​1


the objective 

On 27 December 1949 in The Hague, the Netherlands transferred sovereignty over Indonesia to the Federal Republic of the United States of Indonesia.

At that time the Moluccas were an autonomous people within the eastern state of that federation. However, the transfer of sovereignty suffered from a hidden defect: Indonesia signed that transfer in order to acquire the status of a sovereign state, recognized by the United Nations, but with the intention of liquidating the federation as soon as possible in order to turn it into a unitary state.

The transfer also suffered from a non-hidden defect, although this was only visible to people with an understanding of constitutional federal law: the federal constitution was a legal mess. It contained articles that gave the President of the Federal Republic absolute power to dismantle the federation, and there were articles missing that should have prevented that.

Because the United Nations wanted to bring Indonesia in as its sixtieth member and because the Netherlands did not want to damage the economic ties with the new Republic, the completely erroneous character of the constitution was not addressed. Within eight months the federation was dissolved and exchanged for a unified state.

The Moluccas were occupied. Resistance was suppressed by military force. Since then the Moluccas have lived under conditions of oppression, exploitation and violation of human rights. Any request to the United Nations to free the Moluccas has so far been fruitless.

This project of the Federalism for Peace Foundation approaches this Moluccan issue as a cold case that has never been properly investigated and with new insights appeals to the Human Rights Council of the United Nations to return sovereign freedom to the Moluccas.

On April 12th 2020 at 7:01 am we sent the Report and Complaint to the Human Rights Council of the United Nations in Geneva.

2


our team

Anthony Saija is our project manager


He is the founder of Moluccan Worldwide Network/Th!nk@lpha




Thommy Soumokil


After the murder of his father Dr. Chris Soumokil by the general regime of Indonesia, Thommy came to the Netherlands at the age of 10 with his mother and aunt.



3


​​​crowdfunding

On February 3, 2020, we started the Crowdfunding Campaign. You're welcome to support our project by donating money. 

READ HERE the English text of our Crowdfunding.

Support our project

Free the Moluccans

4


documents

5


comments on the report

Open letter from mr. Michiel Bijkerk (English)

THE MOLUCCA​N CASE AND THE CREDIBILITY OF THE UNITED NATIONS

The U.N. is irrelevant. When Bush-II said this back in 2001 or so, it was hard to swallow. Now it is a fact. Launched after World War II, the U.N. first began pushing the decolonization process. One could argue that this was a success. After all, many former colonies have become independent countries. At the time this was considered a great step forward towards peace, democracy and human rights. However, now 75 years later, it can no longer be maintained that this was indeed a success. The situation in many newly independent countries could hardly be worse. They have become economic and social disasters, corruption is rife and the level of democracy, peace and human rights is depressive to say the least, resulting in inevitable mass-migrations.

We need a completely new understanding of reality. Take the Moluccan case, for instance. That’s in the news again now due to a recent complaint to the Human Rights Council by an independent research-foundation (Federalism for Peace Foundation), stating the obvious and undeniable truth that Indonesia has been colonizing the South-Moluccas for 70 years now in full view and with the tacit approval of the U.N., which is supposed to promote decolonization!

Well, if the U.N. wants to be taken seriously, this is clearly not the way to go about it.

And, by the way, the following countries are among the members of the Human Rights Council: Afghanistan, Democratic Republic of Congo, Somalia, Libya, Mauritania, Indonesia and Venezuela. The first four of these are more or less in a permanent state of war. And while it is true that Mauritania finally abolished slavery in 1981 (yes, we kid you not), it was only made punishable there by law in 2007. And estimates are that there are still tens of thousands of slaves there. Indonesia has been colonizing the South-Moluccas for 70 years now and Venezuela, our beloved neighbor, has been accused of grave human rights violations by this very same Human Rights Council, while happily continuing to be a full member of this same U.N.-body!

If the U.N. believes to be boosting its credibility in this way, they are living in fantasy land. And as a matter of fact, it is not only the U.N. that has lost its credibility. We only have to listen to Trump for five minutes to understand that the World is in deep trouble. A total collapse is to be expected. Add to this the severe and obscene inequality of wealth and income, the dire threat to the environment with humanity’s very survival in the balance, the new arms race and, last but not least, severe corruption and rising criminality in an increasingly overpopulated world.

And then in the midst of all this the Corona-virus has decided to go for a stroll around the globe.

So, it must be time to die, don’t you think?

No, because all of a sudden there is this Report on the South-Moluccas, drafted by a number of dedicated people who have worked for years to be able to file a well-founded and detailed complaint with the Human Rights Council against Indonesia, aiming to pave the way for the Moluccan people to finally be given their own independent state. And they did this for the love of Truth and Justice. So while the night is pitch-dark, there is still one twinkling star left. There is no need to die. For if there are still people who work this hard for a just cause, there is still hope.

However, the Report is much more than this. It focuses on the Moluccan case and explains in detail why the Moluccas have always had the right to form their own state. But it also gives the U.N. a chance to become relevant again. To stop glossing over the human rights violations by its own members and to expel Indonesia, if it does not grant the Moluccans the freedom they are entitled to. And the Report offers more suggestions on how the U.N. may rehabilitate itself by doing what this World-Organization was originally set up for. It is better to have fewer members and be relevant than to maintain all of them and being forced to play the clown!

It is absolutely necessary that everybody should read this Report. Google it under the Federalism for Peace Foundation. Title: ‘From Cold Case to Hot Case’.

Mr. M. Bijkerk
attorney-at-law

Bonaire, Caribbean Netherlands

Open brief van mr. Michiel Bijkerk (Nederlands)

DE MOLUKSE KWESTIE EN DE GELOOFWAARDIGHEID VAN DE VERENIGDE NATIES

De V.N. zijn niet meer relevant. Toen Bush-II dit omstreeks 2001 zei, was dat een bittere pil. Nu is het een feit. Opgericht in het kielzog van de Tweede Wereldoorlog is allereerst veel aandacht besteed aan het dekolonisatieproces. Als men wil, kan men dat een succes noemen. Vele voormalige koloniën zijn immers onafhankelijk geworden. Dit werd destijds gezien als een stap voorwaarts naar meer vrede, democratie en mensenrechten. Nu na 75 jaar is echter niet vol te houden dat dit inderdaad zo’n succes was. Vele nieuwe onafhankelijke landen zijn er zeer slecht aan toe. Sociaal/economisch een ramp, qua corruptie zijn ze kampioen en qua democratie, vrede en mensenrechten, is het huilen geblazen. De bevolking trekt er dan ook en masse weg.  

Een hele nieuwe kijk op de werkelijkheid is nodig. Neem de Molukse kwestie. Die rakelt thans weer op, omdat er onlangs een klacht is ingediend bij de Human Rights Council door een onafhankelijke onderzoek-stichting (Federalism for Peace Foundation), waarin onomwonden de waarheid wordt gezegd dat Indonesië de Zuid-Molukken nu al 70 jaar koloniseert onder het toeziend en zwijgend oog van de V.N. die nu juist dekolonisatie zou moeten bevorderen!

Kijk, zo schiet het niet op als de V.N. serieus genomen wil worden.

En, à propos, in die Human Rights Council zitten onder andere de volgende leden: Afghanistan, Democratische Republiek van Congo, Somalië, Libië, Mauritania, Indonesië en Venezuela. In de eerste vier landen heerst min of meer een voortdurende oorlogstoestand en in Mauritania werd in 1981 dan de slavernij afgeschaft (ja, u leest het goed) maar pas in 2007 strafbaar gesteld, terwijl de schatting is dat er nog steeds tienduizenden slaven zijn. Indonesië koloniseert de Zuid-Molukken nu al 70 jaar en Venezuela, ons buurland, wordt door de Human Rights Council zelf beschuldigd van ernstige mensenrechtenschendingen, maar blijft toch rustig lid van de Human Rights Council!

Als de V.N. zo denkt geloofwaardig te blijven, dan zitten er een groot aantal schroeven los. Het is overigens niet alleen de V.N. die niet meer geloofwaardig zijn. We hoeven slechts 5 minuten naar Trump te luisteren om te begrijpen dat we als wereld in een diepe crisis zitten. Dit kan niet zo lang meer goed gaan. Voeg daarbij grove ongelijkheid van inkomen en rijkdom, de ernstige bedreiging van het milieu en daardoor van de mensheid zelf, de nieuwe wapenwedloop, corruptie en stijgende criminaliteit in een wereld die steeds meer overbevolkt raakt.

En dan loopt daar tussendoor ook nog even een Corona-virus rond.

Ja, het is tijd om te sterven, vindt u niet?

Nee, want daar is dan toch plotseling een Rapport over de Zuid-Molukken waar een aantal mensen jaren aan hebben gewerkt om een gedegen aanklacht tegen Indonesië in te kunnen dienen bij de Human Rights Council met als doel het daarheen te leiden dat het Molukse volk eindelijk een eigen onafhankelijke staat kan krijgen. Dit uit liefde voor de Waarheid en Rechtvaardigheid. Als de nacht pikzwart is, fonkelt er dus toch nog een ster. We hoeven nog niet te sterven. Als mensen zich zo inzetten voor een rechtvaardig doel, dan is er nog hoop.

Het Rapport is nog veel meer dan dat. Het focust op de Molukse kwestie en legt haarfijn uit dat de Molukken altijd recht hebben gehad op hun eigen land. Maar het geeft de V.N. ook een kans om weer relevant te worden. Om niet langer de mensenrechtenschendingen van haar leden te accepteren, maar om – als concreet voorbeeld – Indonesië uit de V.N. te zetten, als het de Molukkers niet hun vrijheid geeft waar ze recht op hebben. En in het Rapport wordt op nog veel meer manieren aangegeven hoe de V.N. zich kan rehabiliteren door te doen waarvoor deze Wereldorganisatie is opgericht. Liever minder leden en relevant dan veel leden en clownesk!

Het is absoluut nodig dat men dit Rapport leest. Google het bij de Federalism for Peace Foundation.     

mr. M. Bijkerk
advocaat
Bonaire

6


video

7


QUestions and answers

After reading the report you may have some questions, please LET US KNOW, we will give here the answers.

Did the investigators consult/coordinate with Maluku?

In order to make the investigation objective and independent, there was no substantive consultation with Moluccas. Reason: in order to carry weight with the Human Rights Council, it must be prevented that this investigation could be dismissed as an extension of a Moluccan action group. Coordination with Maluku after the publication of the report remains at the same level. In other words, the Federalism for Peace Foundation remains objectively and independently involved in the aim of this report, which is to restore the self-determination and sovereign independence of the Moluccan people. But the Foundation itself will not engage in activism.

Are the Moluccas after their declaration of independence on April 25th 1950 really independent?

The Moluccas had every right to declare their independence on 25 April 1950. That right was enshrined in a) arrangements that had previously been concluded between the Netherlands and the Moluccas (ZMR), b) the reservations they had made when joining the Negara Indonesia Timur, c) the international right to self-determination and d) the arrangements that formed the basis of the transfer of sovereignty on 27 December 1949. The declaration of independence as such was thus legitimate.

But ... declaring yourself independent has no legal meaning if it is not recognised. You are then only de facto independent. You are only legally – de iure - an independent sovereign state when it is recognized that you are an independent sovereign state. And not 'just' a people within a state of someone else.

In practice, a people can be legally recognized as an independent sovereign state in two ways. Either by winning a freedom struggle. This took place on a large scale after the Second World War, for example in the colonies of England. All but one of them fought for freedom. When they had gained power, other countries decided to recognise the resistance fighters or rebels or separatists as legal government. Problem solved. The other method is the transfer of sovereignty. This took place in the Dutch process of decolonization in December 1949. Under the leadership of the UN, the Netherlands transferred sovereignty over the territory and peoples of Indonesia to the United States of Indonesia. Then, and only then (and not on August 17, 1945 as the Indonesians claim until today) Indonesia became an independent state legally. But in that way the UN transferred the Moluccas from one colonizer to another. With all the misery that followed.

Because the Moluccan struggle for freedom did not lead to a legally recognized independent state and will not have that intended result in the future either, all that remains is to force Indonesia to hand over the sovereignty of the territory and of the people to the Moluccas themselves. In exactly the same way as in December 1949. But in the opposite sense. Hence the use of the legal term 'actus contrarius'. You don't need to know Latin to understand what that means: 'a reverse action'. And the only organisation that can enforce that is the UN itself. Not only because the UN was responsible for what went wrong, but also because there is simply no other body that can enforce it. In this case, the UN represents the international legal community.  

So: the declaration of independence was legitimate, but unfortunately the constitutional status of the Moluccas is that they are not an independent sovereign state de iure until this is established with signatures under a transfer of sovereignty. And that is the request explained in detail in the Requisitory of Chapter 15.  

It is important that this is widely understood. Otherwise, wrong legal interpretations will have a negative impact on the proceedings before the Human Rights Council. That procedure is already difficult enough. Do not bring false stories into circulation but as one people stand behind the report. 

Why do the researchers advise for federal state formation after the restoration of Moluccan independence?

The researchers are experts in federal state formation. Sovereign independent Moluccas as a unitary state do not stand a chance in the globalizing world. Globalisation has the tendency for nation states (unitary states) to become sovereign member states of federal states. Already 40% of the world's population lives in 27 federal states. The future of free Moluccas lies - according to the researchers - in federal state formation together with partners within Oceania.

What kind of lobby is further going on?

The Federalism for Peace Foundation doesn't lobby. That's a job and a business for the Moluccans. Think of this process towards sovereign independence as a two-sided medal. A legal and a political one. The Foundation takes care of the legal side by analyzing facts and arguments that have never before been presented in publications about the Moluccas. The Moluccans bring political pressure to bear on the Human Rights Council by standing behind the report as one people. In what way? By organising this neatly and effectively in the Moluccas themselves. Closing ranks. The Foundation has called Mena and is now waiting for the Muria of the Moluccans themselves. The Foundation has done its job. Now it is up to the Moluccans.

The investigators propose that the Moluccas have to participate in a federation. What is a federalism?

  1. Federalization is not a legal but an organizational matter. It is then recorded in a document. If it is a public federation the document is a federal constitution. If it is a private federation, it will be a deed by a notary, concerning associations, or cooperatives, or foundations, or social organizations, or corporations. Whether or not public authorities may participate in a private federation depends on the rules that do or do not allow them to conclude agreements with non-public bodies.
  2. One closes federations because interests that cannot (any longer) be represented by single parties are entrusted to a body that can take care of those interests. Parties entering into a federation entrust some of their powers to that federal body (a) without losing anything and (b) with something extra, namely that the federal body not only takes over the representation of some of their interests but also adds value to them. Entrusting powers implies that the federal parties do not lose any powers. Their powers remain but become latent/dormant. If the federal body deals with them incorrectly, the parties can make those powers work/alive for them again, for example by amending the constitution or deed, or by dissolving the federation. 
  3. There are 27 public federations which together house 40% of the world's population. The largest is India with over 1 billion inhabitants spread over 28 states, with 22 official languages. The largest private federation is the International Olympic Committee, to which all the world's sports organisations are linked (including football) and which represents around 5 billion people.
  4. Whether a federation is strong or weak depends on two factors: (a) is the federation designed according to standards and (b) is the federation run by sensible people? The more you tamper with the standards and with the appointment of those who lead them, the weaker the federation will be. If the weakness is so serious that the federation disintegrates, it is called a 'failed federation'. 
  5. The most important standard is the so-called vertical separation of powers. This is expressed in a constitution or deed in the sense: 'Powers that have not been transferred to the federal body remain powers of the federating parties'. In the case of a public federation, the countries that close the federation are the federating parties. In the case of a private federation, it is the private organisations, including companies. They therefore remain autonomous, sovereign and independent for all matters and subjects that are not entrusted to the federal body.
  6. This implies that, when concluding a federation, only the powers of the federal body must be determined. All other powers remain with the individual parties that make up the federation. This implies that the list of powers for the federal body is (a) limited and (b) exhaustive. In other words, the federal body cannot and may not take top-down decisions on a subject that is not on that exhaustive list. 
  7. Of course, in practice, there will be differences of opinion on the precise interpretation of the scope of a competence entrusted to the federal body. In a public federation, this is resolved by the trias politica (the separation of the legislative, executive and judicial powers) governed by a system of checks and balances which ensures that the separation remains monitored. The concepts of trias politica plus checks and balances do not fit in a private federation. Differences of opinion about what a private federal body may or may not do as a result of differences of interpretation about the scope of a power must be resolved in a different way. For example, by including in the notarial deed that a commission of independent persons with a binding opinion resolves disputes. 
  8. For concluding a federation these aspects are the most important ones:
    (a) The parties who think about concluding a federation must consult on the usefulness and necessity of a federation.
    (b) They concentrate on the question: what limitative set of our own powers should we entrust to a federal body, assuming that this would better serve the interests of our own country than if we each try to look after those interests on our own?
    (c) They do not spend a minute on the question of what powers remain with the federal parties. These are, by definition, all powers that are not entrusted to the federal body.
    (d) An important aspect of the discussion on whether or not countries are willing to join a federation is financial and economic in nature. The creation of the first federal state in 1787-1789, the American one, was possible because Article 10 of the Constitution stipulated that from then on, the debts of the states that joined the federation were debts of the federation. Those states could therefore start with a clean financial slate. 

What was the first reaction from the Human Rights Council?

Message to the Moluccan people about retaliation by Indonesia

The Federalism for Peace Foundation has sent on 12 April a report of over 200 pages to the Human Rights Council of the United Nations. It contains new facts and arguments why the United Nations can and should return the right to self-determination stolen by Sukarno to the Moluccas.

The report is now before the Human Rights Council in Geneva. One of the measures taken by this Council is to send the report to Indonesia with a request for a response. Another measure is that they will severely punish Indonesia if Indonesia retaliates on the Moluccas. For example, arresting Moluccans and punishing them if they want to do something with that report. Retaliation is strictly forbidden. 

But the Human Rights Council can only act against reprisals if they are known. That is why we ask: register all violent actions of Indonesia against Moluccans now that this report is known in the Moluccas and by Indonesia. Record: date, place, nature of the violence, who are the victims, what happened to them. 

Send this information to: think.alpha@gmail.com. He will then make sure that the Federalism for Peace Foundation receives this information so that they can be added to the proceedings at the Human Rights Council.

Yours sincerely,
Anthony Saija

Message to the Government in the Moluccas about retaliation by Indonesia 

On 12 April 2020, the Federalism for Peace Foundation sent a report of over 200 pages to the Human Rights Council of the United Nations. It contains new facts and arguments why the United Nations can and should return the right to self-determination stolen by Sukarno to the Moluccas.

The report is now before the Human Rights Council in Geneva. One of the measures of this Council is to send the report to Indonesia with a request for a reaction. Another measure is that they will severely punish Indonesia if Indonesia retaliates on the Moluccas. For example, arresting and punishing Moluccans if they want to do something with that report. Retaliation is strictly forbidden.

We assume that you, as the government in the Moluccas, will ensure that Indonesia does not retaliate against Moluccans and will guarantee that they can freely read the report of the Federalism for Peace Foundation. That freedom must mean that they can talk about it with each other in meetings.

Any reprisals carried out by Indonesia - with or without the cooperation of the government in the Moluccas - are recorded and added to the proceedings of the Human Rights Council. 

Kind regards,
Anthony Saija

 

Is the RMS to be seen as a state?

There has been unrest in the social media about the Foundation's view on whether the RMS should be seen as a state. It's about this passage:

‘Many publications on the history of the South Moluccas conclude that they declared their rightful independence on 25 April 1950. Our report confirms the correctness of that conclusion. From a legal point of view, however, this is of little relevance. To be an independent sovereign state requires more than just a self-declaration of independence.’ 

We say four things;
1.         We consider the proclamation of the sovereign Moluccas lawful.
2.         From an international legal point of view, such a proclamation is a necessary but not yet sufficient condition for a people to be recognized as a state.
3.         This must be done in order to obtain the international recognition of being an independent state. In any case, this requires effective authority over territory and population. In addition, recognition of other sovereign states is necessary. There is currently no state in the world that recognizes the RMS as a sovereign state.
4.         This report is the first step towards that international recognition.

In short, it is not the Foundation's choice whether or not to declare the RMS a state. We simply note that, on the basis of principles of international law, the RMS cannot use the legal designation 'state'.

We have included this passage so explicitly, because we have looked at the best legal road we could take. Our preference was to file an indictment with the International Court of Justice in The Hague. As a foundation, we do not have access to that court. It's reserved for states. We could have transferred the report to the RMS, which could take it to the Court. But the RMS lacks recognition as a sovereign state by the United Nations. So even the RMS would be at a closed door in The Hague.

This left only one possibility. Namely the one we have now chosen, the road to the Human Rights Council in Geneva. We thought it wiser not to include the RMS in this approach, because that way we could offer a completely independent report. The RMS, on the other hand, has its hands completely free to organize political pressure.

Copyright 2020, Federalism for Peace Foundation

Disclaimer  |  Privacy

>