Haffmans was a member of the Tweede Kamer who spoke during the debate on Atjeh war origins in April 1874, arguing that the war was pre-arranged between the Government and the Indian administration and that the question was merely to find an occasion. Haffmans also opened the procedural debate on 16 April by arguing against secret sessions, insisting that the comité-général procedure made open debate impossible given the manner in which the Government had submitted the documents.
The procedural objection
Haffmans opened the debate on 16 April 1874 by arguing that he saw no reason for closed-door deliberation, and had compelling reasons for treating the matter publicly. He noted that only a few of the submitted documents were non-secret, while the majority had been submitted under secrecy — a format that made open debate impossible. He asked whether, after the comité-général was concluded, the discussion of the interpellation would be continued in public session.
The pre-arranged war argument
Haffmans argued that between the Government and the Indian administration there was already an afspraak (agreement) that a war with Atjeh must come sooner or later, and the question was merely to find an occasion. “That agreement accepting, everything explains itself; without it, the war declaration is incomprehensible.” He pointed to the telegram of 18 February 1873 as “the spark that hit the powder,” and noted that the war was decided in four days — from 16 to 22 February — including the time to convene the council and consult the King.
He cited Loudon’s letter of 25 February 1873: “Noodzakelijkheid der expeditie is een uitgemaakte zaak. Zelfs al mogt de verzekering worden ontvangen dat Amerika zich even weinig als Italië zal bemoeijen. […] Het fait accompli is het eenig redmiddel.”
The manifest critique
Haffmans characterised Nieuwenhuyzen’s entire approach as one in which “he fell, as they say, with the door in the house; he came equipped for war and brought the war. The asking of clarification and accountability that preceded was merely for form, an idle display.” He argued that the modification of article 6 of the instruction went much further than the Minister acknowledged, and that the entire proceeding constituted a war declaration rather than a negotiation.
The motion to close
A modified motion by Haffmans to close the secret session and continue in open session while respecting the imposed secrecy was rejected 36–30.
See Also
- Van Lynden van Sandenburg
- Nierstrasz
- Van Zuylen van Nyevelt
- Godefroi
- Cremers
- Kuyper
- I.D. Fransen van de Putte
- Loudon
- T.N. Nieuwenhuyzen
- Tweede Kamer debate on Atjeh war origins (April 1874)
- Comité-général
- 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. 7–8, 87–93.