Post colonial relations

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