Annexatie-geest — the spirit of annexation — was the term by which H. van Kol characterised in the Tweede Kamer on 16 November 1897 the general European drive to colonial acquisition of the preceding thirty years, of which he held the Dutch conduct in Atjeh to be an instance.
The survey of thirty years
Van Kol stated that for some thirty years there had prevailed, above all in Central Europe, “een ware geeuwhonger naar erlanging of uitbreiding van het koloniaal bezit; als hongerige gieren vloog men op verre gewesten aan en rukte ze in brokken uit elkander.” — a true ravenous hunger for the acquisition or extension of colonial possession; like hungry vultures men swooped on distant regions and tore them apart in pieces. At Berlijn a great part of Africa had been appropriated; in Central, North, East and South Azië various powers had conquered new possessions; in North and South Amerika the territory of many had been extended; and in Australië men pressed daily further into the unknown continent.
The globe being roughly divided, the European and other powers had begun to quarrel and fight among themselves for a new morsel: Russia and Japan over Korea, Japanese and Americans over Hawaï; England, Duitschland, Frankrijk, Oostenrijk and Russia clipping Egypte and the Balkanland on all sides, which were spared only because agreement could not be reached over the division of the booty; France and England wrangling in Tunis and Achter-Indië as in the Niger region; England and Russia watching one another with rifle on arm on the frontier of Afghanistan; Madagaskar overwhelmed; and in Soedan, Senegal, Abyssinië and Ethiopië Germany, England and France seeking to outflank one another — “en tot kleine landen toe, als België en Portugal, ja zelfs Italië mengen zich in den veroveringskamp.” — and even small countries, like Belgium and Portugal, yes even Italy, join in the struggle of conquest. In the West-Indië there was little more to divide; in Zuid-Afrika only the Transvaal and a few small peoples resisted “de vraatzucht van Albion.”
Everywhere, he said, men wished to conquer possessions; all manner of regions and climates were welcome if only one could extend one’s “sfeer van invloed” and bring ever more colonies under one’s authority, although one could not even administer and govern those one already had. “Ook wij bezitten een deel der wereld dat wij niet eens goed in kaart kunnen brengen, en tòch zijn wij onbevredigd, wij snakken naar meer. Steeds verder moet Neerland’s gezag doordringen, zoowel op Borneo, als Nieuw-Guinea, op Celebes als in Noord-Sumatra, namelijk Atjeh.”
Application to Atjeh
Van Kol’s thesis was that “die dwaze annexatie-geest alleen” had driven the Dutch to venture their hand in “het wespennest Atjeh,” and that new plans were being formed to make a blind leap into another wasps’ nest on Nieuw Guinea. Because on New Guinea only a fault was being contemplated that in Atjeh had already been committed, he proposed to treat the establishment of Dutch authority on New Guinea under chapter IV, and to devote his time now to the Atjeh question.
He also used the term in the emotive form annexatie-fanatisme: the fields of the Solo-vallei were to be left to wither, the plains of Tegal and Bagelen to be flooded, the seaports to become unusable, and the Javanese to suffer hunger, “tot aan Nederlands annexatie-fanatisme zal zijn voldaan.” — until the Netherlands’ annexation fanaticism shall be satisfied.
Counter-argument
He warned the Dutch to be careful: in times when the legal security of small nations was more and more threatened, and the Great Powers divided lands, made war and concluded peace as their interest brought with it, the Dutch ought not to offer them their own example as a pretext for imitation. Now that voices were raised that “de Amerikaansche kolossus” would drive “den Spaanschen havik” from his Cuban prey, the Dutch ought in time to let go from their claws Atjeh, which they had already tormented for a quarter of a century.
Kuyper answered the general thesis on 17 November with the argument that although the starting point of European taking-possession had seldom been just and mostly very material in kind, the outcome taught that the action proceeding from Europe had in the end been a blessing to the populations concerned — that “met dezen zeer krommen stok nochtans in den regel een rechte slag is gedaan.” — with this very crooked stick a straight blow has nevertheless as a rule been struck.
See Also
- H. van Kol
- Abraham Kuyper
- Van Kol’s refutation of the causes of the Atjeh-oorlog (1897)
- Atjeh debate in the Tweede Kamer (16-17 November 1897)
- Atjeh-kanker
- 1897
Source
Atjeh in de Tweede Kamer: Debatten bij de behandeling der begrooting van Nederlandsch-Indië voor 1898, uitgave van de Sociaaldemokratische Arbeiderspartij in Nederland (Amsterdam: J. A. Fortuijn, 1897). Koninklijk Instituut voor de Tropen, Br P95-178, pp. 3–5, 71–72.
Acknowledgement of sources. The material in this article derives from Atjeh in de Tweede Kamer: Debatten bij de behandeling der begrooting van Nederlandsch-Indië voor 1898 (Amsterdam: J. A. Fortuijn, 1897). Dutch passages are quoted in the original with an English rendering.