“Double Standards” Speech by Retno Marsudi at the International Court (An Irony)

• On Friday, February 23, 2024, from 12:10 pm to 12:40 pm, two months ago, Retno Marsudi, the Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia, delivered a speech on behalf of and representing the government of Indonesia at the International Court of Justice, located at the Peace Palace in The Hague, Netherlands.

• Retno Marsudi was one of fifty-two individuals who also spoke on behalf of and represented their respective national governments, along with three others who represented three international organizations: the African Union, the Organization of Islamic Cooperation, and the League of Arab States.

• This event was part of a series of “public hearings” held by the International Court of Justice over six days, from Monday, February 19, 2024, to Monday, February 26, 2024. The discussions focused on the legal consequences arising from the policies of Israel in the Occupied Palestinian Territories, including East Jerusalem. This was based on a “request for an advisory opinion” by the United Nations General Assembly in December 2022.

• However, from the moment Retno Marsudi began her speech at the International Court until its conclusion, demonstrations also took place outside the building. The demonstrators, consisting of activists, sympathizers, and supporters of the Free Aceh Movement (GAM), Free Papua Organization (OPM), and the Republic of South Maluku (RMS), called for Retno Marsudi and the government of Indonesia to “LOOK IN THE MIRROR”.

• Additionally, an “Open Letter from the People of Maluku to the International Court” circulated on Thursday, February 22, 2024, a day before Retno Marsudi spoke at the International Court. This open letter contained a “special message” to the International Court that what Retno Marsudi would say in her speech on Friday, February 23, 2024, is akin to the sayings: “Splashing water on one’s own face” and/or “When one finger points at someone else’s mistakes, four fingers are pointing back at one’s own.” These “four fingers” are: “Maluku, Papua, Aceh, and other severe human rights violations”.

The Irony of Retno Marsudi’s Speech

Today, Thursday, April 25, 2024, exactly 74 years ago on a different day and year, but the same date and month, Tuesday, April 25, 1950, the people of the southern Maluku islands proclaimed the establishment of an independent and sovereign state named: “REPUBLIC OF SOUTH MALUKU (RMS)”.

The proclamation referred to above is as follows: “In response to the genuine will, demand, and pressure of the people of South Maluku, we hereby declare the INDEPENDENCE OF SOUTH MALUKU, de facto and de jure, in the form of a Republic, free from any constitutional relations with the State of Eastern Indonesia and the United States of Indonesia, on the grounds that Eastern Indonesia is no longer able to maintain its status as a constituent state in accordance with the still valid regulations of the Denpasar Congress, and in line with the decision of the South Maluku Council dated March 11, 1947, while the United States of Indonesia has acted contrary to the decisions of the Round Table Conference and its own Constitution.”

This proclamation itself demonstrates that the establishment of RMS as a sovereign and independent state has met the political element, which is the “Will of the People in the South Maluku region”, and the juridical element, which is that the “United States of Indonesia (RIS) has violated the decisions of the ‘Round Table Conference’ and its own Constitution”. The fulfillment of these two elements has become the ‘Rightful Basis and/or Title’ (Title) for the legitimate establishment of RMS as a sovereign and independent state under international law.

In international law, the “will of the people” has been manifested in the principle of the “Right to Self-Determination”, the mechanisms of implementation and/or how it is carried out through what is called a “Plebiscite”. Karen Parker, J.D., states on page 7 of the briefing paper presented at the session of the UN Human Rights Commission in Geneva, Austria, in March 1996, under the title, Republic of Maluku: The Case for Self-determination, that: “It is very clear that in the agreements of the ‘Round Table Conference’, the people of Maluku were given the prerogative right to reject incorporation into the RIS, either by voting negatively in a pre-union plebiscite or by refusing to approve the ‘Provisional Constitution’.”

Karen Parker, J.D., further states on page 11 of the “briefing paper” under the same title mentioned above, that: “The agreements produced in the KMB/RTC and previous bilateral agreements (including the Linggadjati Agreement on Tuesday, March 25, 1947, and the Renville Agreement on Saturday, January 17, 1948) clearly grant the people of Maluku the right to self-determination. Although there is no explicit recognition that can be relied upon regarding the right to self-determination for the people of Maluku, they meet all the requirements and/or tests of International Law concerning the Right to Self-Determination. … The demand of the people of Maluku for the right to self-determination – even in the absence of a specific agreement – is very strong.”

This statement by Karen Parker aligns with the decision of the Amsterdam Court of Appeal, “Naamloose Vennotschap (NV) Koninklijke Paketvaart Maatschappij vs. Republic of South Maluku,” on Thursday, February 8, 1951, Dutch Jurisprudence 1950, number: 804, page 1424 (Gerechtshof Amsterdam, N.V. Koninklijke Paketvaart Maatschappij vs Republiek Maloekoe Selatan, February 8, 1951, Nederlandse Jurisprudentie 1950, no. 804, p. 1424) as cited by N.J.C.M. Kappeyne van de Cappello, LL.D., in his writing under the title, Relation to the United Nations, published in the Netherlands in 1960 by A.W. Sythoff – Leyden, stating: “The proclamation of independence of RMS as a sovereign state must be considered as a method of implementing the right to self-determination by and/or on behalf of the people of South Maluku, as this was approved by the people of South Maluku.”

(Note: Karen Parker, J.D., is a Director at the Humanitarian Law Project (HLP) and/or International Educational Development (IED), and is a legal attorney at the Association of Humanitarian Lawyers (AHL) specializing in Human Rights and Humanitarian Law, where she serves as the principal representative of the HLP/IED organizations at the United Nations in Geneva, Austria, and New York, United States of America (USA). The HLP/IED, headquartered at 8124 West Third Street, Los Angeles, California 90048, USA, is a non-sectarian Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) that has been entrusted to provide consultancy services to UN bodies by former UN Secretary-General Dag Hammarskjöld (1905-1961).

Previously, in 1960, Dr. Gesina Hermina Johanna van der Molen also stated in her publication under the title, “The Legal Position According to International Law,” published in the Netherlands in 1960 by A.W. Sythoff – Leyden, that: “Considering the issue of RMS from a legal perspective, there is no doubt about its existence as a state in the sense of modern international law. It is again emphasized that the RMS state has legitimately used the right to self-determination according to the law. … The facts and/or evidence presented above and the applicable legal provisions demonstrate that RMS as a state possesses the perfect right to exercise the right to self-determination ‘they’ (the people of South Maluku in the Republic of South Maluku – Author).”

Gesina H. J. van der Molen further states in her writing under the same title that: “Very few nations can legally claim independence as legitimately as the RMS state. The right to life of the people of South Maluku is guaranteed by general international law, which is universally applicable as well as any formal treaty.” Regarding the legitimacy of RMS as a sovereign and independent state under international law as stated by Gesina H. J. van der Molen, Hendrik Jan Roethof states in his publication under the title, “An Existing State,” published in the Netherlands in 1960 by A.W. Sythoff – Leyden, that: “The RMS state has a significantly higher legal status than other nations whose sovereignty has been recognized and who have been accepted as members of the UN.”

J. Roethof’s statement, as mentioned above, refers to the decision of the ’s-Gravenhage Court, Republic of South Maluku vs Legal Entity New Guinea, on Wednesday, February 10, 1954, Dutch Case Law 1954, number: 549, page 1040 (Rechbank ’s-Gravenhage, Republiek Maluku Selatan vs Rechtspersoon Nieuw-Guinea, February 10, 1954, Nederlandse Jurisprudentie 1954, no. 549, p. 1040), which states that: “Through the evidence presented and in accordance with the treaties signed, it has been legally and convincingly proven that RMS is a legitimate, sovereign, and independent state.” This court decision refers to the opinion of international law experts grouped in the “Netherlands Association for International Law (NAIL)/de Nederlandse Vereniging voor Internationaal Recht (NVIR),” who during their meeting in Rotterdam, Netherlands, on Saturday, June 24, 1950, declared that: “The RMS state has the right to proclaim its independence against anyone’s opinion.”

Referring to the overall scientific and/or academic explanations provided above regarding the formation of RMS as a sovereign and independent state under international law, it can be concluded that: “RMS does not require ‘recognition’ from anyone in any form or by any means.” In relation to this, Prof. Huala Adolf, SH., LL.M., Ph.D., on page 64 of the book titled “Aspects of State in International Law,” published in Bandung in 2011 by Keni Media, states that: “For new states (governments) born ‘unilaterally’ (unilateral), unconstitutionally, outside the provisions of the UN Charter (violates the rules of the UN Charter) or through ‘revolution’, the institution of ‘recognition’ becomes important to obtain a lawful ‘basis and/or title’ (title) over ‘territory’.”

In line with the statement by Huala Adolf, Prof. Rebecca M. M. Wallace, MA., LL.B., Ph.D., on page 103 of the book titled “International Law,” published in London, England, in 1986 by Sweet & Maxwell, states that: “Recognition of a legitimate ‘basis and/or title’ (title) over ‘territory’ by a ‘unit’ (state) to the existence of a ‘new state’ formed in an unconstitutional manner, for example through ‘revolution’ or by ‘unilateral proclamation of independence’, will depend on the ‘recognition’ by other ‘members’ (states) of the international community, and the legitimate ‘basis and/or title’ (title) over ‘territory’ can ultimately only be confirmed if a recognition of the existing facts and/or realities is accepted.”

In relation to the concept of ‘Recognition’ as mentioned above, international law does not adhere to the ‘Constitutive Doctrine’ but rather follows the ‘Declaratory Doctrine’ or ‘Evidentiary Doctrine’. Regarding this Declaratory Doctrine, S. Tasrif, SH., states on page 30 of the book titled, “International Law on Recognition in Theory and Practice,” published in Bandung in 1987 by Abardin, that: “Recognition is merely a ‘statement and/or declaration’ by other states that a new state has taken its place alongside the existing states” (Shaw, Malcolm N. (2013) International Law. Bandung: Nusa Media, 439). In international law, this Declaratory Doctrine is found in the Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Obligations of States, dated Tuesday, December 26, 1933, especially Article 3, which states: “The political existence of the State is independent of recognition by other States.”

Additionally, this Declaratory Doctrine is also found in Article 9 of the Charter of Bogota, the charter establishing the Organization of American States (OAS) on Friday, April 30, 1948. Dr. Sefriani, SH., M.Hum., states on page 158 of the book titled, “An Introduction to International Law,” published in Jakarta in 2016 by Rajawali Pers, that this doctrine is reinforced by several court decisions, one of which is the decision of the Arbitral Tribunal in the case of Deutsche Continental Gas-Gesellschaft vs. Polish State in 1929. Furthermore, Prof. Jawahir Thontowi, SH., Ph.D., and Pranoto Iskandar, SH., LL.M., state on pages 133 & 134 of the book titled, “Contemporary International Law,” published in Bandung in 2006 by Refika Aditama, that the Declaratory Doctrine is also adopted by the ‘Institute of International Law’ (International Law Institute/Institut de Droit International), and this doctrine was also adopted by the ‘European Community Arbitration Commission on Yugoslavia’.

Referring to the comprehensive explanations about recognition in international law as discussed above, in relation to the Republic of South Maluku (RMS), it can be concluded that: “based on the provisions of international law, specifically Article 3 of the Montevideo Convention which adheres to the Declaratory Doctrine of Recognition, the existence of RMS as a sovereign and independent state is a reality that does not require official / formal / specific recognition from other states. Recognition from other states regarding the existence of RMS as a sovereign and independent state is merely a routine declaration act that holds no legal implications.” However, even though the recognition by other states is not a ‘condition’ for the existence of RMS as a sovereign and independent state, the existence of RMS as such under international law has gained “recognition” through its participation as a party and/or subject in court proceedings in various legal cases, both in the Netherlands and in New Guinea.

Furthermore, the decision of a judge in one of the legal cases where RMS was involved as a party and/or subject, specifically the Amsterdam Court (summary proceedings/rapid trial) Republic of South Maluku vs. “Naamloose Vennotschap (NV)” Koninklijke Paketvaart Maatschappij, on Thursday, November 2, 1950, Dutch Jurisprudence 1950, number: 804, page 1424 (Rechbank Amsterdam (Kort Geding) Republiek Maloekoe Selatan vs N.V. Koninklijke Paketvaart Maatschappij, November 2, 1950, Nederlandse Jurisprudentie 1950, no. 804, p. 1424) states that: “Recognition of RMS as a sovereign and independent state – whose existence was already a reality – by the government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands was included in the decision of the Dutch Parliament on Wednesday, December 21, 1949, Official Gazette J 570 (Decision on the Transfer of Sovereignty to the RIS) wherein the third agreement on Transitional Measures, as one of the outcomes of the Round Table Conference, was approved and became part of this decision.”

Besides the comprehensive scientific and/or academic discussions about RMS by international law experts, Des Alwi Abubakar (1927–2010), a historian, diplomat, writer, and advocate who experienced the formation of RMS in 1950, testifies on page 337 of his book titled “Sejarah Banda Naira,” published in Malang in 2010 by Pustaka Bayan, stating that: “This newly formed state (RMS) had established governmental institutions such as a President, Cabinet, Parliament, and other important bodies since its inception. Most importantly, this new Republic (RMS) already had its Armed Forces.” Prof. Dr. Dieter Bartels mentions on page 686 of the book titled “Under the Shadow of Mount Nunusaku: Muslims and Christians Coexisting in Central Maluku, Volume II on History,” published in Jakarta in 2017 by Kepustakaan Populer Gramedia (KPG), that: “The Armed Forces of RMS comprised approximately 1,500 (one thousand five hundred) soldiers, which included units from the Royal Netherlands East Indies Army (KNIL), and some members of the Special Troops Corps (Korps Speciale Troepen).”

In relation to the strength of the RMS Armed Forces as mentioned above, Johannes Hermanus Manuhuttu, the first President of RMS, acknowledged in a military court session in Yogyakarta on Thursday, May 26, 1955, as quoted by Jusuf Abdullah Puar, on page 74 of the book titled “The Events of the Republic of South Maluku,” published in Jakarta in 1956 by Bulan Bintang Publisher, that: “The strength of the ‘RMS Armed Forces’ (AP-RMS) numbered about approximately 1,200 (one thousand two hundred) soldiers.” Previously, Daantje Jacob Samson, the Chief Commander of the Army in the first RMS cabinet, acknowledged in a military court session in Yogyakarta on Wednesday, March 26, 1955, also quoted by J.A. Puar, on pages 173 – 176 of the same titled book, that: “The strength of RMS at that time was 2,000 (two thousand) soldiers, with approximately 1,200 (one thousand two hundred) rifles. … The ammunition supply at that time was only sufficient for about seven (seven) days of combat. … Ambon was defended with only about 1,000 (one thousand) soldiers.”

With the strength of the RMS Armed Forces as mentioned above, the government and people of the Republic of South Maluku had to defend themselves against the invasion and aggression by the Armed Forces of the Republic of the United States of Indonesia (APRIS), now known as the Indonesian National Armed Forces (TNI). This was the first and largest joint or combined operation by the Indonesian government since the establishment of the Republic of Indonesia on Friday, August 17, 1945. The military operation named ‘Military Operation Movement’ (GOM) III aimed to occupy and annex the RMS. The forces involved in GOM III were divided into three groups: Group I, under the command of Major Achmad Wiranatakusumah; Group II, under the command of Lieutenant Colonel Ignatius Slamet Riyadi; and Group III, under the command of Major Suryo Subandrio. GOM III was further divided into six parts: (1) Night Operation; (2) Dawn Operation; (3) Senopati Operation; (4) Maluku Islands Operation; (5) Noon Star Operation; and (6) Covert Operation.

GOM III involved nearly two divisions of APRIS troops, approximately twenty battalions or around 20,000 soldiers, including cavalry (tank) companies, artillery (cannons), and engineering (construction) battalions from Java islands such as: Siliwangi Battalion from West Java, Diponegoro Battalion from Central Java, and Brawijaya Battalion from East Java; three Indonesian Air Force (AURI) B-25 bomber aircraft, two Mustang fighter aircraft, and two PBY Catalina amphibious aircraft; plus fourteen Indonesian Navy (ALRI) warships, along with three commercial ships serving as hospital ships and logistics transport ships. This considerable force highlighted the significant military response aimed at suppressing the RMS and reaffirming Indonesian sovereignty over the region.

The outcome of Operation GOM III, as mentioned, was devastating for the civilian population within the territory of the Republic of South Maluku (RMS) and the destruction of its capital, “Kota Ambon”. According to Dieter Bartels (2017: 686), the majority of casualties were civilians, with an estimated 5,000 to 8,000 people losing their lives. The condition of Ambon city at the time is described by I. O. Nanulaitta on pages 132-134 of the book titled “Mr. Johannes Latuharhary, His Works and Services,” published in Jakarta in 2009 by the Department of Culture and Tourism of the Republic of Indonesia, based on the testimony of Mr. Johannes Latuharhary himself: “How different is the city of Ambon from 11 years ago (1939 – Author) to what he saw now (Tuesday, December 12, 1950 – Author) … rubble of buildings … remnants of fires … standing full of bullet holes … a sign of how fierce the battle was in the city of Ambon … it was only on Friday, November 3, 1950, that the city of Ambon was occupied by the Indonesian military. 90% of the city of Ambon was leveled to the ground.”

 

The intense battle between APRIS (TNI) and AP-RMS as witnessed by Mr. Johannes Latuharhary not only demonstrated the severe physical consequences but also highlighted the strong support for RMS among the “majority” of the people of South Maluku. Dieter Bartels (2017: 685, 687 & 689) notes: “However, this did not break the resistance of the people of ‘Ambon’ (Maluku – Author), but rather increased their support for RMS and created a high sense of solidarity that had possibly not emerged since the time of the Pattimura rebellion, reinforcing their fighting spirit for ethnic survival. … At one point, feeling bitter about such a great defeat, with overwhelming anger, Slamet Riyadi shouted that he would destroy all the people of ‘Ambon’ (Maluku – Author) … According to estimates by the Republic (Indonesia – Author), about 2/3 (66.67% – Author) of the population supported RMS actions, resulting in hundreds of civilians, many of them youths, being imprisoned.”

The young individuals imprisoned as mentioned above were part of what is called “Volunteers.” Dieter Bartels (2017: 686) describes these volunteers as “extraordinarily brave despite lacking military experience.” An example of their remarkable courage is provided by Ben van Kaam in page 127 of the book “The South Moluccans: Background to the Hijackings,” published in London, England, in 1980 by C. Hurst & Co.: “A group of 12 teenage schoolchildren recaptured Victoria Fort along with its military barracks. … There, they captured the entire garrison consisting of 80 soldiers.” In the battle at Fort Victoria, the commander of Group II of GOM III, Lieutenant Colonel (TNI) Ignatius Slamet Riyadi (1927-1950), was fatally shot not far from the front gate of Fort Victoria (Bartels, 2017: 686). The spirit of resistance among the “volunteers” as described above was also influenced by the speech of Sergeant Major (KNIL) Tahapary (Bartels, 2017: 683): “… If there is anyone who wishes to seize our flag, then go ahead, we are waiting for you. We are ready to sacrifice ourselves to defend our homeland to the last drop of blood…”

The heroic resistance of the AP-RMS and the people of South Maluku, grouped within the “Volunteer” forces, against APRIS (TNI) is recounted by General Leonardus Benyamin Moerdani (1932-2004) as written by Julius Pour on page 107 of the book titled “Benny Moerdani: Profile of a Soldier Statesman,” published in Jakarta in 1993 by the Yayasan Kejuangan Panglima Besar Sudirman Foundation, stating: “AP-RMS fought desperately when facing the onslaught of APRIS. The fierce resistance from RMS can be observed, because although the landing of APRIS troops on Buru Island had taken place in mid-July 1950, the direct attack on the city of Ambon could only be continued around November 1950. For more than four months, APRIS forces were stalled without being able to expand the territory they could liberate. Progress in the operations of the APRIS forces was only achieved after initiating a combination of intense attacks from land, sea, and air. The positions of AP-RMS were finally able to be stormed. The fierce battle to break through the defenses of the city of Ambon, the capital of the RMS, lasted for six days and six nights.”

In connection with the events recounted by Gen. TNI-AD L. B. Moerdani as described above, Dieter Bartels (2017: 868) and J. A. Puar (1956: 100) also wrote: “… unexpectedly, the TNI landed troops in the city of Ambon on Friday, November 3, 1950, and a week-long house-to-house battle ensued, leaving the city of Ambon in ruins.” … “On that same Friday, November 3, 1950, the city of Ambon was fiercely captured in a one-on-one battle… although the city burned for six days, the government of RMS and AP-RMS were still able to hold out for 14 days. On Wednesday, November 29, 1950, the government of RMS and AP-RMS chose to retreat to Seram Island, crossing the Haruku and Saparua Straits.” Another battle on Ambon Island that was as fierce as the one in the city of Ambon was the battle at Waitatiri, which Colonel Infantry TNI-AD Herman Pieters (1924-1996) – the first Commander of Military Region XV/Pattimura – likened to: “If the Netherlands has the Battle of Arnhem, Africa has El-Alamein, then Ambon has Waitatiri” (Puar, 1956: 96).

Referring to the entire explanation, scientific and/or academic as well as the facts of the events or occurrences as described above, it can be concluded that: “there has been an act of ‘invasion and/or aggression’ followed by ‘occupation and/or annexation’ by Indonesia against the state of RMS.” If referring to international law, it can also be concluded that: “the act of invasion and aggression followed by the occupation and annexation by Indonesia against the state of RMS is analogous to the act of invasion and aggression followed by the occupation and annexation by the State of Israel against Palestine.”

If the actions of invasion and aggression followed by occupation and annexation by Indonesia against the state of RMS are “the same as” the actions of invasion and aggression followed by the occupation and annexation by the State of Israel against Palestine, then Retno Marsudi’s speech in front of the “eyes” of the world on Friday, February 23, 2024, from 12:10 pm to 12:40 pm, through the International Court opposing Israel’s occupation of Palestinian territories, is indeed “AN IRONY”. This is because questions arise about the Indonesian annexation of the RMS state.

“Double Standards” Speech by Retno Marsudi

 

Retno Marsudi began her speech by informing the president and members of the International Court of Justice as well as all attendees, that: “I left my G20 meeting in Rio de Janeiro to stand before you today on behalf of the Government of the Republic of Indonesia to express the solidarity of the Indonesian people concerning a very important and serious issue, an issue that touches our fragile humanity.” This statement by Retno Marsudi is strong evidence that the Indonesian government considers the actions of invasion and aggression followed by the occupation and annexation of Palestine by Israel to be a matter of great importance, even more important than the G20 meeting itself, which was also “no less important”.

The events of invasion and aggression followed by occupation and annexation by the State of Israel against Palestine, and similar actions by Indonesia against the Republic of South Moluccas (RMS), are two cases that differ in terms of the ‘time’ (tempus) of occurrence and the ‘place’ (locus) of events, but they share the same core issues: “Invasion, Aggression, Occupation, and Annexation”. Invasion and aggression usually precede occupation and annexation, although not all occupations and annexations are preceded by invasion and aggression. Invasion and aggression, as well as “illegal occupation” and annexation, are actions carried out using force and/or military power through “War”.

Invasion is a general term for a ‘strategic’ (not tactical) military action on a large scale for long-term interests, where the armed forces of one country enter a territory controlled by another country, with the aim to take control of that area and/or change the ruling government. An invasion can be a cause of war or a step to resolve a war by a particular party, or it can be the core of the war itself. Meanwhile, Wagiman, S.Fil., SH., MH., and Anasthasya Saartje Mandagi, SH., MH., on page 10 of the book titled “International Law Terminology,” published in Jakarta in 2016 by Sinar Grafika, define aggression generally as: “The use of force and arms by a state against the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of another state, or in a manner inconsistent with the UN Charter.”

Even though universal international law has not yet produced a precise definition of aggression, it has become recognized as one of the types of ‘international crimes’ with a significant level of seriousness. Moreover, aggression is also one of the four jurisdictions of the International Criminal Court (ICC) as specified in the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, adopted in Rome on Friday, July 17, 1998. Article 5 of the Statute under Section 2 on Jurisdiction, Admissibility, and Applicable Law outlines the crimes under the Court’s jurisdiction, stating: “The jurisdiction of the Court shall be limited to the most serious crimes of concern to the international community as a whole. The Court has jurisdiction in accordance with this Statute with respect to the following crimes: (a) Genocide; (b) Crimes Against Humanity; (c) War Crimes; (d) Crime of Aggression.”

Referring to the status of the Republic of South Moluccas (RMS) as a sovereign and independent state under international law, the military invasion of the RMS by Indonesia in 1950 can be categorized as “aggression,” because the military invasion by Indonesia (through Operation GOM III) against the RMS was an act of using force and/or military violence through war against the sovereignty, territorial integrity, and political independence of the RMS, clearly, manifestly, and unequivocally inconsistent with the United Nations Charter, particularly Chapter I concerning Purposes and Principles, Article 2, paragraph (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.” Thus, it can be stated otherwise that “Indonesia has committed one of the types of ‘international crimes’ with a significant level of seriousness, where the ‘crime of aggression’ has become one of the four jurisdictions of the ICC.”

The definition of aggression in international law as discussed does lead to complex interpretations in various geopolitical contexts. For instance, in the case of Israel’s establishment as a sovereign state on May 14, 1948, Palestine was not recognized as a sovereign and independent state at that time, and the Palestinian Liberation Organization (PLO) was only established on May 28, 1964, in Algiers, Algeria, with the aim of achieving Palestinian independence. This scenario complicates the categorization of Israel’s actions as “aggression” under the strict legal definition used by the ICC, which often involves actions against another recognized sovereign state.

However, the status of Palestinian territories under Israeli control has been internationally acknowledged through legal instruments such as the Fourth Geneva Convention on August 12, 1949, and its Additional Protocol I of 1977 regarding the protection of victims of international armed conflicts. These documents articulate provisions related to “alien occupation,” which apply to situations of military occupation, irrespective of the recognition of statehood by the occupied territory. Hence, the actions undertaken by Israel in Palestinian territories are subject to scrutiny under international law concerning occupation, but not necessarily defined as aggression in the context used by the ICC for crimes which have been specified as including aggression against sovereign states.

In contrast, the actions by Indonesia against the Republic of South Moluccas (RMS), if characterized under the same legal frameworks, could be considered more directly as aggression due to the clear status of RMS claiming independent statehood at the time of Indonesia’s military response in 1950.

This analysis shows that while both situations involve significant international legal considerations, the specifics of each case under the frameworks of international law differ substantially in terms of definitions and applicable legal standards. Thus, the statement that “the treatment by Indonesia of RMS is ‘worse’ (more cruel) than Israel’s treatment of Palestine” is a complex assertion that would require extensive legal and factual substantiation focused on the acts of invasion, aggression, occupation, and annexation as well as consideration of the victims’ conditions and the international community’s responses to these actions.

Occupation, or “okupasi” in international law, is one of the methods through which sovereignty over a territory can be obtained. Specifically, occupation refers to the acquisition of territorial sovereignty through peaceful occupation of “terra nullius” (no man’s land) as outlined by J.G. Starke in his book “Introduction to International Law” (2008, Jakarta: Sinar Grafika). Professors Lassa Francis Lawrence Oppenheim and Sir Hersch Lauterpacht further clarify in “International Law a Treaties, vol. I – Peace” (1955, London: Longmans) that the only territories that can be subjected to occupation are those that do not already belong to another state, whether uninhabited or inhabited by people whose community is not considered a state.

Thus, if an occupation is conducted not peacefully but through the use of force and/or military power in the context of war, then such an occupation is considered “illegal” under international law standards.

In the context of Israel-Palestine, when Israel was proclaimed a sovereign and independent state on Friday, May 14, 1948, the territory of the State of Israel was under a mandate from the League of Nations given to the United Kingdom on Sunday, April 25, 1920. The UK returned the mandate over the territory to the UN on Saturday, May 15, 1948, one day after Israel declared its independence. This timing and the manner of the occupation have been points of contention and debate regarding the legality under international law and the definitions applicable to the territories involved.

The “mandate” territory mentioned above was predominantly inhabited by both Arab and Jewish populations. Factually, this area was a contested territory between Arab and Jewish residents. In an effort to resolve this dispute, Britain, as the mandate holder, proposed through the Peel Commission in 1937 and the Woodhead Commission in 1938 a “partition” of the territory into separate Arab and Jewish areas, which was rejected by the Arab population. On Saturday, November 29, 1947, the UN General Assembly issued Resolution 181, which called for the partition of the British mandate territory into independent Arab and Jewish states. However, a day after this resolution was published, warfare broke out between Arab and Jewish populations. A year later, on Saturday, May 15, 1948, when Britain relinquished its mandate to the UN or a day after the Jewish population declared the establishment of Israel as a sovereign and independent state on Friday, May 14, 1948, the first Arab-Israeli war occurred.

This first Arab-Israeli war was the first “inter-state” war in the territory of the former British mandate. It began when, on Saturday, May 15, 1948, military forces from Egypt, Transjordan, Syria, and Iraq launched attacks against the State of Israel. The war, which lasted for ten months, ended with Israel controlling the majority of the former British mandate territory, while the remainder—East Jerusalem and the West Bank—was controlled by Transjordan, and the Gaza Strip by Egypt. The conflict between Israel and the Arab inhabitants in the former mandate territory began escalating when the PLO was established in Algiers on Tuesday, May 28, 1964. Initially, the PLO aimed to establish an Arab state across the entire former British Mandate territory and to eliminate the State of Israel from the map. However, the PLO later recognized Israel’s sovereignty as a state in the first Oslo Accords signed in Washington D.C., USA, on Monday, September 13, 1993. Currently, the PLO aims to achieve a recognized Arab state in the West Bank and Gaza Strip, territories occupied by Israel since the third Arab-Israeli war in 1967, famously known as the “Six-Day War.”

In the context as described above, due to the PLO’s status as a “non-state”, the occupation of Israel using violence and/or armed (military) force through warfare over the West Bank and Gaza Strip regions has positioned Israel as a country that has committed: “Illegal Occupation”. The Geneva Convention IV dated August 12, 1949 (see: UNDoc. A/32/144 Annex I), particularly the Additional Protocol – I of 1977, Part I, Article 1, paragraph (4), refers to it as: “Alien Occupation”. However, Israel’s status as an “illegal occupation and/or alien occupation” is gradually but surely shifting towards the status of “annexation”, when the PLO, basing itself on the UN-General Assembly Resolution, number: 181 of 1947, proclaimed the “Gaza Strip and West Bank” as an independent and sovereign State named “Palestine” in Algiers, Algeria, on Tuesday, November 15, 1988. This name “Palestine” was then recognized by the UN-General Assembly as replacing the PLO.

With the birth of Palestine as an independent and sovereign State as stated above, the case of “Israel-PLO” then changed to the “Israel-Palestine” case. As at this time, the PLO’s status also changed from a ‘National Liberation Movement’ conducting a ‘War of National Liberation’ to the State of Palestine (See: provisions of the Geneva Convention IV, Friday, August 12, 1949, particularly the Additional Protocol – I of 1977, Part I, Article 1, paragraph (4)), the status of Israel as “illegal occupation/alien occupation” also began to shift towards the status of: “Annexation (Annexation)”. This matter, as mentioned by Retno Marsudi at the 12th minute and 45th second of her speech at the International Court, states that: “Second, the illegal annexation of the OPT. As an occupying power, Israel is legally obligated to maintain its occupation temporarily. This is violated by Israel as they attempt to make this occupation permanent and also to annex parts of the occupied territory. Legally, there should be no situation where Israel is allowed to annex parts of the occupied territory.”

Just as ‘occupation and/or occupation’ in international law is one of several ways to acquire sovereignty over ‘territory and/or territory’, so too with: “Annexation (Annexation)”. Prof. Dr. Huala Adolf, SH., LL.M., on page 120 of the book under the title, Aspects of State in International Law, published in Bandung in 2022 by Keni Media, equates the term Annexation with the term: “Conquest”. Meanwhile, L. F. L. Oppenheim, MA., LL.D., & H. Lauterpacht, QC., (1955: 566) refer to annexation or conquest with the term: “Subjugation”. Briefly, Dr. Sefriani, SH., M.Hum., (2016: 177) defines annexation/conquest/subjugation as: “The incorporation of another state’s territory by force or coercion into the territory of the annexing state”. In connection with this definition, it can be concluded that: “if referring to the current status of Palestine as a sovereign and independent state, then the status of Israel in the Israel-Palestine case at this time and in the future will increasingly be justified not anymore as ‘illegal occupation’ and/or ‘alien occupation’ but already as: “Annexation (Annexation)””.

Considering the status of Palestine as a sovereign and independent state according to international law, and also the status of RMS as a sovereign and independent state according to international law, it can be mentioned in other words, that: “the events occurring over the State of Palestine as described above, are exactly the same as the events that also occurred over the State of RMS, that is, both the State of Palestine and the State of RMS, are both experiencing annexation/conquest/subjugation, where if the State of Palestine is annexed by the State of Israel then the State of RMS is annexed by NKRI”. The difference is: “if the State of Israel annexes the State of Palestine with the reason of ‘self-defense’ (a principle for waging war legally recognized by the UN) alone is already considered to have violated international law (Wallace, 1986: 101; Adolf, 2022: 122), then what about the State of RMS which is also annexed by NKRI without any reason whatsoever (?)”.

In this context, it can be stated differently, once again, that: “the actions of Indonesia (NKRI) towards the State of RMS are ‘more evil’ (crueler) than Israel’s actions towards Palestine”. Even more cruelly, Indonesia continues to deny having committed aggression and annexation against the State of RMS to this day. Even more cruelly, Indonesia instead accuses the people of South Maluku as “separatists” who acted to separate from Indonesia through the proclamation of RMS as an independent and sovereign state. Without intending to support the statement of Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu as mentioned below, but Netanyahu’s statement that “manly” acknowledges Israel’s actions in annexing Palestine, even without openly using the word “annexation”, is far more honorable than Indonesia, which has clearly, openly, and certainly annexed the State of RMS but has never had the ‘goodwill’ to admit it to this date. Netanyahu’s statement, as quoted by Retno Marsudi in her speech, is: “I am proud to have prevented the establishment of a Palestinian state” … “nothing will stop us … not the Hague … and not anyone else”.

The methods of acquiring sovereignty over ‘territory and/or territory’ through the use of violence and/or armed (military) force through war, such as annexation/conquest/subjugation, were still accommodated by international law until 1928, the year the Paris Pact and/or Briand-Kellogg Pact and/or General treaty for the Renunciation of War was signed on Monday, August 27, 1928, by Germany, France, the United States, and 31 other countries. However, after 1928, methods of acquiring sovereignty over ‘territory and/or territory’ through the use of violence and/or armed (military) force through war such as annexation/conquest/subjugation were prohibited by international law. This prohibition is also found in: “The Covenant of the League of Nations, Saturday, January 10, 1920; Article 2, paragraph (4), Chapter I, the Charter of the United Nations, Tuesday, June 26, 1945; The Judgment of the Nuremberg Military Tribunal, Tuesday, October 1, 1946; United Nations Security Council Resolution on the Middle East, number: 242 (XXII), Wednesday, November 22, 1967; and the Rome Statute, Monday, July 1, 2002”.

International law also prohibits all countries from recognizing sovereignty acquired over ‘territory and/or territory’ by one state over another when done through the use of violence and/or armed (military) force through war methods like annexation/conquest/subjugation. If a country recognizes sovereignty acquired over ‘territory and/or territory’ by one state over another done through these means, such recognition is invalid because it violates international law. This prohibition is stipulated in: “The Stimson Doctrine of Non-Recognition, Thursday, January 7, 1932; Article 17, Charter of Bogotá and/or the Charter of the OAS, Friday, April 30, 1948; Article 11, Draft Declaration on the Rights and Duties of States, Tuesday, December 6, 1949; and Paragraph 10, Declaration on the Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the Charter of the United Nations, Saturday, October 24, 1970”.

Referring to the international legal rules mentioned above, it can be concluded that: “The annexation by Indonesia (NKRI) of the State of RMS and the annexation by the State of Israel of the State of Palestine both violate international law, as both the State of RMS and the State of Palestine are sovereign and independent nations that came into existence after the enforcement of international law provisions banning annexation of one state by another, where RMS was established as a sovereign and independent state on Tuesday, April 25, 1950, and Palestine was established as a sovereign and independent state on Tuesday, November 15, 1988, several years after the signing of the ‘Paris Pact’ on Monday, August 27, 1928, and other subsequent international legal rules concerning annexation”. In connection with this, it can also be concluded that: “if there are countries in the world that recognize the annexation of the State of RMS by NKRI or if there are countries in the world that recognize the annexation of the State of Palestine by the State of Israel, then such recognition is invalid because it violates the international legal provisions as mentioned above”.

Annexation/conquest/subjugation is prohibited by international law because there is a principle in international law that “force cannot give ‘good title’” (Wallace, 1986: 101). This principle has been interpreted to mean that territory cannot be lawfully claimed through the use of violence and/or military force, even if such use is in accordance with the UN Charter’s provisions for “self-defense”. Based on this principle, the UN Security Council issued Resolution 242 (XXII) on Wednesday, November 22, 1967, which calls for Israel to withdraw its forces from the occupied territories in the West Bank and Gaza Strip and reaffirms the invalidity of acquiring territory through war (Wallace, 1986: 101; Adolf, 2022: 122). This was also stated by Retno Marsudi in her speech at the International Court: “The UN Security Council in its resolutions has reaffirmed the established principle that the acquisition of territory by war is unacceptable. This is an absolute principle that applies even in cases where the war is conducted legally, such as in self-defense which clearly is not the case for Israel”.

Retno Marsudi reiterated the call for Israel to withdraw its forces from the occupied territories as called for by the UN Security Council through Resolution 242 (XXII) on the Middle East, dated Wednesday, November 22, 1967: “Therefore, it is crucial that Israel withdraws its forces. With the illegal nature of this occupation, the withdrawal of Israeli forces should not be subject to any preconditions or subject to any negotiations. They must withdraw now. I repeat, they must withdraw now. Israel should also be required to provide compensation to the State of Palestine as well as to the Palestinian people”. In this context – ignoring the provision of compensation to the State of RMS or to the people of South Maluku – the principal question is, what about the Indonesian (NKRI) forces that are still stationed and are increasingly present in Maluku today? According to Karen Parker (1996: 17): “The State of RMS is unlawfully occupied by Indonesia, which must immediately withdraw all its people and all its military forces from the territory of the State of RMS”.

The prohibition of annexation by international law, recognized since the adoption of the Covenant of the League of Nations on Saturday, January 10, 1920 (Brownlie, Ian (1990) Principles of Public International Law. Oxford: Clarendon Press, p. 131), and reinforced by the Charter of the United Nations on Tuesday, June 26, 1945, mandates that all acts of annexation that have occurred worldwide—from 1920 to the present and into the future—by one state over another must be terminated as soon as possible. According to the views expressed by Retno Marsudi, the termination of these annexations “must not be subject to any preconditions or subjected to any negotiations”. This means that the annexation by Indonesia (NKRI) of the Republic of South Maluku (RMS) and the annexation by the State of Israel of the State of Palestine must be promptly ended, and the cessation of these annexations, again borrowing the words of Retno Marsudi, “must not be subject to any preconditions or subjected to any negotiations”. Even if Indonesia and Israel do not end their annexations of RMS and Palestine, the states of Palestine and RMS will “still exist, stay alive, and never die”.

This perspective aligns with the expert opinions presented by Prof. Eric de Brabandere in his report on the Continuity of the Existence of the Republic of South Maluku under International Law during the 2011 case of RMS vs. NKRI in a Dutch court, and Prof. Noelle Higgins in her Expert Opinion on the Status of RMS in the same case, stating that annexation does not automatically confer a legitimate title over the territory obtained through such annexation. The territory gained through annexation remains subject to the legal rights of the state that was annexed. Even if annexation occurs, the sovereignty of the annexed state remains intact and does not automatically transfer to the annexing state. This is so because annexation violates the jus cogens and/or the peremptory norms of general international law, which are universally binding.

Eric de Brabandere and Noelle Higgins further state that, if annexation occurs of one country by another, the annexed victim state does not die and/or disappear, but continues to exist and/or stay alive, even if it is controlled by the annexing state for a long period of time. In international law, there is no provision regarding ‘the necessary period of time’ (critical date (Wallace: 1986: 99)) to decide the death of a state that is a victim of annexation. The practice of states also does not show certainty about this matter. Thus, it becomes clear in itself that, even if annexation has occurred by one country against another, the annexed state: “is not dead, still exists, and stays alive”.

If annexation is one of several ways to acquire sovereignty over territory that has been prohibited by international law, then “the right to self-determination” is the only way to fully acquire sovereignty over territory recognized by international law. This recognition can be seen from the establishment of the right to self-determination by international law as ‘jus cogens’, which is not an ‘ordinary norm’. Besides, the right to self-determination has also been ‘the highest norm’ in international law, and not a ‘regulatory norm’ (jus dispositivum) that is ‘derogable’ and/or ‘alienable’, but the right to self-determination is an ‘imperative norm’ that is ‘non-derogable’ and even ‘inalienable’, where all jus dispositivum must conform to jus cogens because if a jus dispositivum does not conform to jus cogens, then the jus dispositivum in question will be “void by law (ex nunc)” or “automatically null and void” (Situni, F. A. Whisnu (1989) Identification and Reformulation of Sources of International Law, Bandung, Mandar Maju, p. 101).

Regarding the jus cogens norms as mentioned above, Prof. Dr. Hikmahanto Juwana, SH., LL.M., writes on page 593 under the title, Preliminary Study on International Agreements in Conflict, published in 1992 (XXII) by the Faculty of Law at the University of Indonesia through the bi-monthly magazine, Law and Development, issue number: 6, that, from the perspective of legislative science, there is a theory that arranges norms in a ‘hierarchy’, known as the ‘Stufenbau’ (the higher-lower level approach) theory from Hans Kelsen through his book, The Pure Theory of Law, stating: “Every law-applying act is seen as a law-creating act, from the highest norm, the basic norm, to the lowest act of application”, where jus cogens is at the level of ‘the highest norm’, whereas the UN Charter is at the level of ‘the basic norm’, and international treaties generally are at the level of ‘executive regulations’ (the lowest act of application). One such executive regulation is the “Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations”.

In connection with “the right to self-determination” as one of the ways to obtain sovereignty over ‘territory and/or territory’ (territory), the fifth paragraph of ‘the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples’ in the UN General Assembly Resolution, number: 2625 (XXV), Saturday, October 24, 1970, regarding the ‘Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations’, states that: “The establishment of a sovereign and independent state, the free association or integration with an independent State or the emergence into any other political status freely determined by a people constitute modes of implementing the right of self-determination by that people”.

Explicitly, the Declaration on Principles of International Law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in accordance with the UN Charter as mentioned above does not specify mechanisms for implementation or methods for exercising the right of peoples to self-determination. However, the Declaration implicitly states that the mechanism for implementing and/or executing the right of peoples to self-determination is to be “freely determined by the people.” In connection with this, J. G. Starke (2008: 158) states, “Apparently, the right to self-determination connotes the freedom to choose by the people who are not yet independent through ‘plebiscite’ or other methods to ensure the will of the people.”

In her speech, which lasted 21 minutes and 32 seconds, Retno Marsudi also spoke extensively about “the right to self-determination” as mentioned above. This is as stated by Retno Marsudi herself in her speech at the International Court: “It must start with respecting the fundamental rights of the Palestinian people, especially the right to self-determination, which has been systematically ignored by Israel.” Previously, Retno Marsudi stated, “In addressing the issue of the right to self-determination of the Palestinian people, it is also important to remind ourselves that occupation has been a tool to suppress that fundamental right.” Furthermore, Retno Marsudi emphasized, “Allow me to confirm Indonesia’s position, in line with the views of the International Court, that the fulfillment of such rights is an erga omnes obligation. In other words, all states, I repeat, all states have a legal obligation to respect that right and contribute to its fulfillment.”

If the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI) has emphasized to the whole world through Retno Marsudi’s speech at the International Court on Friday, February 23, 2024, that fulfilling the right to self-determination is an ‘obligation towards all’ (erga omnes), the respect of NKRI for the right to self-determination of the people of the Republic of South Moluccas (RMS) as a legal obligation, and Indonesia’s contribution to fulfilling the right to self-determination of the people of RMS, again as a legal obligation, raises significant questions. It is also important to remind NKRI, especially if it fails to remind itself or pretends to forget, that Indonesia’s annexation of the RMS state has been used as a tool to suppress the very fundamental right to self-determination of the people of RMS.

Ultimately, NKRI must start by respecting the fundamental rights of all its people, not only those of the RMS, but also the fundamental rights of the people of Aceh and Papua. This includes primarily the right to self-determination for the peoples of RMS, Aceh, and Papua, which has systematically been ignored by NKRI. This stands as a profound legal and moral challenge for Indonesia, particularly in aligning its international declarations with its domestic actions.

In the context you described, where Retno Marsudi emphasizes in her speech that “We built our current international system with the belief that every human being, I repeat, every human being without exception, is protected by law,” it creates a poignant situation, especially regarding the case involving Antonius Latumutuany, also known as Anton. The critical question that arises is whether Anton is considered as “every human being” as referred to by Retno Marsudi in her speech. If he is included in this group, then legally, he must be protected by the law. Conversely, if he is not considered as part of “every human being” mentioned in Marsudi’s speech, then he would not be protected by the law, leading to a significant legal and ethical dilemma.

Regarding your specific query about the non-response of Retno Marsudi in her capacity as the Minister of Foreign Affairs of Indonesia to the request made by Anton’s legal team to have Johannes Gerardus Wattilete, the president of the RMS in exile in the Netherlands, testify or provide expert testimony in Anton’s case: If Marsudi did not respond or did not approve the request, it might suggest an omission in exercising her authority as outlined under point (c), paragraph (3), Article 11 of the 2020 Supreme Court Regulation (PERMA) No. 4. This regulation states that under certain conditions, a judge or panel of judges can order the examination of witnesses and/or experts located in Indonesian embassies or consulates abroad with the approval or recommendation of the Minister of Foreign Affairs if the witness and/or expert is overseas.

This scenario not only raises questions about the protection and rights of individuals under the law but also about the consistency of political and legal stances taken by officials at the highest levels of government.

Due to the “rebellious” attitude of Retno Marsudi, who has not provided a clear and definite response as to whether she agrees or disagrees, and given the elapsed time that was agreed upon between the judge and ANTON’s legal team for presenting witnesses and/or experts, the judge of the Masohi District Court subsequently canceled ANTON’s legal team’s plan to present Mr. J. G. Wattilete as a witness and/or expert who could provide mitigating evidence for ANTON. ANTON’s legal team then sent the cancellation decision to Mr. J. G. Wattilete via letter, number: 34/KABH-SW/X/2023, on Thursday, October 26, 2023, concerning: “Notification of Rejection to Hear Expert Opinion in Criminal Case Number: 32/Pid.B/2023/PN.Msh on behalf of Defendant ANTONIUS LATUMUTUANY”. In this context, Retno Marsudi has displayed an attitude and/or behavior that is “arrogant, irresponsible, unethical, and even immoral” as a minister. Because the issue here is not about agreeing or disagreeing, but rather about the ability to provide “acceptable reasons” whether she agrees or disagrees.

Regarding legal certainty for ANTON, it can be concluded that: “Retno Marsudi has not given her approval silently.” Wherein Retno Marsudi’s act has clearly, openly, and distinctly violated the human rights of ANTON that are granted by law and regulation to obtain exculpatory testimony for himself as a defendant. All actions/deeds/actions (action) of the NKRI government as mentioned above, clearly, openly, and distinctly, have violated the NKRI Constitution itself, especially Chapter XA on Human Rights (HAM), Article 28F, which is the second amendment to the Constitution of the NKRI, ratified on Friday, August 18, 2000. All ‘actions/deeds/actions’ (action) of the NKRI government as mentioned above, clearly, openly, and distinctly, have also violated the universally applicable general International Law especially International Law on ‘Human Rights’ (HAM) (Human Rights), particularly Article 19 of the ‘International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)’ which took effect on Tuesday, March 23, 1976, and which was ratified by the NKRI government through Law, number: 12, year 2005 about the Ratification of the ICCPR.

The author concludes and closes this article by answering the question, “Who is ANTON?” ANTON is: “Evidence of the double standards in Retno Marsudi’s rhetoric.”

 

The author is a lecturer in Civic Education at the State Polytechnic of Ambon.

Image Descriptions:

• The International Court of Justice building in The Hague, Netherlands. Photo: Owned by Heylaw Edu Article
• Retno Marsudi, Minister of Foreign Affairs (‘MENLU’) of the ‘Republic of Indonesia’ (RI). Photo: From the internet
• Parade and flag raising of the RMS in the village of Aboru, Central Maluku, Maluku Province, on Tuesday (4/25/2023). Photo: Special
• Legal advisor Semuel Waileruny accompanying the defendant in the alleged treason case, Anthonius Latumutuani, (RMS Activist) at the Masohi District Court, Maluku.
• Map of the South Moluccas Republic (RMS) area. Photo: Special
• Photo caption: The author is in one of the courtrooms of the ‘United Nations’ (UN) building when participating in the 18th Session of the United Nations Permanent Forum on Indigenous Issues (UNPFII 18th Session) conference, New York, USA, April 22, 2019 to May 3, 2019.
  Photo: Special