English: Open Letter from The People of Maluku to The International Court

On Friday, 23 February 2024, Retno Marsudi, the Foreign Minister of the ‘Republic of Indonesia’ will speak for and on behalf of, and represent the government of the Republic of Indonesia at the ‘International Court of Justice’ (Cour Internationale de Justice), Peace Palace (Palais de la Paix / Vredespaleis), Carnegieplein 2, 2517 KJ The Hague, Netherlands. This information is as quoted from the official press release of the ‘United Nations (UN)’ number: 2024/15 issued by the Department of Information of the ‘International Court of Justice (ICJ)’ on Friday, 9 February 2024.

Meanwhile, as quoted from the online news media portal https://jakartaglobe.id, exposed at 11:44 am (ante meridiem), Tuesday, 16 January 2024, Jayanty Nada Shofa, a journalist from the Jakarta Globe online news media portal, states that Retno Marsudi will speak “against the Israeli occupation of Palestinian territories.” Jayanty Nada Shofa further writes that ‘Monday, 19 February 2024’ (the scheduled date of Retno Marsudi’s speech, originally planned for Monday, 19 February 2024, will now be held on Friday, 23 February 2024, according to the schedule announced through the official UN press conference on Friday, 9 February 2024), Retno Marsudi will specifically voice:

• To demonstrate Israel’s blatant violations of international law against Palestinian citizens;
• To support the right of Palestinian citizens to govern their own lives which must be respected;
• To state that the Israeli occupation in Palestine, which has lasted for over 70 years, does not eliminate the right of the Palestinian nation to independence. Where Israeli policies, including the annexation of Palestinian territory, settlements in the West Bank, and changes to the status of Jerusalem are invalid under international law;
• To call for the cessation of unlawful Israeli actions, and to demand accountability from Israel for all the violations that have occurred.

About the planned speech of Retno Marsudi at the ‘International Court of Justice’ (ICJ) on Friday, 23 February 2024 as mentioned above, ‘we’ (the people of Maluku) fully support all efforts of humanity to resolve international disputes peacefully and through means that ensure international peace, security, and justice are not threatened. This is by what has been determined and established in the ‘Charter of the UN’, Chapter I on ‘Purposes and Principles’, Article 2 regarding ‘Principles’, paragraph (3), where this paragraph (3) is one of the 7 (seven) paragraphs in Article 2, Chapter I, of the UN Charter which constitutes the ‘basis for the existence and/or reason for being’ (Raison d’etre) of the United Nations.

However, ‘we’ (the people of Maluku) also feel it is important and necessary to express our ‘views/opinions/thoughts’ on the ‘issue’ that Retno Marsudi will address at the International Court of Justice on Friday, 23 February 2024. Our opinion (the people of Maluku) is closely related to the events in Tulehu and the city of Ambon, Pulau Ambon, South Maluku, on Tuesday, 25 April 1950. The event on Tuesday, 25 April 1950, was when ‘we’ (the people of Maluku) declared and/or proclaimed the formation of The Republic of South Moluccas as a sovereign and independent state.

Based on the provisions of ‘International Law’, particularly Article 3 of the ‘Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Obligations of States’ dated 26 December 1933, which adheres to the ‘Declaratory Doctrine and/or Evidentiary Doctrine’ about ‘Recognition’ in International Law, the ‘existence’ of the ‘Republic of South Moluccas’ (RMS) as a sovereign and independent state is a ‘fact’ that does not require official or formal recognition from other countries. Recognition by other countries of the existence of RMS as a sovereign and independent state is merely an act of ‘declaration’ that does not have legal implications.

Even though recognition by other countries is not a ‘condition’ for the existence of the RMS as a sovereign and independent state, the existence of RMS as such, based on international law, has been recognized through its participation as a party in court proceedings in several legal cases. This not only aligns with the provisions of Article 3 of the 1933 Montevideo Convention, but also is by:

• The Arbitration Judge’s decision in the Tinocco case in 1923;
• The Court Judge’s decision in the Deutsche Continental Gas-Gesellschaft versus the Polish State case in 1929;
• The provisions of Article 9 of the ‘Charter of the Organization of American States (OAS) in 1948;
• The opinion of the ‘International Law Institute’ (Institut de Droit Internationale);
• Opinion number: 1 of the ‘European Community Arbitration Commission on Yugoslavia’.

The legal cases in which the existence of the RMS as a sovereign and independent state, based on international law, has been recognized through the participation of RMS as a party in court proceedings, both in courts in the Netherlands and in courts in ‘New Guinea’ (Netherlands), are as follows:

• Amsterdam Court (summary proceedings/rapid trial) South Moluccan Republic against “Limited Liability Company (PT) (Naamloose Vennotschap (NV))” Koninklijke Paketvaart Maatschappij, Thursday, 2 November 1950, Dutch Jurisprudence 1950, number: 804, page 1424 (Rechbank Amsterdam (Kort Geding) Repoebliek Maloekoe Selatan vs N. V. Koninklijke Paketvaart Maatschappij, 2 November 1950, Nederlandse Jurisprudentie 1950, no. 804, p. 1424);
• Amsterdam Court of Appeal, N. V. Koninklijke Paketvaart Maatschappij against South Moluccan Republic, Thursday, 8 February 1951, Dutch Jurisprudence 1950, number: 804, page 1424 (Gerechtshof Amsterdam, N. V. Koninklijke Paketvaart Maatschappij vs Repoebliek Maloekoe Selatan, 8 February 1951, Nederlandse Yurisprudentie 1950, no. 804, p. 1424);
• High Court of ‘New Guinea’ (Netherlands), Republic of South Moluccas against Legal Entity of New Guinea, Friday, 7 March 1952, Dutch Case Law 1953, number: 100, page 162 (Raad van Justitie ‘Nieuw-Guinea’ (Nederlands), Republiek Maluku Selatan vs Rechtspersoon Nieuw-Guinea, 7 March 1952, Nederlandse Jurisprudentie 1953, no. 100, p. 162);
• The Hague Court, Republic of South Moluccas against Legal Entity of New Guinea, Wednesday, 10 February 1954, Dutch Case Law 1954, number: 549, page 1040 (Rechbank ‘s-Gravenhage, Republiek Maluku Selatan vs Rechtspersoon Nieuw-Guinea, 10 February 1954, Nederlandse Jurisprudentie 1954, no. 549, p. 1040);
• The Hague Court, Republic of South Moluccas against the State of the Netherlands, Wednesday, 6 October 2010, 377038 / KG ZA 10-1220 (Rechbank ‘s-Gravenhage, Republiek der Zuid-Molukken vs Staat der Nederlanden, 6 October 2010, 377038 / KG ZA 10-1220).

However, the government of the Republic of Indonesia subsequently committed ‘aggression’ and also proceeded with the ‘annexation’ of our state (the people of Maluku): “RMS”. The annexation of RMS by the Republic of Indonesia continues to this day, and the government of the Republic of Indonesia has never shown ‘goodwill’ or ‘political awareness’ to end the annexation of RMS. Meanwhile, both aggression and annexation have become an ‘action’ that violates various provisions of international law, some of which regarding aggression and annexation that have been violated by the government of the Republic of Indonesia are as follows:

• Article 1, the Paris Pact and/or the Briand-Kellogg Pact (General Treaty for the Renunciation of War), 1928;
• The Stimson Doctrine of Non-Recognition, 1932;
• Article 11, Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Obligations of States, 26 December 1933;
• UN Charter 1945, Article 2: paragraph (4), Chapter I: Purposes and Principles;
• The Nuremberg War Trials decision, 1 October 1946;
• Article 17, Bogota Charter – ‘Charter of the Organization of American States’ (OAS), 30 April 1948;
• Article 11, Draft Declaration on the ‘Fundamental Rights and Duties of States’, 1949;
• Paragraph 10, ‘Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations’, 1970; and
• The Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court (ICC), 1 July 2002.

Regarding ‘the first specific issue’, ‘we’ (the people of Maluku) are of the opinion that: ‘the actions of aggression and annexation by the government of the Republic of Indonesia against ‘us’ (the people of Maluku) in the Territory of the RMS are a form of blatant violation by the government of the Republic of Indonesia of international law against ‘us’ (the people of Maluku) in our capacity as citizens of the RMS, similar to the blatant violations of Israel of international law against the Palestinian citizens as pointed out by Retno Marsudi.

Regarding ‘the second specific issue’, ‘we’ (the people of Maluku) believe that: “The government of the Republic of Indonesia must support the ‘Right of Self-Determination’ of ‘us’ (the people of Maluku) to govern our own lives within the framework of the RMS State, and the government of the Republic of Indonesia is obliged to respect the implementation of the right to self-determination by ‘us’ (the people of Maluku) which we legally and formally executed on Tuesday, 25 April 1950, similar to Retno Marsudi’s support for the rights of the Palestinian citizens to govern their own lives which must be respected.”

Regarding ‘the third specific issue’, ‘we’ (the people of Maluku) believe that: “The occupation of the RMS State by the Republic of Indonesia, which has lasted for more than 73 (seventy-three) years, does not eliminate the right to independence of the Maluku / Alifuru nation. The policies of the government of the Republic of Indonesia, including the annexation of RMS territory, the plundering of natural resources in Maluku, and the destruction of the function and structure of traditional customs in Maluku are invalid according to international law, similar to Retno Marsudi’s statement that the Israeli occupation of Palestine, which has lasted for more than 70 (seventy) years, does not eliminate the right to independence of the Palestinian nation. Israeli policies, including the annexation of Palestinian territories, settlements in the West Bank, and changes to the status of Jerusalem are invalid according to international law.

Regarding ‘the fourth specific issue’, ‘we’ (the people of Maluku) believe that: “The government of the Republic of Indonesia must stop its unlawful actions against ‘us’ (the people of Maluku), who are citizens of the RMS, and the government of the Republic of Indonesia is obliged to be accountable for all the violations that have occurred against ‘us’ (the people of Maluku) since Tuesday, 25 April 1950 up to the present, similar to Retno Marsudi’s call to stop Israel’s unlawful actions and her demand for Israel to be accountable for all the violations that have occurred.

Important note for the fourth specific issue:

One of the many legal violations committed by the government of the Republic of Indonesia against ‘us’ (the people of Maluku) since Tuesday, 25 April 1950 to the present – and likely to continue in the future – is the violation of our (the people of Maluku) Right to Freedom of Expression, which is a part of ‘Human Rights’ (HAM) universally.

Since Tuesday, 25 April 1950 until now, nearly 500 (five hundred) RMS activists who have peacefully struggled for “the restoration of sovereignty and independence of the ‘Republic of South Moluccas’ (RMS)” have been arrested, tried, and imprisoned by the government of the Republic of Indonesia. Some of these RMS activists have been tortured, given life sentences, and died in the prisons of the government of the Republic of Indonesia.

Currently, one of ‘us’ (the people of Maluku) is undergoing an appeal process in the High Court of the Republic of Indonesia as a form of resistance to the decision of the first-instance judge of the Republic of Indonesia. This individual from ‘us’ (the people of Maluku) is named “Anthonius Latumutuani”. The prosecutor of the Republic of Indonesia has charged Anthonius Latumutuani as an “RMS Activist”. Based on this charge, the first-instance judge of the Republic of Indonesia granted the request of ‘Anthonius Latumutuani’s legal advisor’ (Samuel Wailernuny, SH., M.Si) to present “Mr. Johannes Gerardus Wattilete (President of RMS in exile in the Netherlands)” as an expert witness who could provide mitigating testimony for Anthonius Latumutuani. However, the plan to present Mr. Johannes Gerardus Wattilete as an expert witness for Anthonius Latumutuani did not receive a positive ‘explanation/response’ from the Foreign Minister of the Republic of Indonesia, “Retno Marsudi”. Due to the lack of any official explanation in any form from Retno Marsudi, the first-instance judge of the Republic of Indonesia then canceled the plan to present Mr. Johannes Gerardus Wattilete as an expert witness for Anthonius Latumutuani. Regarding the actions of Retno Marsudi, ‘we’ (the people of Maluku) have come to the conclusion that: “Retno Marsudi has tacitly withheld approval”. This action by Retno Marsudi clearly and blatantly violates Anthonius Latumutuani’s rights under the law and legislation to obtain mitigating testimony for himself as a defendant.

The entirety of the actions taken by the government of the Republic of Indonesia as mentioned above clearly, transparently, and evidently violates the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia itself, especially Chapter XA on Human Rights, Article 28F, which is the second amendment to the Constitution of the Republic of Indonesia, ratified on Friday, 18 August 2000. All of these actions by the government of the Republic of Indonesia also clearly, transparently, and evidently violate International Human Rights Law, particularly Article 19 of the ‘International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR)’ which came into effect on Tuesday, 23 March 1976, and which was ratified by the government of the Republic of Indonesia through Law number: 12 of 2005 on the Ratification of the ICCPR.

Through the opinion that ‘we’ (the people of Maluku) convey to the International Court in this open letter, ‘we’ (the people of Maluku) request “serious attention” from the International Court regarding the case of aggression and annexation by the Republic of Indonesia against the RMS State, which has been ongoing much longer than the Israel versus Palestine case. With this opinion, ‘we’ (the people of Maluku) also wish to send a “special message” to the International Court that what will be said by Retno Marsudi on Friday, 23 February 2024, is like the saying: “Splashing water on one’s own face” and/or “When one finger points at the faults of others, four fingers point back at oneself”. About Retno Marsudi’s speech on Friday, 23 February 2024, “those four fingers” represent: “Maluku, Papua, Aceh, and other (serious) human rights violation cases”.

References:

• Resolution of ‘The Netherlands Association for International Law’ (NAIL / de Nederlandse Vereniging voor Internationaal Recht (NVIR)), Saturday, 24 June 1950;
• Gunter Decker (1957) Republic of South Moluccas (Die Republik der Sud-Molukken). Gottingen, Verlag Otto Schwartz & Co.;
• C. Bouman, C. E. L. Helfrich, N. J. C. M. Kappeyne van de Coppello, H. J. Kruls, J. A. Manusama, Gesina H. J. Van der Molen, J. Prins, H. J. Roethof, G. L. Tichelman, and W. H. Tutuarima (1960) The South Moluccas, Rebellious Province or Occupied State. Leyden, A. W. Sythoff;
• Karen Parker, J. D. (1996) Republic of Moluccas (the Case for Self-determination). Los Angeles, California, United States of America, Humanitarian Law Project / International Educational Development (HLP / IED) and Association of Humanitarian Lawyers (AHL);
• Noelle Higgins (2010) Regulating the Use of Force in Wars of National Liberation: The Need for a New Regime, A Study of the South Moluccas and Aceh (International Humanitarian Law Series). Leiden-Boston, Martinus Nijhoff Publishers;
• Noelle Higgins (2011) Opinion on the Status of the RMS (expert opinion). Dublin – unpublished;
• Eric de Brabandere (2011) The Continued Existence of the RMS Under International Law (expert opinion). Netherlands – unpublished;
• Leo Klinkers & Peter Hovens (2020) From cold case to hot case. Why and How the United Nations Can and Must Free the Moluccan People. Europe, Federalism for Peace Foundation & Federal Alliance of European Federalists.