Godefroi was a member of the Tweede Kamer from Gouda who spoke during the debate on Atjeh war origins in April 1874, defending the war’s legitimacy on grounds of colonial-political necessity. Godefroi argued that the relationship with Atjeh could not be judged by European standards of international law, that the Sumatra-tractaat of 1871 contained the germ of a possible war, and that Atjeh’s attempts to secure foreign protectorate constituted a casus belli.
The colonial-political defence
Godefroi argued that the Sumatra-tractaat contained the germ of a possible war: by giving the Netherlands freedom to act in Atjeh, the treaty simultaneously created the obligation to prevent any foreign power from establishing itself there. Atjeh’s attempts to secure foreign protectorate — from America and Italy — were therefore in direct conflict with the purpose of the treaty, and constituted a casus belli. “The fact alone that those attempts were made is enough to characterise a relationship of Atjeh toward us that we could not and must not tolerate.”
The treaty argument
Godefroi argued that Atjeh was not fully independent, because the tractaat of 1824 gave the Netherlands police authority in Atjeh’s waters — a sovereign right that, if Atjeh were a European state, would belong to Atjeh itself. He noted that even those who now opposed the war had voted for the Sumatra-tractaat, knowing that it contained the possibility of war.
The Singapore incident
During Minister Gericke van Herwijnen’s response, the Minister cited the events at Singapore as evidence that the war was justified, and noted that the same American consul described as “a fool” by critics still held his position. The Minister further revealed that France had also received an offer of protectorate from Atjeh, which had been declined — a fact not previously known to the Chamber.
Account from Verstege’s Een beroep op het Nederlandsche volk (1886)
In the secret sessions of the Tweede Kamer on the origin of the Atjeh war the member Godefroi declared, on 16 April 1874: “Ik laat daarbij ter zijde den treurigen indruk, die de overgelegde stukken op mij gemaakt hebben, ten aanzien van de verwaarloozing onzer middelen van defensie in Indië, want op dezen Minister van Koloniën (Fransen van de Putte) rust de schuld daarvan niet” (“I leave aside the sad impression which the documents presented made on me concerning the neglect of our means of defence in the Indies, for on this Minister of Colonies the guilt of this does not rest”) — a grant that the neighbouring member C. van Nispen van Sevenaar refused to make, with his answer that by earlier neglect of duty the government had itself put itself out of condition to wage this war, that its rulers knew they had not the least notion of the enemy they went to fight, and yet made war (see Stieltjes on the same day).
See Also
- Van Zuylen van Nyevelt
- Cremers
- Haffmans
- Kuyper
- Nierstrasz
- Van Lynden van Sandenburg
- Gericke van Herwijnen
- Tweede Kamer debate on Atjeh war origins (April 1874)
- Sumatra-tractaat (1871)
- Tractaat van 1824 (Anglo-Dutch)
- Singapore incident (1873)
- Declaration of war on Atjeh (1873)
- Atjeh-oorlog (1873-1904)
Source
Verslag van het verhandelde in de vergaderingen der Tweede Kamer in comité-général van 16, 17, 18 en 20 April 1874: Oorlog met Atjeh, gedrukt ter Algemene Landsdrukkerij van het Koloniaal Instituut (1881), pp. 16–23, 45–46.
Een beroep op het Nederlandsche volk in zake het Atjeh-vraagstuk, door J. J. W. E. Verstege (Amsterdam: J. H. de Bussy, 1886), p. 120. OCR: DLP-158.