The Staatscommissie voor Atjeh was the impartial commission of enquiry into the Atjeh-oorlog proposed in the Voorloopig Verslag and demanded by Van Kol’s motion of 16 November 1897. It was never appointed; the motion was rejected by seventy-two votes to three on 17 November 1897.
The proposal
Van Kol’s motion asked the government to appoint “een onpartijdige kommissie… die binnen een jaar rapport zal uitbrengen over de moreele, politieke en finantieele gevolgen van den oorlog sedert zijn aanvang; over de vermoedelijke gevolgen der thans gevolgde taktiek en over de mogelijkheid en wenschelijkheid, den oorlog te beëindigen, met behoud onzer volkenrechtelijke stelling op Sumatra.” — an impartial commission… which shall within a year report on the moral, political and financial consequences of the war since its commencement; on the probable consequences of the tactics now followed and on the possibility and desirability of ending the war.
Van Kol specified that it should be composed with care, of men of different tendencies but bound to the war by no personal interest, appointed by the government, and that it “moet licht brengen, waar thans duisternis heerscht.” Its object was not the arraignment of persons, who had often been the product of circumstances and carried along by the delusion of the day, but “onderzoek der zaken, blootlegging der werkelijke gevolgen van dezen bloedigen veroveringskrijg.” The nation must learn how many human lives the war had destroyed, how many millions it had swallowed up, what cruel consequences it had dragged after it, and what must now be done to bring back the Dutch flag without further bloodshed. Only in that way, he argued, could a decisive judgement be pronounced with sufficient data, and only so would the Dutch parliament prove that no lichtschuwheid — shyness of the light — governed it and no fear of the truth animated it.
On 17 November he added that on the question of the commercial beneficiaries of the war “de Minister zal nu wel willen erkennen dat eenige nadere inlichting van de natie noodig is, en dat voor eene onpartijdige commissie sommige personen niet in aanmerking kunnen komen.” — the Minister will now surely be willing to acknowledge that some further information for the nation is needed, and that for an impartial commission certain persons cannot come into consideration.
Objections of principle
Verhey declared he had objections of principle. A commission would very probably find its ground in a want of confidence in the policy, justifiable after so many fruitless years; but what was to be won by it? If it could end the struggle, who would not applaud it? No one believed that, and the minister had rightly called such an expectation an illusion. In the given circumstances a commission would evince great distrust in the policy and honesty of the Indies government, for which no acceptable reason was adduced. Had the Indies government been sacrificing lives and money aimlessly, ins Blaue hinein, and had anything of that appeared, there might be talk of a commission of enquiry; but not then.
He asked further how the commission would arrive at its advice, observing that commissions and especially state commissions were seldom unanimous, that a minority commonly submitted to a sometimes very small majority, and that separate notes usually followed; that it would exercise a paralysing influence on the course of affairs for a considerable time; that its advice must rest on thorough and personal investigation on the spot and would depend on subjective appreciation in the light of Atjeh history; and that while it deliberated one would not be free to act where action was needed nor able to use favourable moments.
He protested at length against the wish to exclude military men, which could only rest on the opinion that soldiers were per se for aggressive action and that the desire for fame would darken their insight — a conception against which a word of protest might not be withheld, since those who knew war and had seen its disasters would certainly not drive without motive to needless continuation or sharpening of it.
The precedent of Bonjol
Pyttersen held that “Staatscommissiën zijn zeer zeker de slechtste instrumenten om een einde te maken aan een oorlog, wel een middel om dien te verlengen,” — State commissions are most certainly the worst instruments for making an end of a war — rather a means of prolonging it, and revived the memory of the commission appointed during the Padri-oorlog to investigate how the fortress of Bondjoe might be taken. That commission investigated and deliberated and could reach no agreement; meanwhile the Dutch troops lay encamped before the fortress for twenty-seven months without being able to take it, until lieutenant-colonel Michiels took command on 6 August and captured on 16 August the place reputed impregnable.
The minister’s objection
Cremer answered that where one had once a fixed guiding line before one’s eyes, such a commission could hardly be accepted. On the requirement of impartiality he jested: “Ik zou alle Nederlanders moeten uitsluiten, want ik kan mij niet voorstellen, dat één Nederlander onpartijdig is ten aanzien van een oorlog door Nederland gevoerd… Wij zullen derhalve moeten komen tot het benoemen van eene commissie bestaande uit Russische of Zwitsersche professoren, die deze taak op zich zouden willen nemen. Men zou bovendien met het kiezen van vreemdelingen zeer voorzichtig moeten zijn en bij voorbeeld geen naburen moeten nemen.”
He doubted that a serious commission would submit to the command to report within a year; noted that to report on the tactics then followed it must visit the theatre of war; and observed that to report on the possibility of ending the war it must speak with the leaders — “Deze strijd toch heeft geen leider maar leiders, want wij hebben op Atjeh te doen met benden over het geheele land verspreid. Aan de eene zijde heeft men b.v. Toekoe Oemar, aan de andere Panglima Polim en vele anderen. Dezer dagen hebben wij nog gehoord van een aanval in Edi onder aanvoering van Nja Mamat Perlak. Met al deze heeren zal de commissie te spreken hebben. Mij komt deze taak voor de commissie niet benijdenswaardig voor.”
Van der Zwaag’s qualified support
Van der Zwaag supported the motion while doubting the government’s capacity to institute an impartial commission at all, and disagreeing with its final clause. His ground for supporting it was that “zelfs eene partijdige commissie, die van Regeeringswege wordt ingesteld om ons hier inlichtingen te geven, zooveel onrechtmatigs van onzen kant aan het licht zal brengen, dat vele leden die thans nog, door hunne stem te geven aan de begrooting, deze goedkeuren, daardoor reeds tot andere gedachten zullen moeten komen.” — even a partial commission, instituted on the part of the Government to give us information here, will bring to light so much that is unlawful on our side, that many members who now still, by giving their vote to the budget, approve it, will thereby be brought to other thoughts.
Troelstra’s defence
Troelstra answered Cremer’s jest that a serious commission would not be composed of Dutchmen, and his objection to the fixed term, by observing that naming a term within which a work must be ready was not at all unusual, the only question being whether the term was long enough; if the minister otherwise went with the motion and the term was too short for him, nothing stood in his way to propose its extension: “Een argument tegen de motie is het in geen geval.” — It is in no case an argument against the motion.
See Also
- Van Kol’s motion of 16 November 1897
- H. van Kol
- J. B. Verhey
- Pyttersen
- J. T. Cremer
- Van der Zwaag
- Pieter Jelles Troelstra
- Atjeh debate in the Tweede Kamer (16-17 November 1897)
- Padri War
- 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. 12–13, 18–20, 27, 31–32, 50–51, 74–75.
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.