook, net als velen van u, als een kind van Indië. Net als bij u roept deze herdenking bij mij gevoelens en emoties op, komen op deze dag zowel positieve als negatieve herinneringen boven aan Indonesië, 5 tijdzones en 14.000 kilometer van deze plek verwijderd, maar gevoelsmatig toch zo nabij. Het zijn herinneringen die je de rest van je leven meedraagt, maar een optimistische en toekomstgerichte levenshouding niet in de weg hoeven te staan. Immers, herdenken is, naast herinneren, ook vooruitzien.

Eerst het verleden: met de capitulatie van Japan, precies 60 jaar geleden, kwam ook een einde aan de Japanse bezetting van Nederlands Indië, een bezetting die zovelen van ons leed had berokkend. Wij gedenken de familieleden en vrienden die tijdens de Japanse bezetting het leven lieten of hebben geleden. Wij gedenken ook de talloze Indonesische dwangarbeiders, de Romusha’s, die vaak naamloos stierven.

Na de capitulatie was het leed, in tegenstelling tot wat toen vurig werd gehoopt, nog niet geleden. Meteen na de capitulatie ontstond een machtsvacuüm dat slechts geleidelijk kon worden opgevuld door de Britten. Tijdens deze zogeheten Bersiap-periode verloren vele duizenden onschuldige Nederlands-Indische en Indonesische burgers, veelal vrouwen en kinderen, het leven.

In de jaren daarna volgde een pijnlijke, langdurige en gewelddadige scheiding der wegen tussen Indonesië en Nederland. Voor wat betreft grote delen van de Nederlands-Indische gemeenschap spreken wij dus over vele jaren van fysiek en psychisch leed.

Zelf kijk ik met gemengde gevoelens terug op mijn kamptijd in Tjideng. Als kind word je misschien iets minder snel geraakt door het leed en de ontbering om je heen, vat je de dingen wat makkelijker op. Maar je wordt ook sneller volwassen. Een verblijf in het weeshuis, toen mijn moeder in het ziekenhuis werd opgenomen, maakte mij, zoals dat heet, vroeg “streetwise”.

Waarschijnlijk daarom staat die periode scherp in mijn geheugen geetst. Ik herinner me nog levendig de internering, het vertrek van mijn vader naar Birma, de koempoelans ‘s-morgens en ‘s-avonds, het urenlange wachten en daarna buigen voor kampcommandant Soni. Ook weet ik dat je duizend angsten uitstond als je wegens ziekte niet bij de koempoelan aanwezig kon zijn, omdat de Japanners je zouden kunnen betrappen bij een controle. De herinnering aan de honger is iets dat, denk ik, bij mijn generatie sterk voortleeft in de zin dat je niet snel iets weggooit wat nog enigszins eetbaar is.

Een kleine anekdote. Wij werden verplicht een soort volkstuintjes aan te leggen zogenaamd om wat groente te verbouwen. Ik was aangewezen mee te werken aan een tomatenbed. Groot was mijn teleurstelling toen op een kwade ochtend bleek dat alle zo goed als rijpe tomaten waren verdwenen.

Ik verdacht mijn buurjongen van deze euvele daad en besloot tot retaliatie. Alleen, bij hem waren de tomaten nog onrijp en groen. Ik heb ze toch verorberd en heb dat moeten berouwen. Niet lang daarna voelde ik me doodziek worden en moest mijn moeder opbiechten wat ik had gedaan. “Jongen”, zei ze, “zo komt boontje altijd om zijn loontje”.

Er wordt weer veel geschreven over de Japanse capitulatie. Natuurlijk is het verschrikkelijk wat er in Hiroshima en Nagasaki is gebeurd. Maar ik weet ook dat de oorlog niet veel langer had moeten duren of wij hadden dat kamp niet overleefd. En mijn vader zou zeker niet zijn teruggekeerd uit Birma en Siam. 15 Augustus is daarom een dag die voor mij een speciale betekenis heeft.

De bevrijding, de terugkeer van mijn vader die ik uiteraard bij die eerste ontmoeting niet kende, de terugkeer in Nederland zijn evenzovele onuitwisbare herinneringen die ik graag met U hier vandaag deel. De ontvangst in Nederland kwam enigszins als een koude douche. En ik zeg dat niet vanwege het koude klimaat waarin ik terecht kwam. Het was moeilijk uit te leggen wat wij hadden ondergaan. Steevast kwam er als reactie dat bij ons in Indie in ieder geval het zonnetje had geschenen, terwijl zij in de hongerwinter kou hadden geleden. Kortom, al snel werd duidelijk dat niemand in Nederland zat te wachten op die uit Indië afkomstige groep Nederlanders. Je leerde dus al snel niet te veel te praten over wat je had meegemaakt, en juist wel met sympathie te luisteren naar de verhalen over de oorlog in Nederland, de Duitsers en de vernietigingskampen.

Misschien is dat ook wel de reden waarom wij zo goed en snel in de Nederlandse samenleving wisten te integreren. Misschien daarom hebben we snel pleisters geplakt op al die wonden en gewoon de draad van ons leven weer opgepakt. En natuurlijk was er ook aanleiding om dankbaar te zijn. We hadden het immers overleefd en in ieder geval een nieuw thuis gevonden. Persoonlijk ben ik dus dankbaar dat ik hier voor u mag staan, dat ik zoals zo velen van u die periode goed heb doorstaan en heb laten zien dat je ook gesterkt uit zo’n beproeving te voorschijn kunt komen.

(Levende geschiedenis)
Zestig jaar, dames en heren. De afstand in tijd tussen het heden en de gebeurtenissen van toen wordt steeds groter. En brengt dit niet het risico van vergetelheid met zich mee, zoals de heer Boekholt dat twee jaar geleden bij deze gelegenheid schetste? Ik hoop en vertrouw erop dat dit niet zo zal zijn. Ik denk dat ook toekomstige generaties zich zullen blijven interesseren in het gemeenschappelijke verleden van Nederland en Indonesië. Ik denk dat onze jeugd die geschiedenis graag wil adopteren, zoals de scholieren van het Vrijzinnig Christelijk Lyceum het Indië-monument hebben geadopteerd en zoals vele andere scholen bijvoorbeeld militaire begraafplaatsen verzorgen. Maar om de geschiedenis met overtuiging te koesteren, moet in de ogen van onze jeugd het verleden en de kennis van dat verleden ook voor het heden en de toekomst relevant zijn.

Winston Churchill zei het eens als volgt: hoe verder men terug kan kijken hoe verder men vooruit weet te zien. Inderdaad: historische kennis is geen overbodige luxe, maar een voorwaarde voor een heldere blik op de toekomst. En dat geldt zeker voor de relatie tussen Nederland en Indonesië. Wanneer Nederlanders op welke wijze dan ook in contact zullen komen met Indonesië en Indonesiërs, dan zullen zij iets moeten weten van de geschiedenis van dat land, en dus ook van eeuwen van gedeelde Indonesisch-Nederlandse geschiedenis. Nederlanders die zonder enige kennis van de geschiedenis in Indonesië succesvol zaken denken te kunnen doen, of diplomatie te bedrijven, komen meestal van een koude kermis thuis.

Wanneer een samenleving de toekomst met optimisme en strijdbaarheid tegemoet wil treden moet zij wel bereid zijn ook over de minder fraaie kanten van de eigen geschiedenis eerlijk te zijn. Zeker in een tijd waarin wij in Nederland - op de werkvloer, in de sportkantine en op school - bruggen willen slaan tussen de diverse etnische en geloofsgemeenschappen in ons land. In de context van deze herdenking betekent dat dan dat wij durven toegeven dat ook na invoering van de zogeheten ethische politiek de belangen van de Indonesische bevolking voor de meeste Nederlanders op zijn best op de tweede plaats kwamen.

Werken aan een gemeenschappelijke toekomst. Dat moet niet alleen binnen onze samenleving het adagium zijn, maar ook in de relatie tussen Nederland en Indonesië. De uitdagingen die wij gezamenlijk ter hand moeten nemen zijn legio, zoals de strijd tegen intolerantie, extremisme en terrorisme.

Indonesië is belangrijk. Het is een drijvende kracht achter regionale samenwerking in Zuid-Oost Azië. Indonesië herbergt als seculiere staat meer moslims dan welk land ook ter wereld, maar is tevens hoeder van eeuwenoude, boeddhistische, hindoeïstische en christelijke tradities. Als zodanig heeft Indonesië recht van spreken in de dialoog der culturen. Tijdens het Nederlandse voorzitterschap van de Europese Unie vorig jaar, hebben wij dan ook veel aandacht besteed aan intensivering van de betrekkingen met Indonesië.

{Boodschap aan Jakarta)
Dames en heren,
Om de relatie tussen Indonesië en Nederland verder te intensiveren is het behulpzaam om wat er nog resteert aan oud zeer weg te nemen, althans voor zover wij dat als Nederlanders in onze macht hebben. Daarom zal ik als vertegenwoordiger van ons land en als vertegenwoordiger van de generatie die de pijn van de scheiding heeft ondervonden, nog vandaag het vliegtuig nemen, die vijf tijdzones doorkruisen en 28000 kilometer afleggen. Op 17 augustus zal ik dan ons land vertegenwoordigen bij de Indonesische herdenking van de op 17 augustus 1945 uitgeroepen onafhankelijkheid. Ik zal aan het Indonesische volk uitleggen dat mijn aanwezigheid mag worden gezien als een politieke en morele aanvaarding van die datum.

Maar waar het nu in de eerste plaats om gaat is dat wij de Indonesiërs eindelijk klare wijn schenken. Al decennialang zijn Nederlandse vertegenwoordigers op 17 augustus aanwezig bij vieringen van de Indonesische onafhankelijkheid. Ik zal met steun van het Kabinet aan de mensen in Indonesië duidelijk maken dat in Nederland het besef bestaat dat de onafhankelijkheid van de Republiek Indonesië de facto al begon op 17 augustus 1945 en dat wij – zestig jaar na dato - dit feit in politieke en morele zin ruimhartig aanvaarden.

Aanvaarding in morele zin betekent ook dat ik mij zal aansluiten bij eerdere spijtbetuigingen over de pijnlijke en gewelddadige scheiding der wegen van Indonesië en Nederland. Bijna zesduizend Nederlandse militairen lieten in die strijd het leven, velen verloren ledematen, of werden slachtoffer van psychische trauma’s, waarvoor, opnieuw, in Nederland maar weinig aandacht bestond.

Door de grootschalige inzet van militaire middelen kwam ons land als het ware aan de verkeerde kant van de geschiedenis te staan. Dit is buitengewoon wrang voor alle betrokkenen: voor de Nederlands-Indische gemeenschap, voor de Nederlandse militairen, maar in de eerste plaats voor de Indonesische bevolking zelf.

Dames en heren,
Pas wanneer men op de top van de berg staat kan men zien wat de eenvoudigste en kortste weg naar boven zou zijn geweest. Zoiets geldt ook voor diegenen die betrokken waren bij de besluiten die in de jaren veertig werden genomen.
Pas achteraf is te zien dat de scheiding tussen Indonesië en Nederland langer heeft geduurd en met meer militair geweld gepaard is gegaan dan nodig was geweest.
Dit is de boodschap die ik mee zal nemen naar Jakarta. Daarbij hoop ik vurig op het begrip en de steun van de Indische gemeenschap, de Molukse gemeenschap in Nederland en van de veteranen van de politionele acties.

Immers, om ons gemeenschappelijke verleden levend te houden, hebben wij ook een gemeenschappelijke perspectief op de toekomst nodig. Samen werken aan een gezonde en veilige toekomst van onze samenleving, en aan goede betrekkingen met Indonesië, zal ons helpen ook de meest pijnlijke aspecten van ons verleden dragelijk te maken.
Ik dank u voor uw aandacht.

Source: http://www.nieuwsbank.nl/inp/2005/08/15/R176.htm

Speech by Minister Bot On the 60th anniversary of the Republic of Indonesia’s independence declaration

Address by Dr. Bernard Bot
Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Kingdom of the Netherlands
Jakarta, 16 August 2005

On the 60th anniversary of the Republic of Indonesia’s independence declaration
Colleagues, ... Honoured guests, Ladies and gentlemen,

1. SAYA MERASA MENDAPAT KEHORMATAN BERADA DI SINI BERSAMA BAPAK-BAPAK DAN IBU-IBU PADA MALAM INI.
(Translation: Ladies and gentlemen - it is an honour for me to be here this evening with you all.)

2. I am here today in my capacity as a Dutch minister to pay my respects to the Indonesian people, a people with whom we Dutch have had strong bonds for hundreds of years.

3. Tomorrow, your country will be celebrating the 60th anniversary of your declaration of independence, the Proklamasi. It is an historic moment on which I would like to congratulate Indonesia on behalf of the entire Dutch government. Allow me also to congratulate our trusted partner, the Indonesian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, on its 60th anniversary on 19 August.

Ladies and gentlemen,
4. This is the first time since Indonesia declared its independence that a member of the Dutch government will attend the celebrations. Through my presence the Dutch government expresses its political and moral acceptance of the Proklamasi, the date the Republic of Indonesia declared independence. Only when someone is standing on the summit of the mountain can he see what would have been the simplest and shortest way up. This applies equally to the people on the Dutch side who were involved in the decisions taken from 1945 onwards. Only in hindsight does it become clear that the separation between Indonesia and the Netherlands was marked by more violence and lasted longer than was necessary.
Ladies and gentlemen,

5. If a society wants to face the future with its eyes open, it must also have the courage to confront its own history. This applies to every country, including the Netherlands and the Republic of Indonesia. Within the context of 17 August, this means that we Dutch must admit to ourselves, and to you the Indonesians, that during the colonial period and especially its final phase harm was done to the interests and dignity of the Indonesian people – even if the intentions of individual Dutch people may not always have been bad.

6. The end of the Japanese occupation of Indonesia did not bring an end to the suffering of the Indonesian people nor to that of the Dutch community in Indonesia. The Japanese occupation and the period directly after the Proklamasi were followed by an extremely painful, violent parting of the ways between our countries and communities.

7. In retrospect, it is clear that its large-scale deployment of military forces in 1947 put the Netherlands on the wrong side of history. The fact that military action was taken and that many people on both sides lost their lives or were wounded is a harsh and bitter reality especially for you, the people of the Republic of Indonesia. A large number of your people are estimated to have died as a result of the action taken by the Netherlands. On behalf of the Dutch government, I wish to express my profound regret for all that suffering.

8. Although painful memories never go away, they must not be allowed to stand in the way of honest reconciliation. The Indonesian and Dutch veterans who fought one another at that time have been setting a good example for many years by commemorating victims of both sides together. Ali Boediardjo, the former Secretary of the Republic’s negotiating delegation, was speaking about reconciliation in 1990 when he said: “We have one basic principle in common, that is humanism, which means that one can understand his fellow-man and can forgive the evil he has done.”

9. This is also an important moment for me personally. The country where I was born, Indonesia, and the Netherlands, my motherland, are reaching out to one another and opening a new chapter in their relations. Let us apply ourselves to deepening our friendship with dedication and in harmony. And may our friendship serve the interests of the common challenges all of us will have to meet in the twenty-first century. Let us work together for peace, justice and prosperity.

10. Reconciliation will also be high on the agenda in Aceh. The Indonesian government and the GAM signed a peace agreement yesterday in Helsinki. On behalf of the Dutch government, I would like to congratulate both parties on the results achieved and hope that this will mean lasting peace for the people of Aceh. Because even more than all the aid from the international community, this peace agreement will be decisive for the prosperous development of the province. The role of the EU and ASEAN in monitoring the peace agreement is an important new step in the growing relationship between the EU and ASEAN.
Ladies and gentlemen,

11. The Republic of Indonesia is an important partner for the Netherlands. Your country is a driving force behind regional integration in Southeast Asia and dialogue with the European Union. And your country is assuming a prominent position in the dialogue of cultures. The secular Republic of Indonesia not only has more Muslims than any other country in the world, it is also a faithful guardian of centuries-old Buddhist, Hindu and Christian traditions. Dutch society too is rich in traditions, cultures and religions. So let us carry the Indonesian motto bhinekka tunggal ika - “unity in diversity”, which is also the motto of the European Union, in our hearts, as a permanent goal to strive for. Let Indonesia and the Netherlands, each from in its own unique position and drawing on our historical ties, make a positive contribution to understanding and respect between countries and peoples.

12. I look forward to tomorrow’s celebrations of 60 years of the Proklamasi.

PERSAHABATAN TIDAK MENGENAL BATAS NEGARA
(Translation: Friendship knows no borders.) Knowing that you have friends on the other side of the world inspires confidence – like-minded friends to whom you feel connected and with whom you can journey on the path to the future.
MARI KITA MENYONGSONG MASA DEPAN BERSAMA-SAMA DENGAN PENUH KEYAKINAN.
(Translation: Let us embark upon the future together in trust).
TERIMA KASIH BANYAK
(Thank you very much)

Source:
http://www.minbuza.nl/default.asp?CMS_ITEM=253673956C8D449E9C7821B918C26FA1X3X55316X58