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.

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. 

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.

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.

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.