We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 24 August 2009
Ever since its establishment Indonesia has been notorious for its disregard of international law and world opinion as expressed through the United Nations. The recent policy of confrontation to crush Malaysia is merely the culmination of a series of posturings by Asia's sawdust Caesar.
As long ago as early 1945, in the latter days of the Japanese occupation, Soekarno was outlining his views of the Indonesia to be. In February and May of that year he participated in a conference of Indonesian nationalists summoned by the Japanese to discuss the State to be created. Soekarno spoke in a way that is more expected of predatory imperialists than of anti-colonialists believing in selfdetermination. Like Mussolini, who was always harking back to ancient Rome, Soekarno referred to an ancient empire of the Middle Ages which he wished to see revived. Indonesia was to be a restoration of this, consisting not merely of the Dutch colonies which the Japanese occupied, but also of Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak, Borneo, Brunei, the Philippines and southern Thailand. In those days at least, Soekarno paid lip service to both international law and the realities of a political situation, recognising that in so far as Malaya, Singapore and the Philippines were concerned there might be difficulties with the United Kingdom and the United States.
1. See Background to Indonesia's Policy towards Malaysia, Federal Dept. of Information, Kuala Lumpur) 1964 (reprinted from Yamin, , Naskah Persiapan Undang-Undang Dasar 1945), pp. 19–22Google Scholar. See also Yamin's statement, which Soekarno supported, pp. 1–11.
2. Straits Times, 09 15, 1964.Google Scholar
3. Aug. 17, 1945, Text of proclamation in Taylor, Indonesian Independence & the U.N., 1960, p. 3Google Scholar. For a background account, see Aziz, , Japan's Colonialism and Indonesia, 1955, esp. Ch.4.Google Scholar
4. See Chen, , The International Law of Recognition, 1951, pp. 3–4Google Scholar: Oppenheim, . International Law, Vol. 1, s.71.Google Scholar
5. Oct. 5–11, 1964, Press Release of Consulate General of U.A.R., Singapore, s. IV, para. 5, s. V, para. 2.
6. See Wehl, , The Birth of Indonesia, 1948Google Scholar, Gerbrandy, , Indonesia, 1950Google Scholar; van Mook, , The Stakes of Democracy in Southeast Asia, 1950.Google Scholar
7. Taylor, , op. cit., App. 1, p. 449.Google Scholar
8. Ibid., App. 3, p. 464.
9. Ibid., App. 4, p. 468.
10. See van Asbeck, , “The Birth and Decline of the Netherlands Indonesian Union”, 7 Year Book of World Affairs, 1953, p. 204.Google Scholar
11. The Times, 08 3, 1964.Google Scholar
12. Apr. 25, 1950, Taylor, , op. cit., pp. 414–5.Google Scholar
13. Aug. 15, 1950.
14. Memo, of Indonesian Embassy, London, Fifth Anniversary of Indonesian Independence, 1950, p. 10.Google Scholar
15. Taylor, , op. cit., p. 266.Google Scholar
16. Aug. 25, Nov. 2, 1949; and Aug. 1954.
17. Independence Day Address, 1950, Taylor, , op. cit. pp. 440, n.8, 442.Google Scholar
18. Loc. cit., n.14, above, p. 12.
19. See “Measures Taken by The Indonesian Government Against Netherlands Enterprises,”, editorial article, 5 Netherlands Int. Law Rev., 1958, p. 227Google Scholar; Domke, , “Indonesian Nationalization Measures Before Foreign Courts”, 54 Amer. J. Int. Law 1960, p. 305CrossRefGoogle Scholar; and papers by Rolin, McNair and Verdross, in 6 Netherlands Int. Law Rev., 1959, p. 217.Google Scholar
20. See Roth, , The Minimum Standard of International Law Applied to Aliens, 1949.Google Scholar
21. The Times, 10 10, 1961.Google Scholar
22. Ibid.
23. Ibid. Aug. 1, 1962.
24. Through The Looking Glass, Ch. 6.
25. The Times, 08 18, 1962.Google Scholar
26. Aug. 3, 1961.
27. Subandrio, , Indonesia on the March, 1963 Vol. 2, p. 235Google Scholar. See also New York Times, 11 13, 1961.Google Scholar
28. Ibid., p. 236.
29. See Modelski, , “Indonesia and the Malaysia Issue”, 18 Year Book of World Affairs 1964, p. 128. at p. 138.Google Scholar
30. The Times, 10 2, 6, 17, 1964, Apr. 11, 1965.Google Scholar
31. U.N. Press Release, SG/1583, Sept. 13. 1963.
32. Modelski, , loc. cit., p. 135.Google Scholar
33. See establishment and dissolution of original United Arab Republic
34. See attitude of United Nations to Syria after withdrawal from United Arab Republic.
35. See example of Siam/Thailand, and Tanganyika/Zanzibar/Tanzania.
36. See review by Singapore's State Advocate-General of Groves, ' Constitution of Malaysia, 1964. in 30Google ScholarMalayan Law Journal 1964, p. xcvii.Google Scholar
37. Decision of Thomson, C.J. in Kelantan v. Malaya, 29 M.L.J. 1963, 355.Google Scholar
37a. Letter to Thant, U, 01 27. 1965Google Scholar, pointing out that Malaya had merely changed its name.
38. See Green, , “Gentlemen's Agreements and the Security Council”, 13 Current Legal Problems 1960, p. 255CrossRefGoogle Scholar, and “Representation in the Security Council — A Survey”, 11 Indian Year Book of International Affairs, 1962, p. 48.Google Scholar
39. Art. 4. See Advisory Opinion on Admission to the United Nations, I.C.J. Reports 1947–48, p. 57, at p. 62.Google Scholar
40. Ibid., p. 60.
41. Green, , loc. cit., 1960 pp. 257, 259, etc.Google Scholar
42. Charter, Arts. 10, 11, 13, 14; see Johnson, , “Effect of Resolutions of the General Assembly”, 32 Brit. Y. B. Int. Law, 1955/1996, p. 97Google Scholar; Sloan, , “The Binding Force of a ‘Recommendation’ of the General Assembly”, 25Google Scholaribid., 1948, p.1; Virally, , “La valeur juridique des recommendations des organisations internationales”, 2 Annuaire Français de Droit International, 1956, p. 66CrossRefGoogle Scholar. See, on Security Council recommendations, Corfu Channel Case (Prelim. Obj.), I.C.J. Reports 1948, p. 14, pp. 31–2Google Scholar (Separate Opinion), and on those of General Assembly, Judge Lauterpacht in South-West Africa – Voting Procedure, ibid.1955, p. 67, at pp. 115–122.
43. The Times, 09 18, 1964.Google Scholar
44. Straits Times, 09 19, 23, 1964.Google Scholar
45. The Times, 10 30, 1964.Google Scholar
46. Straits Times, 11 27, 1964, Apr. 19, 1965.Google Scholar
47. Loc. cit., n 38 above. When Malaysia did take her seat, the Soviet Union, having supported the arrangement, condemned it for terminating eastern European representation, Straits Times, 03, 17, 1965.Google Scholar
48. See Green, , “Legal Aspects of the Sino-Indian Border Disputes”, 3 The China Quarterly, 1960, p. 42, at pp. 47 et seqq.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
49. Tandon, , International Law, 1965, p. 296.Google Scholar
50. The Times, 04 11, 1965.Google Scholar
51. Ibid., Apr. 12, 1965.
52. Straits Times, 04 19, 1965.Google Scholar
53. Ibid., Dec. 30, 31, 1964, Jan. 1, 1965.
54. Ibid., Nov. 27, 1964, Apr. 19, 1965.
