Post colonial relations

My salute to Ms. Nanny Djali for her letter in this paper's Nov. 9, 1994 issue. She did what many of us ought to do to counter Mr. de Kort's contorted perception of history.

Every time one of his letters appears in The Jakarta Post I have a strong urge to blast back, but each time I was restrained by the realization: Why waste so much energy, emotion and time on this issue and his nonsense. But reading Ms. Djali's well-founded and eloquent response I cannot refrain from joining the fray with some remarks of my own.

As a veteran of the independence struggle and witness to many of the events leading to the collapse of the Dutch colonial regime, I was particularly offended by his assertion that independence was not won by the Indonesian military but solely by the skill and success of the Indonesian diplomats/negotiators who, according to Mr. de Kort, were so clever because of their Dutch education. I cannot find anything more ridiculous.

The Indonesian National Military Forces were very poorly equipped, but we still succeeded in disrupting the Royal Netherlands East Indies Army mining operations on several occasions, ambushing and destroying their convoys, patrols and troop concentrations. Mr. de Kort needs only to inquire at the Nederlanse gravendienst (or whatever its name) as to the number of Netherlands war dead buried in several cemeteries.

Many of our diplomats, indeed most of them were, Dutch educated in that period. But their professional skill and performance in defeating their Dutch adversaries were not the direct product of education but more of their strong motivation that was, in turn, inspired by the conviction that they were fighting for a just cause.

More over their victories at the negotiating table were only made possible because their position was bolstered by the achievements of the military in the field, for example the large scale attack led by Lt. Col. Soeharto ousting Dutch forces from the RI capital of Yogyakarta on the eve of the UN mediated cease fire.

The myths cherished by colonial types like Mr. de Kort are typically the product of their morbid superiority complexes and arrogance.

I join Ms Djali's call for more honesty and fairness in judging past differences, at the same time banishing them from our present frame of mind, clearing the way towards building new, healthier and mutually beneficent relations which are already underway, spearheaded by post-colonial exponents on both sides.

R. SUNARYO

Jakarta