Van Kol’s Aceh War Motion was a parliamentary motion submitted to the Tweede Kamer (Dutch Lower House) during the 1897 budget debates by socialist parliamentarian H. van Kol, calling for an impartial commission to investigate the political, moral, and financial consequences of the Aceh War (Atjeh-oorlog). The motion was co-sponsored by the other two socialist members of the Sociaaldemokratische Arbeiderspartij, Troelstra and Van der Zwaag.
Van Kol’s motion of 16 November 1897 was the motie van orde (motion of order) laid before the Tweede Kamer by the social-democratic deputy for Enschedé, H. van Kol, at the close of his speech on 16 November 1897 during the general deliberations on the budget of Nederlandsch-Indië for 1898. It asked the government to appoint an impartial commission to report within one year on the moral, political and financial consequences of the Atjeh-oorlog. On 17 November 1897 it was rejected by seventy-two votes to three.
Text of the motion
The motion read as follows:
“De Kamer, overwegende dat de oorlog met Atjeh als een nationale ramp moet worden beschouwd; overwegende, dat het wenschelijk is de natie in te lichten omtrent de beteekenis van den oorlog voor Nederland en Nederlandsch-Indië; overwegende dat de herhaalde wisseling onzer gedragslijn in Atjeh, zonder dat in den loop van 24 jaren het einde van den oorlog is bereikt, de vraag doet rijzen, of het volhouden van den oorlog wel wenschelijk en mogelijk is; verzoekt de Regeering eene onpartijdige commissie te benoemen die binnen een jaar rapport zal uitbrengen over de moreele, politieke en financieele gevolgen van den oorlog sedert zijn aanvang, over de vermoedelijke gevolgen der thans gevolgde tactiek en over de mogelijkheid en wenschelijkheid, den oorlog te beëindigen, met behoud onzer volkenrechtelijke stelling op Sumatra.”
(The Chamber, considering that the war with Aceh must be regarded as a national disaster; considering that it is desirable to inform the nation about the significance of the war for the Netherlands and the Dutch East Indies; considering that the repeated changes in our course of action in Aceh, without the end of the war having been reached in the course of 24 years, raises the question of whether continuing the war is desirable and possible; requests the Government to appoint an impartial commission which will report within a year on the moral, political and financial consequences of the war since its commencement, on the probable consequences of the tactics now being followed, and on the possibility and desirability of ending the war, while preserving our position under international law on Sumatra.)
Intent and purpose
The motion’s purpose, according to Van Kol, was not to seek immediate withdrawal but to inform the Dutch nation about the true state of affairs in North Sumatra. It sought to answer fundamental questions about what the war had cost in lives and money, what the future would likely hold, and whose interests were being served by its continuation — see Economic interests in the Aceh War. In Van Kol’s view, the Dutch people were being kept in the dark about “de werkelijke toestanden op Noord-Sumatra” (the real conditions on North Sumatra).
Support and defeat
The motion initially attracted support from radical parliamentarians Stoffel, Nolting, and Ketelaar, who joined the three socialists in supporting it. However, during the final vote, these radicals withdrew their support. After extensive debate, the motion was defeated by a vote of 72 to 3, with only Troelstra, Van der Zwaag, and Van Kol voting in favour. The defeat came after a heated scene in which Troelstra demanded that the chamber state which specific commercial, plantation, and shipping interests were benefiting from the war’s continuation.
Significance
The motion is a landmark document in the Dutch parliamentary history of the Aceh War. It represents the first formal socialist attempt to force a public accounting of the war’s costs and consequences, and to question the desirability of its continuation after 24 years of conflict. Its overwhelming defeat by 72 votes to 3 demonstrates the depth of parliamentary support for the colonial enterprise at the time. The motion’s framing of the war as a “national disaster” was a radical departure from the prevailing colonial discourse. Van Kol’s call for an “onpartijdige commissie” (impartial commission) also established a precedent for future investigations into colonial atrocities.
Text
The motion as printed reads:
“De Kamer, overwegende dat de oorlog met Atjeh als een nationale ramp moet worden beschouwd;
Overwegende, dat het wenschelijk is de natie in te lichten omtrent de beteekenis van dien oorlog voor Nederland en Nederlandsch Indië;
Overwegende dat de herhaalde wisseling onzer gedragslijn in Atjeh, zonder dat in den loop van 24 jaren het einde van den oorlog is bereikt, de vraag doet rijzen, of het volhouden van den oorlog wel wenschelijk en mogelijk is;
Verzoekt de Regeering een onpartijdige kommissie te benoemen, 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.”
Rendered: The Chamber, considering that the war with Atjeh must be regarded as a national disaster; considering that it is desirable to inform the nation concerning the significance of that war for the Netherlands and Netherlands India; considering that the repeated changes in our line of conduct in Atjeh, without the end of the war having been reached in the course of twenty-four years, raises the question whether persevering in the war is desirable and possible; requests the Government to appoint 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, with preservation of our position under the law of nations on Sumatra.
Argument of the mover
Van Kol introduced the motion as the necessary consequence of a gewetensvraag (question of conscience) which he put to the chamber: whether the Netherlands was not obliged, in the name of humanity and right, as being responsible for the war, to make an end of the Atjeh-krijg as quickly as possible. The question, he said, was no longer “hoe er moet worden gevochten, maar of er moet worden voortgevochten” (how one must fight, but whether one must go on fighting). The war was an unjust war, and had become “een kanker” — see Atjeh-kanker — from which the whole of the Netherlands suffered in soul and body.
The commission, he insisted, was to be composed of men of different tendencies but bound to the war by no personal interest, and its purpose was not the arraignment of persons who had often been the product of circumstances, but “onderzoek der zaken, blootlegging der werkelijke gevolgen van dezen bloedigen veroveringskrijg” (investigation of the facts, laying bare the real consequences of this bloody war of conquest). The nation must know how many human lives the war had destroyed, how many millions it had swallowed, and what must now be done to bring back the Dutch flag “van een bodem, waar men ze nooit had moeten planten” (from a soil where it should never have been planted).
Reception in debate
The motion was attacked from every side of the chamber. Kuyper held that it did not follow from its mover’s premises: if the war was unjust in origin and criminal in continuance, the logical conclusion was immediate withdrawal, not a commission that would prolong the injustice for a year or two more. Van Karnebeek found no logical connection between Van Kol’s speech and his motion, and argued that the closing words “met behoud onzer volkenrechtelijke stelling op Sumatra” admitted of only one means — the subjection of Atjeh. Pyttersen recalled the commission appointed during the Padri-oorlog to consider how Bondjol might be taken, whose deliberations left the troops encamped before the fortress for twenty-seven months until lieutenant-colonel Michiels took command on 6 August and captured the place ten days later. De Visser objected that the consequence of the mover’s standpoint was the surrender of the colonies to foreign powers or to “de verderfelijke macht van den Islam.” Van Vlijmen refused his adhesion outright. Van der Zwaag supported the motion while declaring that it did not go far enough, and specifically rejected its final clause on the volkenrechtelijke stelling, holding that the Dutch were on Sumatra not by the law of nations but by the right of the stronger.
The Minister of Colonies Cremer answered the motion clause by clause, and joked that an impartial commission would have to exclude all Dutchmen and be composed of “Russische of Zwitsersche professoren.” He conceded that the only thing in the motion that attracted him was the closing phrase, to which he agreed with Van Karnebeek that the sole answer was “onderwerp Atjeh” (subject Atjeh).
Withdrawal of support and the division
The motion had initially been supported by the radicals Stoffel, Nolting and Ketelaar alongside the three social democrats. After Troelstra’s explanation that the motion was intended as a vote of no confidence in the minister’s Atjeh policy, Ketelaar rose to withdraw his support, stating that he had backed the motion “zooals zij daar lag” without intending a vote of no confidence, and that Van Kol’s endorsement of Troelstra’s construction now barred him from voting for it.
In the division on 17 November 1897 the motion was rejected by seventy-two votes to three, the three being Van Kol, Troelstra and Van der Zwaag. Those voting against included Mackay, Van Kerkwijk, Van Deinse, Rink, Fokker, Truijen, Nolens, Van Kempen, Van Asch van Wijck (Ede), Van Gijn, De Savornin Lohman, Bastert, Heldt, Van Asch van Wijck (Wijk bij Duurstede), Veegens, Van Gilse, Kolkman, Pyttersen, Van der Kun, Staalman, Smeenge, Tak van Poortvliet, Van Limburg Stirum, Stoffel, Bouman, Hintzen, Kuyper, Van Dedem, Knijff, Van Basten Batenburg, Dobbelman, Krap, Conrad, Verhey, Goekoop, Van Bylandt (Gouda), Kerdijk, Hesselink van Suchtelen, Van Karnebeek, Schaafsma, Merckelbach, Smits van Oijen, Houwing, Lieftinck, Smidt, De Ras, Pijnappel, Van Vlijmen, Bahlmann, Van de Velde, Pijnacker Hordijk, De Waal, De Bieberstein, Geertsema, Schepel, Tijdens, Kool, De Malefijt, Everts, Michiels van Verduynen, Hartogh, Ferf, Schimmelpenninck, Van der Borch van Verwolde, Roessingh, De Visser, Travaglino, Nolting, Ketelaar and the President of the Chamber.
See Also
- Aceh War
- H. van Kol
- Troelstra
- Van der Zwaag
- Economic interests in the Aceh War
- Sociaaldemokratische Arbeiderspartij
- Tweede Kamer
- 1897
- Pieter Jelles Troelstra
- Atjeh debate in the Tweede Kamer (16-17 November 1897)
- Atjeh in de Tweede Kamer (1897)
- Staatscommissie voor Atjeh (proposed 1897)
- Atjeh-kanker
- J. T. Cremer
- Ketelaar
- 16 November
- 17 November
Sources
De Sociaaldemokraten in de Tweede Kamer (Amsterdam, c. 1901). Vrije Universiteit Bibliotheek, pp. 2-3.
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 (text of the motion), 20–34, 45–59, 73–80 (division list).
Acknowledgement of sources. This article combines material from the publications cited above; the material newly added derives from Atjeh in de Tweede Kamer (Amsterdam: J. A. Fortuijn, 1897) and Een strijd in Atjeh (Rotterdam: N.V. Drukkerij Korteweg for the Vereeniging „SIMAVI”, 1934). Dutch passages are quoted in the original with an English rendering.