1. Each session of the General Assembly is a time when we broaden our perspective and look at the world as a whole. Certainly we cannot escape from our own national problems which so intensely and daily preoccupy our minds. But we can and do gain a sharper realization of the fact that the existing world problems condition also the progress which we shall make towards our own national development and growth.
2. This is certainly true of peoples struggling for their national independence. It is true of newly independent countries in their efforts to achieve social and economic emancipation; and it is no less true of the old established nations maintaining their role in world affairs in a positive and constructive way.
3. For together we are caught up in this seething, changing world. Yes, our world is in transition. It is moving —moving fast and often painfully—from a past order based upon domination—political, economic and military— to a new world order responsive to the urgent demands of the majority of mankind, a world order based upon freedom for all nations and cooperation among all nations, where the exploitation of nation by nation, of man by man, has ceased to exist, and where equality and justice prevail in the relations between nations.
4. We are wending our tortuous way to this new equilibrium; and yet already, freedom, equality, justice for all are the prerequisites for stability in our present day world. They are the prerequisites for real peace in the world of today. It is then against this background of essentials that we must judge where we stand now. Have we made, and are we making, progress? The answer is; yes—definitely yes.
5. The movements for national freedom and independence have gained a momentum impossible to stop. Peoples everywhere are not only struggling for, but achieving, their liberation from oppression and domination. Within sixteen years the membership of the United Nations has increased from 51 to .100.- There
is a growing consciousness that the world is no longer a place which any one nation or group of nations can aspire to dominate. There is a growing awareness of ' the fact that no nation can dominate any other nation. There is, too, a general and heightened realization of the social and economic forces in the world—forces which are breaking through the crust of centuries of silence and neglect and which, it is now being realized, must be satisfied if they are not to explode in the fulfilment of their destiny.
6. This is the principal progress which we have made since the Second World War. Not only has Hitler fascism been defeated, but the process towards a better foundation of a peaceful world has been established— and that, away from the pre-war world stability. A victory in war, if not followed by a strong foundation of world order based upon freedom for all, justice among and within nations, will not secure the fundamental ingredients for peace.
7. Yet, as I have said, we are still in the transitional stage. We have still not reached our final goal. We are still experiencing the turmoil and the tempest that are common to every period of transition. They give rise to dangerous moments. Yes, but these moments must not transfix us with fear. They are the natural hurdles in the path towards a new world order.
8. Let us not delude ourselves. The retreat of the dominating forces of the past, the retreat of the colonial forces, cannot be won without a struggle, not without dislocation and sometimes not without a physical confrontation between the emerging social forces and the old established forces of a bygone domination.
9. So let us not fear these moments of danger and crisis. For we cannot escape them. Our task is rather to mar shall all our energies to ensure that they do not get out of hand and burst violently into a world Conflagration.
10. As we meet here we indeed find ourselves again beset by the, crises, the fever blisters, of a world in transition, writhing between those who seek to preserve the, status quo and those who seek to promote the change towards a new world order based on freedom, equality and social justice. A look at our crowded agenda and we see that these crises occur in three spheres of international relations: in the sphere of the ideological struggle, in the sphere of the liberation struggle and in the sphere of the struggle for social and economic emancipation,
11. As to the ideological struggle, it is primarily confined to the great Powers. They have injected it as the cold war problem in international affairs. But for the emerging and newly-emerged nations the ideological question is an internal problem that each one must solve for itself. It is not a matter of adopting one ideology or another, but of each nations finding its own progressive ideology, an ideology serving the nations as a whole, its own synthesis, in conformity with its traditions, conditions and needs.
12. This is, as we know, a gruelling and difficult process. We Indonesians have gone through it ourselves. But we have emerged, strengthened and revived, with a national progressive ideology that binds our people together because it is rooted in our past heritage and suited to our present demands. With this national progressive ideology, all our energies are freed for the tremendous tasks of construction.
13. However, in this process of finding ourselves— yes, finding ourselves—we have learned a lesson which we consider to be of immense importance. We have learned that when external forces sought to bring pressure on us in our ideological conflict, turmoil and turbulence turned into hostility, violence and war. But v/hen we were left to our own devices, turmoil and turbulence led to synthesis and a new advance.
14. Most of the new, emergent countries are now engaged in a similar process. Left alone they will reach their synthesis. Left alone they will find the ideology that can best promote the aspirations, expectations and demands of their people for abetter and richer standard of life.
15. It is only when the ideological question is injected from outside, when nations are relentlessly subjected to the pull of opposing ideologies, and when they are given no breathing space for finding their own way of life, that they split in two. Then we get the two Germanys, the two Koreas, the two Viet-Nams. But even among these artificially divided States there exists the possibility of co-existence, leading to their re-unification on the basis of their own new synthesis.
16. But the first step for such a development is the recognition of the existing realities. In the specific case of Germany it means the recognition of the existence of two Germanys. It means the recognition of the existing realities in both East and West Berlin. It means the acceptance of the free passages from and to West Berlin. At the same time the great Powers must stop treating these nations which are divided against themselves as an ideological battleground. The peoples of these nations must be given the chance to decide their own future destiny, unhampered by external pressures or interference—in other words, strict observance of the principle of peaceful coexistence. And what do we mean by peaceful coexistence? Not the perpetuation of the status quo, but the right of every nation to develop according to its own traditions, concepts and needs.
17. Again I say that the ideological question is one for each nation to decide for. itself. The ideological struggle, which has come to be known as the cold war problem, does not involve the majority of mankind. It is not the main problem of our time.
18. But the biggest problem today is the attainment of a world order in which all peoples and nations enjoy freedom, equality and social justice. It is the complete and irrevocable eradication of colonialism in all its manifestations. For this is the basic source of conflict in the world, it is in Algeria in Angola, in the Congo that blood is flowing. There men suffer and die to win the right to a new tomorrow.
19. Look at the colonial cancers that infest the African continent alone.
20. In Algeria the colonial war has entered its seventh year. The people of Algeria are fighting for their freedom and independence, and will continue the fight until victory is theirs. This is a reality that France must accept. Certainly, for our part, we will not rest until this criminal bloodshed and terror, perpetrated to preserve the old, established order, are halted. We will continue to give our support to the provisional government of the Algerian Republic as well as all possible aid. We pray only that victory will be theirs soon.
21. In Angola the situation can only be described as one of unspeakable horror. It is the duty of the United Nations to reveal to world public opinion this dark blot, this reversion to barbarity, in all its cruelty and inhumanity. Further, the Organization must take the necessary steps to compel the Government of Portugal to end its military operation of liquidation, terror and oppression. The killing of innocent men, women and children must stop. The servitude of the Angolan people must stop. They have the right to freedom and independence now.
22. And what of the situation in South Africa? There the Government continues to practise its infamous policy of apartheid, openly flouting the Charter of the United Nations and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. How long can this abhorrent practice go, on before it explodes into another tragedy? Not satisfied with courting disaster in its own land, the Government of South Africa has even extended this policy of apartheid to the Territory of South West Africa. By force it has prevented the United Nations from exercising its rightful authority in that Territory. Surely the time has come to put an end to this defiance of the Organization by the Government of South Africa, and to free the people of South West Africa from that Government's clutches.
23. There is also the problem of the Congo. Here we have witnessed both open colonial aggression and the more devious manoeuvres of neo-colonialism. The abuse of the principle of self-determination is here obvious to everybody. Instead of transforming the old colonial relationship into an interdependence of two sovereign States, Belgium and the Congo, as one national entity, the old colonial Power preferred to preserve its interest by instigating and provoking a separatist movement. Finally it was recognized that self-determination for secession did not work, and at last the efforts were concentrated upon the restoration of the integrity of the Congo. But this only after bloodshed and only after a march of tragic events. A tragedy because of the suffering of the Congolese people themselves, a tragedy because of the loss of lives of the United Nations military forces and a great tragedy because of the loss by the United Nations of one of its eminent and devoted civil servants in the person of the Secretary-General, Mr. Dag Hammarskjold. In fact, because of its very deviousness, neo-colonialism has-been and still is the greatest danger to the independence and territorial integrity of the Congo.
24. The tragic events in the Congo must not be repeated. And more than that, they must not be allowed to bear fruit for the neo-colonialists and their mercenaries. The province of Katanga must remain an integral part of the national territory of the Congo, The United Nations, pledged to preserve the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of the Congo, cannot relent in its efforts until the Central Government of the Congo has restored its full and rightful authority in the province of Katanga. The Conference of Non-Aligned Countries held in Belgrade in September 1961 declared firmly and clearly:
«... it is the duty of the world community to continue to do everything ill its power in order to erase the consequences and to prevent any further foreign intervention in this young African State, and to enable the Congo to embark freely upon the road of its independent development based on respect for its sovereignty, unity and its territorial integrity".
25. Yes, every step of progress must be nurtured and guarded against the colonialism and neo-colonialism that are still rife in Africa, as in other regions of the world. The colonial mentality and attitude still prevail. We must struggle against it to transform old ideas into revolutionary ideas and dreams, into a new reality.
26. Yes, we are revolutionaries in our struggle for liberation, but no less revolutionary in the process of emancipation, which is also one of the essentials of the new world order.
27. We are revolutionary in thought and in action. We must be able to catch up with developments and to emancipate ourselves socially and economically after centuries of omission and domination. While we do not expect others, who do not share our urgency and need, to share our revolutionary approach within their particular national sphere, we do ask of everyone to look at the world as one of transition, convulsed with revolutionary outlook—and if not to accept it, then to understand it. At least do not obstruct this process of emancipation towards a new world order. For at best it is in every nation's interest that this transition fee swift and peaceful. It is in the common interest of the international community of nations that the ever-widening gap between the standards of living and the economic progress of the economically advanced and the less developed countries be bridged in conformity with the tenets of justice, in conformity With the social conscience of man.
,28. But to remove this source of tension and crisis, to advance to a more equitable and just order in the world community—an order in the interest, and to the mutual benefit, of all—requires the application of new and bold approaches to international economic cooperation. Static concepts based on the old order cannot possibly meet the challenge. If the I960's are truly to become the "Decade of Development", of economic and social emancipation, then all peoples and all nations must pool their human and material resources for the common good. Only a multilateral undertaking, which enlists the wholehearted co-operation of all nations, can solve the problem of economic and social development of less developed nations, the problem upon which the entire future rests.
29. There are indeed indications that the economically advanced countries are aware of the need for such a new approach. But moves in that direction are still hesitant and groping. The path to the future must be bold, straight and clear. And it is for the United Nations to chart this path, though we all are aware that in the first place each nation itself is responsible for the- growth of economic development. In this respect Indonesia is making great progress within its Eight-Year Overall Development Plan, 1961-1968, covering the reconstruction of the whole national life: economic, industrial, cultural, educational and social. It comprises altogether 343 projects, with a budget of 240 billion rupiahs, equal to approximately 5.5 billion United States dollars.
30. If in 1945 the United Nations was the bright hope of a war-shattered weary world, today it must be the catalyst to build the world anew. The requirements and the challenges are different today from yesteryear. Even the United Nations today is not the United Nations of sixteen years ago. With the emergence of the newly-independent nations of Asia and Africa, its membership has doubled in number and continues to increase from year to year. It too finds itself in a transitional period, with all the dangers and moments of crises it involves.
31. It faces such a crisis now, a crisis accentuated, though not created, by the untimely and tragic death of the Secretary-General, Mr. Dag Hammarskjold. He was a man with whom we did not always agree. But he was a man whose sincerely and integrity we never doubted. He was a man we deeply respected. Foremost, he was an international civil servant, dedicated to the life of the Organization in whose service he lost his own life.
32. Yes, the Organization has a life. And life requires growth and change. Above all, it requires that the United Nations should face the realities of today.
33. One such reality is the existence of the People's Republic of China, a nation of more than 600 million people still deprived of its rightful seat in this Organization. The principle on which the Organization was founded, the principle of the universality of membership, will remain no more than a slogan as long as China and other nations are still excluded from this international forum. As in the past, we will press for a rectification of this situation, guided in this matter by political realism and the determination to make the United Nations strong, universal, and able to fulfil its proper function.
34. Present realities also make it imperative that the nations of Asia and Africa be adequately represented in the Security Council and the Economic and Social Council, as well as in other main bodies and agencies of the Organization We consider that positive steps towards the expansion of these organs, in conformity with the principle of equitable geographical distribution, should be taken at this session of the General Assembly.
35. Finally, the Secretariat of the United Nations itself must conform to present realities. The office of Secretary-General has become an enormous one, too great for any man to carry alone. It is not a question of finding a neutral man, of finding true civil servant. It is a problem of the office itself, which has come to be more than a purely administrative organ. The responsibilities of the Secretary-General now embrace decisions that are .vital, and sometimes political in their consequences. No man can be asked to shoulder this great burden alone, despite his sincerity and honesty and his personal ability. We believe therefore that the Secretary-General should have the assistance of a number of close advisers. This will be of benefit both to the Secretary-General and in making the office of Secretary-General correspond more to the existing world realities. It is true that the Secretary-General must be given full freedom in the choice of his advisers, but on the other hand, to balance the guidance of the Secretariat, the choice of the advisers must also be in conformity with the existing political division of this world.
36. Let us have the vision to make the United Nations a forceful and effective instrument for guiding us in
the present to the promises of the future. But let us also acknowledge today the progress that has already been made.
37. Tills Assembly of 100 sovereign Member States is visible proof of the advances made in the march towards freedom and independence. Resolution 1514 (XV) adopted by the General Assembly at its fifteenth session represented another forward stride in solving the basic problem afflicting international relations today. We have made progress, but much more needs to be done.
38. General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) must still be implemented in full and everywhere. We must see to it that the provisions of this noble resolution serve the cause of liberation and justice, and are not perverted by the forces of the old established order to serve their own desperate ends. Further, the United Nations must still bring about the realization of its resolutions on the question of Palestine. The plight of the Palestine refugees represents a human tragedy that cannot but touch and affect us all. The misery of these people is our misery and our responsibility to remove.
39. Yet another problem still confronting the Assembly is the problem of disarmament, including the cessation of nuclear weapons tests. The armaments race, the accumulation and testing of ever more devilish weapons of mass destruction, are the physical embodiment of the confrontation and struggle between the old established forces and the new social forces, in particular affecting the relationship between the two big Powers of the world; as such it demands immediate and urgent solution.
40. As a matter of principle, Indonesia is opposed to the testing of nuclear weapons by any nation— whether in the atmosphere or underground, in the depth of the oceans or the far reaches of outer space. Popular movements representing every stratum of our national life have come out against these tests, particularly as they are only too often conducted in areas other than that of the testing nation.
41. However, harmful as these tests may be in polluting the air we breathe, immoral as they may be in constituting a means for perfecting instruments for the destruction of mankind, we know, too, that the prohibition of these tests is not sufficient in itself. At the same time, agreement must be reached on general and complete disarmament, under aft effective system of international control. For we know from reliable sources that the great Powers—the United States and the Soviet Union—already have enough weapons in their respective arsenals to set the world ablaze. These deadly stockpiles must be destroyed before they destroy us. This is the crux of the problem. Only with general and complete disarmament can we end the present madness, return to the path of sanity, and remove the threat of mutual annihilation that hangs over the confrontation between the two opposing world forces.
42. It is indeed Our conviction that the fruits of science and technology must be used to heal instead of wound, to promote well-being not misery, to make man's every dawn an exclamation of hope not a question mark of fear. It is our conviction that the genius of man must be used for peace not war.
43. It was in this conviction, and with the desire to promote as best we can the peaceful transition to a new world order, that we, the non-aligned nations, met
in conference in Belgrade from 1 to 6 September of this year. We met in the belief that time was running short, and that we must seek to uproot the source of tension and strife in present international relations. Thus, in its final declaration, the Conference stated:
"That to eradicate basically the source of conflict is to eradicate colonialism in all its manifestations and to accept and practice a policy of peaceful coexistence in the world; that guided by these principles the period of transition and conflict can lay a firm foundation of co-operation and brotherhood between the nations..
44. The Belgrade Conference represented indeed our feeling of responsibility for promoting a relaxation of international tension and safeguarding peace. Our sole aim was to contribute our moral force towards the implementation of a new world order based upon independence, equality and social justice.
45. So do not try to judge or approach this Conference with a power-bloc mentality. Do not try to keep a box score on whether we, the non-aligned nations, batted to the left or to the right; whether we condemned one side or praised the other. For we came to Belgrade neither to condemn nor to preach, but to voice the aspirations of the vast majority of peoples in the world. Judge us by this: whether the Belgrade Conference voiced the hopes, the aspirations and expectations of the seething masses everywhere on earth. This is the demanding, but objective, yardstick by which we will stand or fall.
46. Likewise, it is the yardstick by which the success or failure of this session of the Assembly will be measured. And success will not be easy. Success will necessitate a clear-headed and realistic appraisal of the forces loose in the world today and of their interaction in the inexorable march of history.
47. Allow me to turn now to the question of West Iranian—or West New Guinea—which still constitutes a serious dispute between Indonesia and the Netherlands and has greatly worsened relations between our two countries. I do so, in particular, to reply to and to comment on the statement of the Foreign Minister of the Netherlands on 26 September 1961 [1016th meeting], which was devoted almost entirely to this question of West Irian. He even suggested, on behalf of the Netherlands Government, that the Assembly, the United Nations, now intervene and lend its hand to solve the problem—an intervention that the Netherlands Government has so far opposed.
48. While it was the Government of Indonesia which brought this issue before the United Nations a few years ago, the last time in 1957, against the strong opposition of the Netherlands Government, it is now the Netherlands Government which has come to the Assembly for the solution, the peaceful solution of the same basic problem.
49. What is this conflict, what is really the dispute on West Irian between Indonesia and the Netherlands? What are the issues at stake?
50. It is a remnant of a colonial problem, regarding a certain territory of Indonesia, which was unresolved when Indonesia gained formal recognition of its independence at the end of 1949. It was, however, agreed that the issue in dispute, the political status of West Irian, would be settled by the Governments of Indonesia and the Netherlands through negotiations within one year. Complete and unconditional sovereignty over Indonesia was formally transferred by the Netherlands, irrevocably, as the Agreements clearly stated. And what Indonesia was and is, one could read in the Netherlands Constitution of 1948, which replaced the term "Netherlands East Indies" by "Indonesia", the newly accepted name for the former Dutch colony.
51. West Irian was part and parcel of this colonial territory, and indeed for the newly independent Republic of Indonesia it was and still is part and parcel of its national territory. West Irian is now one of the twenty-three regional provinces of the territory of the Republic. Therefore, there is no such thing as a territorial claim of the Republic of Indonesia. It cannot have a claim on its own territory. Sovereignty over Indonesia has already been transferred, completely and unconditionally.
52, What thus only remained to be removed was Dutch control and, at that time, the Dutch military administration in West Irian, re-established by the Netherlands after its reoccupation of that part of Indonesia during the course of the colonial war.
33. We may recall, among "others, the statement of the Netherlands representatives Mr. van Roijen, to the United Nations Security Council at the end of
1948, when the question of Indonesia's independence was settled through the intervention of the United Nations. The Netherlands representative made the following statement, which was clear to us and to everyone else, on 22 December 1948:
"As I explained at the outset, the dispute is not about the question of whether or not Indonesia will become independent. All parties agree that what used to be the Netherlands East Indies" —I repeat: "what used to be the Netherlands East Indies" — "should become an independent State as soon as possible."
54. That statement, that official recognition, was indeed greatly instrumental in bringing the colonial war to an end. It laid the common, agreed basis for the round-table negotiations which produced the formal transfer of sovereignty over Indonesia on 27 December
1949.
55. We therefore felt confident that the remaining difficulty over West Irian could be settled by further negotiations, in fulfilment of the pledge to make Indonesia's independence really complete and unconditional.
56. What were the reasons of the Netherlands at that time for retaining its hold and colonial administration over that part of Indonesia after independence? Was this to be understood as a necessary,, though temporary, condition? We were told at that time by the Netherlands Government that the reasons were twofold.
57. First, on the eve of the formal transfer to Indonesia, recognizing Indonesia's independence, a seemingly important section of the Netherlands people was strongly opposed to the idea of losing the former rich and most important colony of the Netherlands. This opposition had to be appeased. The round-table agreements would maintain Dutch economic interests
in the newly independent Indonesia to a satisfactory degree. And, as for the remaining feeling about colonial prestige, a colonial hold should be retained. In this respect, the easiest possibility that time seemed to be the almost unexplored and economically unexploited territory of West Iran, inhabited by 700,000 people. The whole population of Indonesia at that time was 70 million.
58. Only on those conditions could the Netherlands Parliament be brought to agree on the transfer of sovereignty to independent Indonesia, with a two-thirds majority in favour of the policy of the Netherlands Government. The Netherlands Government succeeded in this political manoeuvre, with the further assumption that within one year the problem of West Irian would be solved.
59. The second reason was that many Indo-Netherlanders, having lived in colonial Indonesia, might no longer feel comfortable in newly independent Indonesia. A new home for a new-life—a "safe haven", as they called it— might well be reserved for them, although from the beginning it was rather questionable whether West Irian could serve that purpose.
60. What did this issue of West Irian, thus created, mean to the Netherlands and to Indonesia?
61. To the Netherlands, it may have meant a success in political expediency, adopted to a certain kind of colonial prestige desired at that time. Economically, West Irian meant nothing; either militarily or strategically. Never, as we knew, had there been a demand by the Netherlands people for the annexation of West Irian or its secession from Indonesia. As a matter of fact, the round-table agreements still referred to West Irian as a "Residency"—that is, an administrative unit of the Indonesian State administration.
' 62, To Indonesia, this political expediency of the Netherlands meant that the whole Indonesian people— numbering about 70 million at that time—would freely enjoy the independence of their country, except the 1 percent, about 700,000, living in West Irian. But we took some comfort from the fact that this setback could soon be corrected, by negotiations with the Netherlands Government within one year. Never was there a demand by the people of West Irian—to the Netherlands Government or to the Indonesian Government—for separation or secession in favour of any other country. Why should they have made such a demand?
68. In fact, the population of West Irian participated fully in the defence of the Independence Proclamation of 17 August 1945. It is true that they were partially suppressed after Netherlands troops had reoccupied that territory, but, nevertheless, their sentiments as part of a great Indonesia were never in doubt. The local leaders of West Irian were happy that Indonesia, their own country—of which West Irian had been part for centuries—had become a free, independent country.
64. The issue for Indonesia, then, was not to let down its people in West Irian, and to bring about the restoration of West Irian to the control and administration of the Republic of Indonesia as soon as possibly This was a national issue of great importance to my Government and my people.
65. In 1950, negotiations started between the Netherlands and Indonesia to settle the issue. However, they failed to settle it within one year. Further negotiations were necessary. Gradually, however, we were confronted with a Netherlands position which showed not only reluctance but, in fact, ill-will about settling the issue, which had become a serious dispute indeed. The Netherlands claimed sovereignty over that part of the territory of Indonesia.
'66. Though speaking about the right of self-determination for the people of West Irian, the Netherlands Government conveniently proposed a bill to its Parliament in 1952 to annex West Irian to the territory of the Netherlands Kingdom.
67. While speaking of educating the people of West Irian for the exercise of the right of self-determination, the Netherlands colonial regime in West Irian, supported by military force which it still retained in that part of Indonesia, oppressed and crushed the Irian party for Indonesian independence, imprisoned their leaders or forced them to flee into "safer haven" in other parts of Indonesia. They reopened the notorious concentration camp "Boven Digul", familiar from before the Second World War. Led by old colonial officials and the police, they embarked upon a regime of terror to "de-Indonesianize" that part of Indonesia. They started to educate the poor people of West Irian in the Netherlands language, in colonial fashion, in order to make them good colonial subjects whom they could govern. Everything was done to educate the people of West Irian in an anti-Indonesian direction.
68. Against this background, it was no wonder that negotiations to settle the West Irian issue with the Netherlands could only fail. It seemed that the Netherlands Government now harboured the intention of keeping its colonial grip on West Irian, with a view to separating it definitely from the free, independent Indonesia. The Netherlands attitude was a flagrant violation not only of the agreement and understandings, but, indeed, of the spirit of the agreement on Indonesian independence reached at the end of 1949.
69. When bilateral negotiations with the Netherlands completely and finally failed in 1954, owing to the adamant refusal of the Netherlands to negotiate the real issues at stake, we turned to the United Nations, still seeking the peaceful solution of the dispute between the two countries. The conflict became more and more serious. It had become a purely colonial problem. The Netherlands Government contested United Nations competence to deal with the question* but that failed. However, the deliberations in the United Nations General Assembly came to no result. A draft resolution,!/ merely expressing the hope for further negotiations, was strongly-opposed by the Netherlands, and its adoption by the Assembly was blocked.
70. However, the Indonesian Government showed patience in seeking the possible peaceful solution of the question, vital as that was to the freedom of its people.
71. In the following years, despite the ill-will of the Netherlands, the Indonesian Government again followed its peaceful course of action, through the United Nations. Apart from that, we permitted the Netherlands to preserve its privileged economic position, a position which it still maintained after the recognition of the Republic of Indonesia at the end of 1949.
72. Again, however, we only met with Dutch opposition and resolutions for a peaceful solution of the dispute could not be adopted by the General Assembly.
When that happened, in 1957, our patience and goodwill were really exhausted. The United Nations, unable, or more correctly, not wanting to lend its assistance in the solution of this problem, left my Government with no other alternative than to find a solution in our own way. In the present world, it meant relying basically upon our own national strength. It was, however, a comfort that the great majority in the Assembly supported our case—our case for freedom for our peoples. That strengthened our determination to continue our struggle for the freedom of the people of West Irian with all the means at our disposal.
73. Patience and goodwill found no place any more in the strained relations between Indonesia and the Netherlands, The Netherlands contention, previously held, that they could retain their economic positions in Indonesia—a kind of privileged position indeed— could no longer be maintained. That would have been an anomalous situation. Their military and repressive measures in West Irian, their subversion of the freedom and national integrity of the Republic, which, in fact, started with the very independence of Indonesia-all this had to be stopped, The colonial policy which, even after the establishment of our Indonesian independence, they still harboured in their minds, had to be eliminated, once and for all, from Indonesian soil.
74. We have every reason to believe that gradually their colonial policy towards Indonesia came to be no longer based on the consideration of the preservation of Netherlands interest in that region—nor even upon the standard of national prestige—but that the emotional anti-Indonesian sentiment of some of the leaders in the Netherlands was becoming increasingly the irrational guiding principle of the Netherlands Government's approach to Indonesia.
75. My Government thus embarked on a policy of total confrontation vis-à-vis the Netherlands, not only politically but also economically and militarily. We took the necessary measures against their economic interest, a hold-over from colonial days; their military build-up in and around West Irian, a base of intimidation and subversion, we faced with the building up of our own military strength. Relations with the Netherlands have already been broken off entirely.
76. In the meantime, we are happy to have been able to consolidate our national political and physical strength, and embark also upon a national over-all development programme for the rapid economic and social development and emancipation of our peoples. West Irian is not excluded, although the materialization of the programme there is hampered by the prolonged Dutch colonial occupation of that territory.
77. Indonesia's freedom has always been posed as a spectre to the Netherlands public. We know it is not easy for a colonial Power to lose its colonial territory, though it is for the sake of human freedom. In fact, we had to gain our freedom bitterly through a colonial war, from 1945 to 1949. Feelings of hostility and disillusionment might prevail, indeed, amongst sections of the Netherlands people after Indonesia's accession to independence.
78. Goodwill and understanding had to be built up on both sides to establish new, friendly relations between the two peoples—based now, however, on the mutual freedom of their two countries. However, the West Irian issue, which became ever more serious, was detrimental to these efforts. The relations between
the two Governments became worse until all relations, including naturally, economic relations, were broken of entirely.
79, Row is the public opinion in the Netherlands now? Now many people—well-meaning people—in the Netherlands realize what this all means, what interests are really at stake. They realize now that this West Irian issue between the Netherlands and Indonesia has brought the Netherlands people only trouble, only hostility from Indonesia, no sympathy from the peoples of Asia and Africa and, indeed, no sympathy from the greater part of the world.
80, The loss of the greater interests in Indonesia is very evident. And let us not forget the trouble in West Irian itself. Fear, unrest and uncertainty prevail among the population in West Irian; not only among the native population, but also among the Netherlands officials and settlers. The thousands of men and women jailed because of their anti-Netherlands actions is only evidence of the failure of the Netherlands colonial adventure in West Irian. Indonesians who disagree with the colonial policy are expelled and sent to Republican territory at the rate of a hundred a month. An exodus of Dutch officials and settlers has already taken place, during the last two years—they have been either returning to the Netherlands or emigrating to Australia. Up to June last, 13,000 Netherlands people in West Irian had left this inhospitable country—inhospitable for the Netherlands, that is to say-for Australia. More than 1,000 Netherlands people are expected to leave this year for the Netherlands. At this very moment, 400 of these people are sailing back from West Irian to Holland.
81, The theory of a "safe haven" for Indo-Netherlanders, as once envisaged, has turned out to be a complete failure. So this West Irian dispute, and conflict with Indonesia, has now become a real liability for the Netherlands people and budget. Serious doubts about the wisdom of the Netherlands Government in maintaining its colonial hold—in West Irian—against its greater interests in Indonesia and in the world as a whole, have been growing. And, as we are told, it has gone so far already that the Netherlands Parliament now would consider the definite relinquishing of Netherlands authority—sovereignty, as they say—over West Irian.
82, Well, many people in the Netherlands now think that the time has come for West Irian which is, after all, part of Indonesian territory, to be fully restored to the Republic of Indonesia. Indeed, obstacles which existed in 1949 in the Netherlands, which at that time was responsible for the Netherlands policy of expediency to retain colonial hold on West Irian, today exist no longer in the Netherlands.
83* A number of Dutch people, some prominent and representing a discernible body of public interest and option in the Netherlands, have, during the last two years, made persistent efforts to approach my Government, and indeed President Sukarno himself, so as to contribute to a satisfactory solution of the West Irian dispute in the light of the changed or changing circumstances. They are agreed on the transfer of authority over West Irian, in order not only to restore the territorial integrity of the Republic of Indonesia, but also to make possible the re-establishment of normal relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia, especially in the economic field.
84. In this process it has been suggested that in no way should this settlement be interpreted as a victory for one of the party and a loss of face for the other. We in Indonesia are fully aware of this problem, and we will do everything to accommodate the Netherlands in this respect, even at the sacrifice of some of our own national prestige.
85. My Government, and President Sukarno himself, appreciate the endeavours of these well-meaning Netherlands people, sincere as they seem to us, and representing presumably the more realistic and honest Netherlands view held by important groups in the Netherlands national life.
86. As far as my Government is concerned, and my President recently, and indeed repeatedly, has declared, if the Netherlands Government indicates-due to the changed circumstances—that it is now prepared to relinquish its so-called sovereignty over West Irian and to seek a satisfactory solution of the dispute with the Republic of Indonesia, my Government is prepared to enter into new negotiations to solve the problem at its very roots. My Government holds the view that the best solution still would be the transfer of administration in West Irian to the Republic of Indonesia, to end colonialism completely in Indonesia in the best interest of the relationship between the two countries. A normal relationship between the two countries would thus be restored, with all its beneficial possibilities for the two countries. Moreover, we would be contributing to stability and peace In an important area of the world,
87. But so far we have not seen any sign of realism from the Netherlands Government. Meanwhile, Our .efforts to regain the freedom of our people in West Irian, to end colonialism in that part of the country, cannot be lessened. It has become a matter of peace and security for my country and for our people. We are preparing to face the worst vis-à-vis the Dutch in West Irian. This is our task, our national task, from which we do not shrink.
88. One might not be aware that in reality, West Irian, as part of my country, has never been actually separated from the Republic of Indonesia, despite sixteen years of protracted colonial occupation by the Netherlands in that Territory and its endeavours towards that end. It has never been separated from the Republic of Indonesia, politically, socially or even constitutionally.
89. Subject only to restrictions imposed by the emergency Situation of continued Dutch occupation, we have treated West Irian as an integral part of our country. It has its rightful place in the Republic.
90. West Irian, as I have said, constitutes a province of the Republic of Indonesia, one of the twenty-three provinces into which the Republic of Indonesia is divided administratively. It is true that our administration cannot be fully exercised in the main island of West Irian so far. But we do have a provincial government of West Irian, seated near the main island of West Irian, but still within the administrative territory of the West Irian province.
91. The provinces of the Republic of Indonesia have full local autonomy. They have their own local assembly, the administration is headed by Governors from their own local people, and even the territorial
military commanders >e have gone so far—are chosen from the local population. This principle applies equally in the province of West Irian. West Irian is already represented by its own sons in the Indonesian Parliament, in the Supreme Advisory Council, in the People's Congress—the highest body of the Republic—and all other constitutional organs of the State, including the State Planning Council.
92. A native son of West Irian is also represented in our delegation to this session of the General Assembly. Yes, a native son of West Irian, representing the free, sovereign Republic of Indonesia of more than 90 million people. Mr. Dimara—that is his name—has served seven years of imprisonment in a Dutch colonial gaol in West Irian, only be cause he wanted his people in West Irian to enjoy the freedom that the Republic of Indonesia has gained. He was released only last April, and he can tell you what is the real situation in West Irian: the reign of fear and frustration, the oppression and intimidation inherent in a colonial regime and the mockery of democracy and self-determination, so loudly proclaimed by the Netherlands Government.
93. West Irian remains backward, and the gap between the free development of this area and the other regions of Indonesia is ever widening. What is more, the people remain constantly subjected to fears frustration and confusion. This is a human problem in itself.
94. As far as the Republic of Indonesia As concerned, West Irian as a province has naturally been included in the Eight-Year Overall National Development Plan of the Republic, now already under way. Schools, hospitals and roads will be built; industries will be founded, as in all other parts of Indonesia. Many native sons and daughters of West Irian are now already being educated or are finding work in other parts of Indonesia. For those who remain in West Irian, special attention and priority will be needed, indeed. This awaits only their liberation from the Netherlands' colonial grip. We cannot forget the human aspect of the problem. No one can be more concerned than my Government about the future and welfare of the people of West Irian, of people in our own province,, our own people.
95. And let no one tell us what is best for them, or begin to tell us about the fairy tale of "self-determination", when he himself has never believed in it. And why should the right of self-determination for our people be decided by others? We exercised this right sixteen years ago. We have fought for it—it was not a matter of charity—and we won it only with blood, sweat and tears. We are now determined to defend this right which we have gained so bitterly, with all our strength and all the means at our disposal.
96. The Foreign Minister of the Netherlands, Mr. Luns, has now come to the Assembly to present a plan to solve the West Irian problem, the same problem his Government has left unsolved for eleven years. These eleven years have destroyed the relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia, to no one's benefit, certainly not to the interest of the Netherlands people themselves. They have not brought any change for the better to the people of West Irian itself, This is tragic. Yet the solution remains basically simple. It is basically a colonial question. It is still a question of freedom for West Irian in the framework of Indonesia's freedom and independence, as I have explained before. The best solution remains, therefore, also the same.
97. President Sukarno, commenting on Mr. Luna's plan, stated, on 27 September:
"The best way for the Netherlands is to transfer immediately its authority directly to Indonesia, But if the Netherlands for different reasons would prefer the medium of the United Nations for the immediate transfer of authority to Indonesia, Indonesia is prepared to consider seriously that proposal.
"If not based upon this assumption, any intervention of the United Nations may only make the problem more acute and explosive. The problem of the urgent transfer of authority to Indonesia is becoming a security problem in this region of the world.
"Our task is to preserve peace in this part of the world, but the Netherlands and the United Nations should also give their urgent contribution to achieve this aim."
98. Let us now examine Mr. Luns's plan carefully. Let us see whether it could serve to bring about the best solution of the problem, not only viewed from the standpoint of my Government and the real situation in West Irian, not only from the viewpoint of the best interests of our people in West Irian, but also as regards the best interests of the people in the Netherlands, as we understand them. We are convinced that, especially at this present juncture, this problem can be solved peacefully in a way that is satisfactory and beneficial to all parties concerned. The Netherlands, after relinquishing its last vestige of colonialism in Indonesia, will no longer be inhibited from developing the best relations with Indonesia in particular and with the countries of Asia and Africa in general. The 700,000 people of West Irian itself will at last be allowed to share the national security of their 90 million compatriots within the Republic of Indonesia. The People of West Irian at last will be able to practise their full measure of local autonomy, as in other parts of Indonesia. Certainly, the Republic of Indonesia as a whole is also one of the beneficiaries of this peaceful solution.
99. Not only will the struggle for independence be completed, not only will peace and security in our region no longer be in danger, but, more than that our relations with the Netherlands can be normalized, and subsequently the mutual inhibition in the relations between the West and Indonesia can be removed.
100. Unfortunately, one thing struck us immediately in Mr. Luns's plan. In my view, he has allowed himself to make two grave mistakes,
101. In the first place, he presented this plan for a solution of the West Irian issue as if it had no background of a conflict with my country—that is to say, as if it were a clear case of decolonization, as if he could come here with clean hands.
102. Second, he tried to suggest that a peaceful solution of the issue could be attained without a participation or co-operation of Indonesia.
103. Because of these two basic mistakes, his plan-if adopted—can and will solve nothing. It will not resolve the dispute, the conflict, with Indonesia which is the crux of the problem. Mr. Luns cannot with impunity ignore his counterpart in the conflict, the Government of the Republic of Indonesia, and, indeed, the people of my country. If he thinks he can, he is making a very grave mistake indeed.
104. What does he really want? What doe he really mean? What kind of solution then does he really envisage? He wants a "decolonization" of West Irian. Is this not sixteen years too late, or at least eleven years? It does not seem too progressive to us. When West Irian—as part of Indonesia—was decolonized by the Republic of Indonesia, it was in fact his Government, the Netherlands Government, that afterwards recolonized this territory again.
105. For that reason, the so-called decolonization plan of Mr. Luna does not impress us too much. It loses its moral ground. Its submission may only be attributed to an attempt by the Netherlands to get out of an untenable situation in West Irian, created by their own short-sighted and despotic colonial policy. Nevertheless, if it represents a serious attempt now to escape from his Government's dilemma, my Government will welcome it for the sake of our people in West Irian who have been suffering already too long from the prolonged Netherlands colonial rule in that part of Indonesia.
106. However, this "escape" policy should not have an anti-Indonesian spirit, the design of promoting the forcible separation of West Irian from the Indonesian national body, even under the banner of "self-determination".
107. The facts of history as regards this issue, the Dutch policy of political expediency in this matter, should have shown the Assembly that the Netherlands policy on West Irian had and still has nothing to do with the right of self-determination for the people in West Irian. The people of West Irian were never asked for their consent, nor even their opinion, when the Netherlands Government recolonized them in 1949, and in 1952 annexed their territory into the territory of the Netherlands Kingdom. This new argument of self-determination for the people of West Irian was only adopted by the Netherlands as a matter of political expediency, to be used for international consumption. This has been so rightly pointed out by Professor V.A. Roling, a Netherlands professor of International Law and a member of the Netherlands delegation to the United Nations for several years until 1957, in his book: New Guinea, a World Problem, published in the Netherlands in 1958.
108, Let us look closely, for instance at the so-called "Papuan Council", set up by the Netherlands Government, of which the Assembly has been informed. It was set up in West Irian as a supposedly representative council of the people. According to Mr. Luns, it constitutes a first step towards self-government.
109, The Papuan Council, established only on 5 April 1961, is naturally headed by a Dutch official, appointed by the Dutch colonial Government, The same holds true as regards the Executive Secretary of the Council, Needless to say, the work and policy of this advisory council—which, by the way, is composed mostly of Netherlanders and pro-Netherlands West Irianese, induced in various ways to become pro-Netherlands and most of them are officials of the colonial administration-is entirely under the guidance of the Dutch Chairman and Executive Secretary. Is there any sort of self-determination of the people of West Irian in such a Council?
110. It is evident that the Netherlands Government will tolerate the right of self-determination, if at all, only for West Irianese who can be made pro-Netherlands, who are led and guided by Dutch officials and often intimidated by Dutch military forces,
111. As a matter of fact, the entire colonial administration and policy in West Irian can only be sustained by Netherlands military power.
112. It is interesting and pertinent in this connexion that the plan presented by Mr. Luns is silent on the cessation of all armed action or repressive measures of all kinds directed against independent peoples, as required by paragraph 4 of resolution 1514 (XV), in order to enable them to exercise peacefully and freely their right to complete independence and so that the integrity of their national territory shall be respected. Mr. Luns completely and conveniently ignored this paragraph, which is especially applicable to the situation in West Irian.
113. Self-determination without freedom is, of course, absurd. It was not surprising to us, therefore, that the first action of the so-called Papuan Council was of a rather peculiar character. The first decision of this Council is, in fact, very revealing. It consisted of a motion proposed, if not dictated, by the Netherlands Chairman and naturally adopted by the Council as a whole, to send a cable to the Netherlands Government at The Hague expressing, on behalf of the people of West Irian, the Council's abiding allegiance to the House of Orange—that is, to the Netherlands Crown— and its sentiments of strong ties with the Netherlands people.
114. Well, are the people of West Irian to be educated for independence or for perpetual dependence? This cable of the Papuan Council, though not surprising, is truly a remarkable indictment of the Dutch colonial mentality. Again it shows that the Dutch policy in West Irian is a colonial policy, pure and simple, And I may add, a rather old-fashioned one in this era of decolonization.
115. No wonder, therefore, that thinking people find it very difficult to accept seriously the pronouncements of the Netherlands Government on self-determination.
116. If the Netherlands slogan of " self-determination" in the present Netherlands Government plan still sounds 'rather appealing to some Members of the Assembly, which I doubt after knowing the real record of the Dutch colonial regime in West Irian, let me add the official Netherlands Government record in the United Nations itself.
117. When in 1955 the Third Committee included $he right of self-determination of peoples in article 1 of the draft Covenants on Human Eights, the Netherlands delegation opposed it. The further record Of the Netherlands delegation on other various items involving the exercise of the right of self-determination in the Assembly shows the following;
118. It did not support this right for the people of Morocco. It did not support the right for the people of Tunisia. It has not supported this right for the people of Algeria. It has not supported this right in the case of South West Africa or of any other Non-Self—Governing Territory. It has never cast its votes in the United Nations for the actual implementation of the right of self-determination.
119. Even though it did vote for Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) in December 1960, the record of the Netherlands delegations since that time shows still a curious reluctance to support the right of self-determination of peoples. In April 1961, the Netherlands delegation withheld its support from a resolution [1603 (XV)] affirming the right of self-determination for the people of Angola, although this resolution is explicitly based upon resolution 1514 (XV) and seeks its application in regard to Angola. Again, as late as August 1961 the Netherlands delegation withheld its support when the people of Tunisia demanded their legitimate rights in the case of Bizerta.
120. No, I am sorry to say that we cannot take the Netherlands notion of self-determination too seriously. Let us not be deceived by this slogan of self "determination now so conspicuously advanced in Mr. Luns' plan with regard to West Irian. As a matter of fact, its fallacy has been noted before, both in the Assembly as well as in West Irian itself, and even now in the Netherlands itself.
121. A few years ago when the question of West Irian was debated in the United Nations, the representative of Iraq pointed out rightly:
"Apart from being a completely irrelevant argument, this game of self-determination, as played by colonial Powers, is nothing but a hypocritical endeavour to prolong their presence in colonial territories. Before taking such a position, it would be wise for the Netherlands Government to go over its negative record involving self-determination over the past ten years.
122. And may I remind the Assembly of what the representative of the Federation of Malaya, Mr. Ismail, said in respect to this aspect of the West Irian question during the last Assembly debate on this item in 1957. Mr. Ismail pointedly stated that the Netherlands' promises on the exercise of self-determination ring hollow in the ears of colonial people". He went on to note:
"When Abraham Lincoln freed the slaves in this country [the United States], he did not do so after waiting for those negro slaves to express their will and to have the opportunity to decide for themselves. Abraham Lincoln abolished slavery because it is a crime against humanity. The United Nations must apply the same standard in considering the case against colonialism.''
123. This enlightened view is shared by many. In the Netherlands itself, there are many people—well-meaning people—who think the same way. Professor Roling, in his book to which I already referred, wrote with respect to the debate on this issue in the United Nations—and I quote from page 72 of his book:
"There were understandably —I repeat: "understandably" many delegates who definitely did not take the (Dutch) Argument on the right of self-determination of the Papuans seriously."
124. Further, a prominent member of Mr. Luns' own Catholic Party, Professor Duynstee of the Catholic University of Nijmeger, stated only last month in an address to the Utrecht student Association that the promise of the Netherlands government to give the people of West Irian the right to make their own choice about their future status – this so-called right to self-determination – and I quote what he said: in
reality is nothing but a play upon words". In even harsher terms, Professor Duynstee described their so-called choice as "nothing but a swindle".
125. Yes, the Netherlands policy, including the present manoeuvre outlined in the plan submitted by Mr. Luns, has nothing to do with self-determination for the people of West Irian. Today, as in the past, it merely represents the self-determination of the Netherlands Government itself—with or without a Papuan Council.
126. What do we expect from Mr. Luns' plan? The Luns' plan as it is will not solve the West Irian issue, because it ignores the background, it ignores its conflict with Indonesia. The arguments on so-called decolonization and "right of self-determination" for West Irian are deceiving and may even be self-defeating,
127. Under this plan, the Netherlands will not relinquish its claim to sovereignty over West Irian until the right of self-determination for the people is "properly safeguarded". When will that be? Evidently no one knows except the Netherlands.
128. Moreover, the thousands of Dutch officials in West Irian will remain there indefinitely. This is, of course, nothing else but neo-colonialism. Another Congo. Another Katanga.
129. We say this because of our own bitter experiences in Indonesia when the Netherlands Government sold the slogan of "self-determination" in the various regions of Indonesia, in opposition to the already expressed self-determination of the Indonesian people as a whole, It was part of their policy of "divide and rule"; a policy we know only to well, and many Members of the Assembly also know it too well.
130. Under the cloak of self-determination they succeeded in creating at the time of the colonial war several small sub-States within Indonesia, headed by their puppets, to counter and subvert the Republic of Indonesia.
131. When this policy failed and the Republic of Indonesia survived this trial, they made another attempt in 1950. Supported by a revolt of Dutch colonial forces in the Moluccas, they created the so-called "Republic of the South Moluccas", which fortunately was crushed immediately by the Republic's National Army.
133. If Mr. Luns harbours such an Idea, it will indeed be against the natural growth of our people, against the logic and the real goal of decolonization for the building up of free nations. The right of self-determination is not to be applied for the division of a nation, but for the national unity and growth of a strong and stable nation. This is very important in the special case of nations fighting for freedom from colonialism. The boundary of such a nation is decided by the boundary of the former colonial territory. This is a clear and simple issue, which should not be complicated.
132. Is it any wonder that my Government, knowing the anti-Indonesian measures and propaganda of the Netherlands colonial regime in West Irian, their same old propaganda of the right of self-determination is seriously asking itself whether this plan of Mr. Luns may not be designed to promote the setting up of a so-called "independent" West Irian against Indonesia? It may appear incredible indeed, but we have a great responsibility towards our people, especially now towards our people in the province of West Irian.
134. Let me recall, in this respect, the statement of the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Senegal, in which he stated clearly;
"From the very instant that a colonized territory accedes to independence, its new sovereignty must be exercised within the boundaries where colonial sovereignty extended." [1012th meeting, para.44.]
This is exactly what the Netherlands Government has tried with their West Irian issue to undo and prevent in the last twelve years.
135. The peoples of Asia and Africa who fought against colonialism and struggled for their freedom and independence will clearly identify this attempt and manoeuvre of the Netherlands Government for what it is: neo-colonialism and the subversion of freedom and independence.
136. I believe I can speak here for Asia and Africa, from Dakar to Manila. Yes, to Manila. Permit me to quote from an editorial on the plan presented by Mr. Luns that appeared in fee influential Philippine nationalist paper, the Manila Chronicle, on 29 September 1961. It declares:
"Indonesia is rightfully claiming West Irian, a part of its territory, and the Dutch proposal is, of course, intended to frustrate the Indonesians so that the Netherlands can keep her sole remaining colony in Asia. But the Dutch proposal is as immoral as it is unoriginal."
It continued further:
"And there is no reason to believe that the United Nations will fall for this colonial subterfuge. For already the United Nations is in trouble because Belgium decided on keeping her diamond-rich colony in Africa by prodding puppets to declare Katanga— a rightful part of the Congo—as an independent nation... The Asians should particularly abhor the Dutch trick. Because if West Irian becomes Asia's Katanga, there will be uneasy peace in these parts."
137. Let us guard against another Congo, another Katanga in Asia, to which Mr. Luns' present plan may lead. It may even have graver consequences and lead to a graver conflict, one not confined to our two countries alone.
138. I believe that Mr. Luns is not entirely unaware of the possibility of a grave conflict of this West Irian issue as it has developed in the last few years. In fact, if I have read his statement of 26 September correctly, he based the introduction of his plan to the United Nations on the philosophy attributed to the late Secretary-General, Dag Hammarskjold, which considers that the United Nations should be utilized as a dynamic instrument not only for seeking reconciliation, but also with the aim of forestalling conflicts. In line with this basic philosophy Mr. Luns, as he implied, sought with his plan to "contribute to the removal of a dangerous development". Well, there seems to exist at least one area of agreement between Mr. Luns and us; namely, that the West Irian dispute represents a dangerous development and harbours the possibility of erupting into a grave conflict, which should be forestalled, Unfortunately, however, Mr. Luns' plan cannot and will not forestall a conflict. The conflict between the Netherlands and Indonesia will be left unsolved. It will be aggravated to an even wider extent.
It will not solve the West Irian problem at all. It will not serve the purpose of peace.
139. May I therefore conclude my statement with a suggestion. It is presented in an effort to contribute sincerely to the solution of the West Irian dispute, which has too long troubled the relations between Indonesia and the Netherlands, troubled too long the peace and the peaceful development of the people of West Irian.
140. First, the plan of Mr. Luns in its present form cannot solve the problem of West Irian peacefully, and consequently cannot solve the dispute between Indonesia and the Netherlands.
141. Secondly, if the Netherlands Government is really sincere in its wish to relinquish its claim to sovereignty over West Irian and end its colonial control over that Territory, this intention should be welcomed as the start of the real solution of the conflict between Indonesia and the Netherlands on the West Irian issue. In fact, the original source of the dispute between Indonesia and the Netherlands will then be removed.
142. Thirdly, to complete this settlement, it then requires only the orderly transfer of administration in West Irian from the Netherlands to the Republic of Indonesia, based upon a co-operative spirit between both countries and a mutual desire for normalization of relations between Indonesia and the Netherlands.
143. Fourthly, my Government would have no objection at all if the United Nations were to assist, if so required, in the realization of such a plan through the creation of a special body or special authority which, on behalf of the United Nations, would enable the orderly attainment of that solution.
144. Fifthly, if this plan is based on General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV), the resolution referred to in Mr. Luns plan, it should pay due regard to the principle laid down in paragraph 6 of that resolution, which reads:
"Any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles of the Charter of the United Nations."
145. For its part, the Republic of Indonesia, with the assistance of the United Nations, will adhere to the principle that the local Indonesians of West Irian will; have the full responsibility for the local autonomy of that region. This is in conformity with the other existing autonomous provinces within the Republic.
146. Sixthly, the right of self-determination, which is a living principle upheld by the Republic of Indonesia for which the Indonesian people fought in attaining their freedom and independence, should not be abused in its application and should not be used against the real interests of the people of West Irian by subverting national independence already gained.
147. Seventhly if the West Irian problem is to be solved peacefully, it must be solved at the earliest possible time.
148. Eighthly, the Indonesian Government is prepared to contribute its share to a United Nations endeavour to solve the problem of West Irian speedily along the lines indicated, both in terms of personnel and in terms of technical as well as financial assistance.
149. I believe that this approach is a constructive one. The solution I have indicated is the best possible
solution to which the United Nations can lend its assistance. A "solution" such as that envisaged by Mr. Luns' plan, we will reject and reject strongly. If the Netherlands Government sees fit to implement this plan as it stands now—that is to say, to solve the West Irian problem without Indonesia, considering Indonesia as non-existing—then I can tell the Assembly in all seriousness that for the Indonesian Government and people there will be no alternative but to solve the West Irian problem in a reciprocal way.
150. We ourselves are confident that West Irian will be fully restored into the Republic of Indonesia. West Irian is, after all, a part of my country. The people are part of the Indonesian people. Let no one make a mistake about this.
151. May God bless us in our struggle for freedom, justice and peace.