Van Karnebeek was the member of the Tweede Kamer for Utrecht who spoke briefly in the Atjeh debate of 16 November 1897, attacking Van Kol’s motion on the ground that no wholly logical connection existed between the speech and the motion, and that the only means of achieving the motion’s own stated object was the subjection of Atjeh.
Argument
Van Karnebeek said he had listened to Van Kol’s speech “met eenig leedwezen” — with some regret — not because he thought such considerations might not freely be given in the chamber, but because, if the sound of that speech should penetrate to the Atjeh chiefs, it would appear that the delivery of the speech had not been conducive to the very end the mover sought by his motion, namely the end of the Atjeh war.
Much had occurred in the speech about the lawfulness or unlawfulness of the war, of which the motion said nothing. On that point he shared entirely the opinion of the deputy from Sliedrecht, Kuyper, as far as the opportuneness of a debate on it was concerned, and would not enter into it, not even after what the previous speaker had remarked concerning the treaty of 1872; he considered it superfluous at that moment to rake up such questions.
The motion, separated from the speech, came down in his view to the pronouncing of a strong wish for the ending of the war. He shared Kuyper’s opinion that for reaching that end the motion was impractical and had an impractical tendency.
What had particularly drawn his attention were the words in which the mover desired the ending of the war “met behoud onzer volkenrechtelijke stelling op Sumatra.” If emphasis were laid on that, it seemed to him that there was only one means by which the end could be reached, namely by the subjection of Atjeh. He therefore ventured to ask the mover whether his speech on the one hand and his motion on the other could be conducive to the object he set himself in the motion; and the answer, it appeared to him, could not be other than negative.
Reception
The Minister of Colonies Cremer took up Van Karnebeek’s formula in his own reply, saying that the only thing in the motion that attracted him was the closing phrase about the volkenrechtelijke stelling, and that he agreed entirely with the answer given to it by the deputy from Utrecht, namely that the only answer was to be given in two words: “onderwerp Atjeh.”
Van Kol answered on 17 November with the argument set out under the heading Onze volkenrechtelijke stelling, contending that what Van Karnebeek appeared not to know was that on withdrawal the Dutch had, in point of international law, nothing to fear for their authority on Sumatra, since the partition of Africa had compelled the civilised nations to admit into the law of nations the system of the so-called kring van belang (sphere of interest).
Troelstra complained on the same day that he had been interrupted by Van Karnebeek and that it would be said he could not answer the interruption; the President requested him not to dwell on interruptions.
Van Karnebeek voted against the motion.
See Also
- Atjeh debate in the Tweede Kamer (16-17 November 1897)
- Van Kol’s motion of 16 November 1897
- H. van Kol
- Abraham Kuyper
- J. T. Cremer
- Kring van belang
- Sumatra Tractaat (1871)
- 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. 30–31, 51, 64–65, 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.