- Thank You, Mr. Rutte, For Not Mentioning Indonesia in Your Speech on Monday, December 19, 2022
MALUKU – Although Tuesday, February 14, 2023, has already passed, I would like to extend a belated 56th birthday greeting to the esteemed Mr. Mark Rutte, born on Tuesday, February 14, 1967. Despite his relatively young age, Mr. Rutte has achieved the highest accolade in politics as the longest-serving Prime Minister in the history of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, starting from October 2010.
Mr. Rutte embodies the concept of “survival of the fittest”, as referred to by Charles Robert Darwin (1809-1882) in his theory of evolution. If Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527) were still alive today, he would likely commend the level of power Mr. Rutte has attained, although it remains uncertain if Mr. Rutte aligns with Machiavellian principles.
While I could provide a personal assessment of Mr. Rutte’s achievements, highlighting both positive and negative aspects, it would be acknowledged as a subjective viewpoint. Therefore, to maintain objectivity, I would like to quote the recent assessment of Mr. Rutte’s political character by Kathleen Ferrier, the chairperson of the Dutch United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (UNESCO). In response to Mr. Rutte’s speech delivered on Monday, December 19, 2022, she stated, “I see a humble prime minister who values facts, acknowledges his capacity to learn, and looks towards the future.”
Furthermore, I would like to express my appreciation to Mr. Rutte for not mentioning Indonesia at all during his speech on Monday, December 19, 2022. By refraining from issuing an apology to Indonesia, Mr. Rutte sets himself apart from the actions of ‘Pontius Pilate’, the Roman prefect of Judea (26 AD-36 AD), who, while washing his hands by declaring ‘I am innocent of this man’s blood, it is your responsibility’, handed over ‘Jesus Christ’ to the Chief Priests and Jewish Elders (Matthew 27:24).
In Indonesia, Mr. Rutte’s speech has stirred controversy and sparked extensive debate. Journalists, politicians, historians, and academics in Indonesia have interpreted Mr. Rutte’s 20-minute address as if they were deciphering ancient sacred texts. Nevertheless, Mr. Rutte should not feel compelled to bear any guilt for not offering an apology for past instances of slavery in Indonesia. The author is confident that Mr. Rutte, known for his pragmatic approach, neither harbours any guilt nor feels remorse on this matter.
It is important to note that Indonesia came into existence in 1956, following the enactment of Law number 13 on Thursday, May 3, 1956. This law, titled “Cancellation of Indonesian-Dutch Relations Based on the Round Table Conference Agreement” (KMB), betrayed the Federal Consultative Assembly (Bijeenkomst voor Federale Overleg (BFO)) and the Kingdom of the Netherlands, as Indonesia unilaterally annulled the outcomes of the Round Table Conference (RTC).
The RTC decision itself was signed on Tuesday, December 27, 1949, at the Paleis op de Dam in Amsterdam, Netherlands. The signatories included Queen Juliana Louise Marie Wilhelmina of Oranje-Nassau (1909-2004) representing the Crown of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, Drs. Mohammad Hatta (1902-1980) representing the ‘Republic of Indonesia’ (RI) established on Friday, August 17, 1945, and Major General (KNIL) Syarif Abdul Hamid Alkadrie (1913-1978), titled Sultan Hammid II from Pontianak, West Kalimantan, representing the BFO formed on Wednesday, July 7, 1948.
The outcome of the RTC, which led to the formation of the ‘United States of the Republic of Indonesia’ (RIS) on Tuesday, December 27, 1949, was officially registered at the Secretariat of the United Nations (UN) under number 894 on Monday, August 14, 1950. This occurred three days before the “people of Yogyakarta” (Mr. Supomo, Mr. Sartono, and Ir. Sukarno) unilaterally established the ‘Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia’ (NKRI) on Thursday, August 17, 1950.
Regarding the unilateral establishment of the “Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI)” on August 17, 1950, by the “people of Yogyakarta (Supomo, Sartono, and Sukarno),” legal expert H. J. Kruls, LL.D., argued that the formation of the “Republic of Indonesia (RI), August 17, 1945” within the framework of the “United States of the Republic of Indonesia (RIS), December 27, 1949,” into the “Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI), August 17, 1950,” was entirely “illegal.” This act violated the principle of the “Right to Self-Determination” of the people in the former Dutch East Indies, including the people in the South Maluku region[1]. It is important to note that Indonesia exists as a state but not yet as a fully formed nation. The process of nation-building is ongoing and may even remain incomplete[2].
Following the unilateral establishment of the “Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI)” on August 17, 1950, the “people of Yogyakarta (Supomo, Sartono, and Sukarno)” also unilaterally dissolved the 16 states within the “United States of the Republic of Indonesia (RIS)” that had been agreed upon on December 27, 1949, without dissolving the RIS itself[3]. This action could be seen as a form of deception perpetrated by Indonesia on the global stage. However, the international community, including the Netherlands, remained indifferent, echoing the behavior of the three monkeys, symbolically covering their eyes, ears, and mouth.
When it comes to the “State of the Republic of Indonesia (RI)” proclaimed on August 17, 1945, the Netherlands is not required to grant recognition. Doing so would be akin to the idiom “defacing oneself” or “smearing faces on one’s own face.” It would amount to a form of self-humiliation and dishonoring “The Crown of the Kingdom of the Netherlands,” represented by Queen Juliana Louise Marie Wilhelmina van Oranje-Nassau (1909-2004)”, who herself signed the charter of transfer of sovereignty at the Paleis op de Dam in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, on Tuesday, December 27, 1949.
As outlined in the charter of transfer of sovereignty, the Kingdom of the Netherlands did not transfer sovereignty to the “State of the Republic of Indonesia (RI)” proclaimed on August 17, 1945, let alone to the “Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI)” proclaimed on August 17, 1950. Instead,
sovereignty was transferred to the “United States of the Republic of Indonesia (RIS),” as agreed upon on December 27, 1949. “The Kingdom of the Netherlands transfers full sovereignty over Indonesia to ‘the United States of the Republic of Indonesia’ unconditionally and irrevocably, and therefore recognizes ‘the United States of the Republic of Indonesia’ as an independent and sovereign state.”
Prime Minister Rutte, representing the Government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, ought to offer an apology to the Alifuru people residing in the southern islands of Maluku. It was within the territories of the ‘East Indies’ where we, the Alifuru people, experienced the initial waves of enslavement by the Dutch. Erik van Zwam, in his article titled “Why the Netherlands Does Not Offer Apologies for the Mass Slavery in Indonesia” published in Trouw magazine, highlights that the Netherlands commenced the practice of “slavery” in the ‘East Indies’ when the ‘United East India Company (Dutch)’ arrived in the Banda islands within the Maluku archipelago in 1621.
While “apologies, compensation, and recognition” hold significance for our community, we will not adopt a “whining” demeanour akin to those who identify themselves as the Indonesian nation, continually seeking “apologies, compensation, and recognition” from the Netherlands without possessing valid grounds for their demands. For us, the offering of “apologies” cannot resurrect our ancestors who perished under the harsh grip of slavery in the past. “Compensation” alone will not suffice to fully compensate for the losses endured over a span of 335 years (1621-1956). Furthermore, “recognition” represents a political action that, despite having legal implications, can easily be swayed by the ever-changing tides of political interests.
The Netherlands’ actions towards us have been even more brutal than the historical act of slavery. It is the “collaboration” between the Netherlands and ‘Indonesia’ (specifically Java) that has had a profound impact on us, particularly the relocation of 5,000 individuals from Maluku descent who were part of the ‘Royal Netherlands East Indies Army’ (Koninklijk Nederlandsch-Indisch Leger or KNIL). Along with their families, totaling 12,500 people, they agreed to temporarily move from ‘Indonesia’ (Java) to the Netherlands based on the promise that they would be returned to Maluku (south) within six months from their arrival. Unfortunately, the Dutch government has yet to fulfill that promise.
This collaboration serves as a stark reminder of the alliances formed between the ‘Third Reich’ or ‘Nazi Germany’ led by Fuhrer Adolf Hitler (1889-1945) and ‘Vichy France’ led by Marshal Henri Philippe Benoni Omer Joseph Petain (1856-1951). The latter was responsible for sending thousands of Jews as prisoners to concentration camps during the years 1939-1945. It also brings to mind the collaboration between the Japanese Empire and ‘Koesno Sosrodihardjo’ (1901-1970), also known as Soekarno, the first President of the ‘State of the Republic of Indonesia’ unilaterally declared on August 17, 1945. Soekarno played a role in sending thousands of individuals from the ‘East Indies’ to forced labor camps known as ROMUSHA during the years 1942-1945. However, unlike Marshal Petain, who was sentenced to death by an Allied court, President Sukarno was left free without facing trial by the Allies, including the Netherlands[4].
The actions of the Netherlands mentioned above can be classified as “forcible displacement of populations,” which amounts to a “gross violation of Human Rights,” specifically referred to as “Crimes Against Humanity.” However, the Netherlands executed this “forced displacement” covertly through
“subtle manipulation,” evading the criteria that define and establish gross human rights violations or “Crimes Against Humanity” as outlined in the ‘Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court’ (ICC).
Similar to a skilled magician performing on the stage of a bustling night market, the Dutch “deception” was not a singular occurrence. The commitment to integrate the aforementioned 5,000 (five thousand) KNIL individuals into the ‘Royal Dutch Army’ (Koninklijk Leger (KL)) has also remained unfulfilled, even as 99% of them have now passed away. Even before these 5,000 (five thousand) KNIL members set foot in the Netherlands, their military status was stripped away by the Netherlands, leaving them forcibly arriving in the Netherlands as a stateless nation. Presently, 73 (seventy-three) years have elapsed (1950-2023), and the Netherlands “permits” ‘their descendants’ (80,000 (eighty thousand) people) to be recognized as ‘Black Dutch’ (Zwart Nederlands) in order to maintain the bond of friendship between the Netherlands and Indonesia. This negligent act constitutes a “Crime Against Humanity,” a grave violation of human rights.
Indeed, it is a clear example of a severe human rights violation.
Had the Netherlands “not broken its promise”, the following would never have happened:
- The incident of the burning of the embassy building of the “Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI), proclaimed on August 17, 1950” in The Hague in 1966.
- The incident of the attack on the residence of the ambassador of the “Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI), proclaimed on August 17, 1950” in Wassenaar on Monday, August 31, 1970 (In this incident, a Dutch police officer was fatally shot).
- The planned kidnapping of Queen Juliana Louise Marie Wilhelmina van Oranje-Nassau (1909-2004) in December 1975, followed by the hijacking of a train in the town of Wijster, and also accompanied by the attack on the consulate building of the “Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI), proclaimed on August 17, 1950” in Amsterdam in the same month and year (In this incident, three Dutch nationals were executed, and one Indonesian national was seriously injured).
- The incident of the hijacking of a train in de Punt accompanied by hostage-taking in Bovensmilde in 1977 (In this incident, six ‘Alifuru’ (Maluku) nationals and two Dutch nationals were fatally shot).
- The incident of the occupation of the provincial hall in the city of Assen in 1978.
In an effort to maintain strong relations between the Netherlands and Indonesia, the Dutch government seems willing to make sacrifices. This includes sacrificing the ‘Alifuru’ (Maluku) Nation, which has demonstrated unwavering loyalty to the Crown of the Kingdom of the Netherlands throughout history. However, it is important to acknowledge that the Dutch government’s failure to keep its promises is the primary cause of the aforementioned incidents. Therefore, it is not only wrong, incorrect, and inappropriate but also baseless, improper, unsuitable, unworthy, and unreasonable, and even utterly irresponsible for the Netherlands to place blame on the “Alifuru (Maluku) Nation in the Netherlands” for the occurrence of these incidents.
We must acknowledge our fatal recurring mistake, which has persisted from the past until the present day: our tendency to forget. Our habit of swiftly forgetting everything has caused other nations in the ‘East Indies’ (Oost-Indie) to perceive our loyalty to the Netherlands as comparable to a dog’s loyalty to its owner, resulting in us being derogatorily referred to as “Dutch Dogs.” This term serves as an insult rather than a compliment[5]. While some of us may still find solace in remaining as “Dutch dogs” or even transforming into “Indonesian dogs,” whose fate is determined by Dutch and/or Indonesian masters, there are those among us who have learned to embrace our complete humanity and take charge of our own destiny.
Seventy-three years ago, on Tuesday, April 25, 1950, we charted our own course as a sovereign nation through the declaration of independence of the “Republic of South Moluccas (RMS)” as a State. In this regard, Gesina Hermina Johanna van der Molen stated that: “The Republic of South Moluccas (RMS), April 25, 1950, as a state, has a legitimate right to assert their ‘Right of Self-Determination’ … Very few countries can claim legal independence like the ‘State of the Republic of South Moluccas (RMS), April 25, 1950[6]”. Even Hendrik Jan Roethof proclaimed that: “The State of the Republic of South Moluccas (RMS), April 25, 1950, holds a legal status far superior to other countries whose sovereignty has been recognized and accepted as a member of the UN[7].”
However, the whole world – including the Netherlands – stabbed us in the back like Brutus did to Julius Caesar, so we had to struggle alone in facing the invasion followed by aggression and ultimately annexation, conducted by Indonesia on our State: “The Republic of South Moluccas (RMS), April 25, 1950[8]”.
Noelle Higgins has emphasized that the annexation carried out by the “Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI), proclaimed on August 17, 1950”, upon the “State of the Republic of South Moluccas (RMS), proclaimed on April 25, 1950,” constitutes an unlawful act that disregards the right of the people of South Moluccas to exercise their ‘Right of Self-Determination.” Additionally, this annexation shows a lack of respect for the existence of the “State of the Republic of South Moluccas (RMS), April 25, 1950,” leading to the emergence of a legal case[9].
However, despite the fact that the invasion, aggression, and annexation were in direct violation of numerous international agreements and principles, including:
- Article 1, the Paris Pact and/or Briand-Kellogg Pact (General Treaty for the Renunciation of War) in 1928.
- The Stimpson Doctrine of Non-Recognition, in 1932.
- UN Charter in 1945, Article 2: clause (4) from Chapter I on Purposes and Principles (Charter of the United Nations 1945, article 2: (4), Chapter I: Purposes and Principles).
- Article 17, Bogota Charter – ‘Charter of the Organization of American States’ (OAS) dated April 30, 1948.
- Article 11, Draft Declaration on ‘Fundamental Rights and Duties of States’, in 1949.
- Paragraph 10, ‘declaration of basic principles of international law concerning friendly relations and cooperation among states’ (Declaration on Principles of International Law Concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States in Accordance with the Charter of the United Nations), in 1970.
- The judgment of the Nuremberg war tribunal.
- ‘Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court’ (ICC),
The entire world, including the Netherlands, remained silent in the face of these violations.
Similar to how the Netherlands, in the past, exploited our resources, Indonesia is presently engaging in a similar practice, leaving us as one of the poorest and least educated nations in the ‘East Indies’ (Oost-Indie). In relation to this issue, the words of Dr. Teungku Hasan Muhammad di Tiro, MS., MA., LLD., Phd. (1925-2010), ring true: “Indonesia is merely a complete continuation of the Dutch Indies politically, economically, and juridically [11].” Additionally, if we recall the words of Dr. Willem Karel Tehupeiory (1883-1946), stating that “Dutch rule is better than Javanese feudal rule [12],” we can understand that we will continue to endure poverty and ignorance for a prolonged period under the Neo-fascist, Neo-feudal, and Neo-colonial governance of Indonesia.
This writing is not intended as a complaint against the Netherlands. We acknowledge the enduring pragmatic political culture within the Netherlands, where their attention may primarily be focused on complaints that offer political and economic benefits or profits for their own interests. We are confident that the Netherlands prioritizes its collaboration and alliance with Indonesia, their collaborator and partner.
Through this writing, our aim is to remind the Dutch nation that all the historical events that have unfolded in the territory of ‘East Indies’ (Oost-Indie) from 1602 until the present day, and even in the future, would never have occurred if the Dutch government had not established artificial boundaries that turned the territory of ‘East Indies’ (Oost-Indie) into an artificial entity.
The aforementioned “artificial territory” was unilaterally claimed without valid title on Friday, August 17, 1945, by individuals who referred to themselves as “the Indonesian nation.” These “Artificial Lines” have resulted in the sacrifice of the “300 anthropological nations” present in the ‘East Indies’ (Oost-Indie) under the rule of those who identify as “the Indonesian nation.” Among the anthropological nations affected by these “artificial lines” is the “Alifuru Nation in the Maluku Islands,” a fact that remains etched in our collective memory as a “Memoria Passionis[12].”
The author began working on this piece at the beginning of 2023 but deliberately chose to publish it today, Monday, May 15, 2023. This serves as a tribute and acknowledgment of the “war” fought by the Alifuru people in the Maluku Islands, not by the so-called “Indonesian nation” as claimed by some. This conflict took place in 1817, when the concept of Indonesia did not exist. It was only in 1850[13] that the term “Indonesia” was coined by George Samuel Windsor Earl (1813-1865), an English navigator, a significant 33 years after the conclusion of the war between the Dutch nation and the Alifuru people in the Maluku Islands.
This “Resistance” was led by Thomas Matulessy, alias ‘Kapitan Poelo‘ (Captain of the Island), born on June 8, 1783, and executed on December 16, 1817. And not by ‘Kapitan Pattimura,’ a title given to Thomas Matulessy by the “Indonesian nation”. Before his inevitable demise at the gallows, he seemed to foretell:”you people can kill me, but once I am gone young Matulessys will rise to eradicate the darkness enveloping the Maluku Islands[14]“.
However, at present, the vision that Thomas Matulessy held, as mentioned above, remains unfulfilled. His resounding war cry, “hold on, hold on, don’t retreat, whatever comes from the front, we don’t retreat,” has transformed into hollow words[15]. Regrettably, the people of Maluku seem more preoccupied with engaging in endless debates over religion, titles, origins, symbolic gestures, elaborate ceremonies, and even the portrayal of Thomas Matulessy’s face. One can only wonder what further aspects of Thomas Matulessy’s character they will dispute in the future. Instead of fiercely fighting to resurrect the “spirit of resistance” advocated by Thomas Matulessy against the Neo-fascist, Neo-feudal, and Neo-colonial rulers of Indonesia, the people of Maluku prefer to immerse themselves in these trivial matters. They fail to diligently work towards realizing Thomas Matulessy’s aspirations and dreams for a sovereign and independent Maluku—a land characterized by peace and justice, safety and tranquility, prosperity and growth.
206 (two hundred six) years ago, a young Thomas Matulessy, not yet 35 years old, fearlessly joined forces with his comrades, bravely risking their lives on the battlefield in opposition to the Dutch nation. Their unwavering commitment rightfully earned them the title of ‘heroes’—heroes of Maluku, not to be confused with the label of Indonesian heroes claimed by those identifying themselves as the “Indonesian nation”.
Ironically, or rather tragically, the present reality for the people of Maluku is confined to boasting within coffee houses, engaging in empty debates in the vast realm of cyberspace, and pleading with tears in bureaucratic chambers belonging to the rulers who label themselves as the “Indonesian nation.” This begs a crucial question: What title is truly befitting and deserving for the people of Maluku, both within the Netherlands and Indonesia, given the current circumstances? Are they to be labeled as “cowards,” “faint-hearted,” or “losers”? Certainly not brave, far from being winners, and undoubtedly far removed from the status of heroes.
The author concludes this piece by respectfully tipping their hat in tribute to Mr. Widji Thukul (1963-1998), a remarkable figure from the Javanese nation (Indonesia) whose courage surpasses even the bravest individuals from the Alifuru nation (Maluku) in the 21st century. Widji Thukul, a poet, eloquently conveyed the essence of his spirit in his poem titled “Warning – Pardi” and his poem under the title “Oath of the Sharp Bamboo.” It is within these verses that the author finds inspiration, as Widji Thukul proclaimed with conviction, “There is only one word: RESIST!”
The author is a Lecturer in Civic Education at the Ambon State Polytechnic.
Reference:
[1] Kruls, H. J. (1960) The Strategic Importance in the World Picture of Present and Future. Los Angeles, the United States of America: California State College; Helfrrich, C. E. L. (1960) The Strategic Position. Los Angeles, the United States of America: California State College; Prins, J. (1960) Location, History, Forgotten Struggle. Los Angeles, the United States of America: California State College; Tichelman, G. L. (1960)
[2] Joesoef, Daoet (2011) Dasar Pembentukkan Bangsa. Di dalam: “Monarki Yogya” Inkonstitusional?. Jakarta: Kompas, h. 178; Joesoef, Daoet (2011) Pikiran & Gagasan Daoed Joesoef, 10 Wacana Tentang Aneka Masalah Kehidupan Bersama. Jakarta: Kompas, h. 179; Joesoef, Daoet (2014) Studi Strategi Logika Ketahanan Dan Pembangunan Nasional. Jakarta: Kompas, h. 171.
[3] Daradjadi (2014) MR. Sartono: Pejuang Demokrasi & Bapak Parlemen Indonesia. Jakarta: Kompas, h. 180.
[4] Adams, Cindy (2011) Bung Karno Penyambung Lidah Rakyat Indonesia. Jakarta: Yayasan Bung Karno & Media Pressindo, Ed. Rev., Cet. 2, h. 232; Kasenda, Peter (2015) Soekarno Di Bawah Bendera Jepang (1942-1945). Jakarta: Kompas, h. 120-121.
[5] Bartels, Dieter (2017) Di bawah Naungan Gunung Nunusaku: Muslim – Kristen Hidup Berdampingan di Maluku Tengah. Jakarta: Kepustakaan Populer Gramedia (KPG), jilid 2: Sejarah, Cet. 1, h. 665.
[6] Molen, Gesina Hermina Johanna van der (1960) The Legal Position According to International Law. Los Angeles, the United States of America: California State College; Cappello, N. J. C. M. Kapeyne van de (1960) Relation to the United Nations. Los Angeles, the United States of America: California State College.
[7] Roethof, Hendrik Jan (1960) An Existing State. Los Angeles, the United States of America: California State College; Pendapat para ahli hukum internasional yang tergabung dalam ‘Asosiasi Hukum Internasional Cabang Belanda’ (The Netherland’s Association for International Law (NAIL) / De Nederlandse Vereninging voor International Recht (NVIR)) di Rotterdam, Belanda pada hari sabtu, tanggal 24 Juni 1950; Keputusan Ketua Mahkamah Agung (De President van de Arrondissements-rechtbank) di Amsterdam, Belanda, pada hari kamis, tanggal 2 Nopember 1950; Keputusan Banding Mahkamah Tinggi di Amsterdam, Belanda, pada hari kamis, tanggal 8 pebruari 1951; Keputusan Mahkamah Agung (Raad van Justitie) di ‘Guinea Baru’ (New Guinea) pada hari jumat, tanggal 7 Maret 1952; Keputusan Mahkamah Agung (Raad van Justitie) di ‘Guinea Baru’ (New Guinea) pada hari sabtu, tanggal 3 Juli 1954;
[8] Parker, J. D. Karen (1996) Republik Maluku, The Case for Self-Determination (A Briefing Paper of ‘Humanitarian Law Project’ (HLP) / International Education Development (IED) and ‘Association of Humanitarian Lawyers’ (AHL)). Presented to The United Nations Commission on Human Rights 1996 Session, March, Geneva, Page: 1-17; Budiman, Hikmat (2019) Ke Timur Haluan Menuju (Studi Pendahuluan Tentang Integrasi Sosial, Jalur Perdagangan, Adat, Dan Pemuda Di Kepulauan Maluku). Jakarta: Yayasan Pustaka Obor Indonesia, h. 43
[9] Higgins, Noelle (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). Leiden: Martinus Nijhoff Publishers; Higins, Noelle (2011) Opinion on the Status of the RMS. Expert Opinion. Dublin: tidak diterbitkan; Brabandere, Eric de (2011) Opinion on the Status of the RMS. Expert Opinion. Nederland: tidak diterbitkan.
[11] Missbach, Antje (2012) Politik Jarak Jauh Diaspora Aceh, Suatu Gambaran tentang Konflik Separatis di Indonesia. Yogyakarta: Penerbit Ombak, Sinopsis.
[12] de Fretes, Johannes Dirk (2007) Kebenaran Melebihi Persahabatan. Jakarta: Harman Pitalex & Kubuku, h. 39; Ir. Soekarno (2015) Dibawah Bendera Revolusi. Asvi Warman Adam: Sukarno Dalam Perjalanan Sejarah Bangsa. Jakarta: Yayasan Bung Karno & PT. Media Pressindo, Jilid I, Cet. 1, h. xviii.
[12] Preston, Martha L. Cottam, Tbeth Dietz-Uhler, Elena Mastors, Thomas (2012) Pengantar Psikologi Politik. Jakarta: Rajawali Pers, Ed. II, Cet 1, h. 327-328.
[13] Elson, Robert Edward (2009) The Idea of Indonesia, Sejarah Pemikiran dan Gagasan. Jakarta: Serambi, h. 2
[14] Suyono, R. P. (2003) Peperangan Kerajaan Di Nusantara, Penelusuran Kepustakaan Sejarah. Jakarta: Gramedia Widiasarana Indonesia, h. 178-191.
[15] Matulessy, Thomas (2022) Sejarah Asal Usul Pahlawan Nasional Kapitang Pattimura Anak Negeri Hulaliu. Jakarta: Pustaka Obor Indonesia, h. xi.
Discussion about this post