“The Netherlands and Indonesia:
A Shared History and a Future Partnership”
Gebaarlezing
Lecture by
Dr. Hassan Wirajuda
Den Haag, 23 November 2010
„Gebaarlezing‟ by Dr. Hassan Wirajuda, 23 November 2010, Den Haag
Your Excellency Mr. Bernard Bot,
Excellencies,
Distinguished Participants,
Ladies and Gentlemen,
It is a distinct honor and privilege for me to be here in the midst of so
many friends of Indonesia. That so many of you have spared the time to
come here is the best proof that the friendship between our two countries is
alive and well and has withstood the shock of recent events.
I came here in the name of that friendship—and to share my thoughts on
how our two countries can manage their important relationship… and how
we can derive lessons from our centuries-old relations so that we can
nurture a strategic partnership now and in the future.
Hence, I have chosen as the topic of my presentation, “The Netherlands
and Indonesia: A Shared History and a Future Partnership.”
But first I wish to thank Mr. Bernard Bot, former Minister of Foreign
Affairs of the Royal Kingdom of Netherlands and a good friend of mine,
for sponsoring and organizing this forum.
A true friend of Indonesia, he has not only a deep understanding of my
country but also the goodwill and determination to promote mutually
beneficial cooperation between the Netherlands and Indonesia.
It was a great privilege for me, in my previous capacity as Minister of
Foreign Affairs of the Republic Indonesia, to work closely with him in
expanding and deepening all aspects of the bilateral relations between the
Netherlands and Indonesia.
Indonesia will never forget that during his official visit to Indonesia in
August 2005 he delivered a historic statement that “on moral and political
2
„Gebaarlezing‟ by Dr. Hassan Wirajuda, 23 November 2010, Den Haag
grounds”, the Netherlands recognized Indonesia’s independence as
proclaimed on the 17 August 1945.
That was a major peak in the history of our bilateral relations: it removed
an enormous psychological barrier to our efforts at strengthening bilateral
relations between our countries. And it greatly helped raise cooperation
between the Netherlands and Indonesia to a higher level.
My collaboration with Mr. Bernard Bot led to the conclusion of a
Comprehensive Partnership Agreement during our respective
stewardships. We agreed that the declaration on the Comprehensive
Partnership would be signed during the state visit of President Yudhoyono
to the Kingdom of Netherlands, which was scheduled on 6-8 of October
2010.
Unfortunately that visit had to be postponed for reasons that we are now
familiar with. Both sides were greatly dismayed at this unhappy turn of
events—but it did not erase the fact that both sides had worked hard and
sincerely for years to craft that Comprehensive Partnership. That visit
would have been the crowning moment of years spent on a labour of love.
That is has been postponed does not mean that it will not happen.
In my view, therefore, the postponement of President Yudhoyono’s visit
should not and in fact does not hamper our bilateral relations. A clear
proof of the durability of our friendship is that I am here talking frankly
about the postponement.
Indeed, the postponement of the President’s visit only underscores the
urgency for us to sustain a sincere, frank and open dialogue with a view to
promoting mutual understanding between our two countries—so that,
indeed, we can raise our relations to a higher plain.
I am therefore grateful and humbled by the magnanimous gesture of Mr.
Bernard Bot and his team of keeping to the schedule of this lecture as
3
„Gebaarlezing‟ by Dr. Hassan Wirajuda, 23 November 2010, Den Haag
planned. Thus today we have the opportunity to reflect more on the
relationship between the Netherlands and Indonesia.
We need to do more of this kind of reflection. For in spite of the several
centuries during which our respective histories were in tangent, we must
admit that we do not know each other enough.
To me the fundamental reason behind the postponement of President
Yudhoyono’s visit was that both sides could not read each other’s feelings.
Each side had no clue as to how the other would react, how the other
would react to the same facts on the ground. That would not have
happened if we knew each other better than we do now.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
My Friends,
I am here to contribute in a modest way to getting our two countries to
know each other better. And I am here on my own.
As the Foreign Minister of Indonesia for eight and half years, I used to
speak on behalf of my country. Not today. Today I wish to speak my mind
as a neutral observer, with the sole intention of contributing to the
transformation of our shared history so that it will be of service to both
sides in practical ways.
Born after the end of the Second World War, I have no personal
experience or memory of the colonial era—when we were on the opposite
sides of the equation. I don’t have that historical baggage.
But I have a great intellectual interest in the progression of our relationship
over the centuries. I want to learn how that past relationship can be
transformed into a valuable asset that will help our countries face the
challenges of the 21st century.
4
„Gebaarlezing‟ by Dr. Hassan Wirajuda, 23 November 2010, Den Haag
This relationship dates back to the establishment of the Vereenigde Oost
Indische Compagnie (VOC) on the 20th of March 1602. The prime motive
was bluntly mercenary. That is why the VOC was conferred the exclusive
right to trade in the East Indies.
But VOC was not merely a commercial enterprise. It was also a political
and maritime power that was reinforced by the navy of the Dutch
Republic. Part of its mission was to challenge the Spanish and Portuguese
monopoly of trade in spices in the East Indies. It was also meant to
challenge the division of the maritime world between Spain and Portugal
on the basis of the Tordesillas Treaty of 1494.
Rejecting the notion of a divided maritime world, where all that lay West
of the Azores belonged to Spain and all that was east of the Azores
belonged to Portugal—Hugo Grotius, today recognized as the father of
international law, then a lawyer of the VOC, championed the concept of
Mare Liberum or Freedom of the Seas.
Unfortunately, Hugo Grotius also adopted key elements of the Tordesillas
Treaty, which justified rights of discovery, and allowing those considered
as infidels to be traded as slaves. To my mind, the Tordesillas Treaty
represents the genesis of colonialism.
As the spice trade in the East Indies became more and more profitable, and
also more and more competitive, especially with the English in the
Moluccas, Batavia and Banten, there was tremendous pressure on the VOC
to transform its activities from trade to monopoly, and from monopoly to
occupation, thereby fulfilling the dream of Governor General Jan
Pieterszoon Coen of the VOC of a colonial empire.
Thus more than half of the long night of the occupation of the Netherlands
Indies, from 1619 until 1942, was in fact under the VOC. As the sovereign
arm of the Republic and later on the Kingdom of the Netherlands, its prime
motive was profit, the making of wealth.
5
„Gebaarlezing‟ by Dr. Hassan Wirajuda, 23 November 2010, Den Haag
It was also that same motive that drove the second phase of Dutch
colonialism since the year of 1800. With the exception of the brief period
when the Netherlands pursued an ethical policy, Dutch occupation was
consistently characterized by this motive.
The colonial government was not much interested in the culture of its
colonies and did little to promote education, including the teaching of the
Dutch language. Less than 10 percent of the school-aged natives had
access to education or studied the Dutch language.
For the most part, local cultures were untouched leaving the local
languages, traditions and cultures relatively intact. That explains the
immense diversity of modern Indonesia and the great need for our national
motto: “Unity in Diversity”.
In contrast, the colonial policy of Spain aimed at erasing local cultures
through the imposition of Spanish culture on indigenous peoples and
children of mixed marriages. The British, proud of their culture and
language, educated the peoples of their colonies to think and speak like
themselves.
But the Dutch were preoccupied with wealth and took scant interest in the
cultures and languages of the natives. The result is that after more than 300
years of interaction, we do not know each other. We do not understand
each other.
Compare this now with the very brief occupation of Java and some other
parts of what is now the Indonesian archipelago by the British. My
impression is that the British got to know us better, as evidenced by the
classic book, “The History of Java,” written by the British Governor
General Thomas Stamford Raffles, a man of culture and himself an
anthropologist.
6
„Gebaarlezing‟ by Dr. Hassan Wirajuda, 23 November 2010, Den Haag
Thus the colonial government was caught unaware by the rise of
nationalism in the East Indies and the spread of a hunger for independence
among the natives.
First, there was the Budi Utomo, our first political society, founded in
1908, which we celebrate today as “the year of the awakening.” This was
followed by the Youth Pledge of 1928 that affirmed our essential national
unity. There were even open rebellions in the 1930s, the last of which was
ruthlessly suppressed by the colonial administration.
The establishment of Volkraad in the 1930s was clearly an act of
accommodation—but it was too little, too late.
And it was cancelled out by just one statement by the Governor General
van Mook of the Netherlands East Indies: he asserted in 1942 that
Indonesia needed 100 more years before it would be ready for
independence. He clearly meant that Indonesia would be ready for
independence in 2042 or 32 years from now. He was, of course, expressing
the prevailing view of the colonial administration right on the eve of the
Second World War, during the War, and even long after that.
During the Japanese occupation of the Netherlands East Indies, the Dutch
were completely in the dark about what was happening in the territory. In
fact, the situation became even more conducive to the ferment for
independence. In a relatively short period of time, over half a million
Indonesians underwent modern military training for the very first time. As
a result, the country quickly acquired 62 well trained battalions of PETA
or homeland guards.
Under the doctrine of “Asia for the Asians,” the Japanese military
authorities banned everything European, including the use of the Dutch
language. On the other hand, they encouraged the use of Bahasa Indonesia.
In the face of the Japanese changing fortunes of war, the nationalist
movement, led by Sukarno and Mohammad Hatta, was able to proclaim
7
„Gebaarlezing‟ by Dr. Hassan Wirajuda, 23 November 2010, Den Haag
Indonesian independence without Japanese sponsorship and even in spite
of Japanese objections.
In contrast to the Dutch, again, the British knew very well what was
happening in the archipelago as they maintained a small but effective
intelligence unit operating behind enemy lines.
Knowing the intensity of the nationalist movement and the passionate
longing of the Indonesian people for independence, the British were able
to take a more realistic position at the end of the Second World War: they
readily recognized Indonesia’s de facto independence as soon as the Allied
Forces landed in the country to disarm the Japanese military.
On the other hand, the Netherlands simply dismissed the independence of
Indonesia as illegal on the basis of a strict interpretation of Grotian
international law. So a revolutionary war broke out, which the Dutch
labeled as a domestic problem of the Netherlands Indies. At the height of
the armed conflict in 1947 and 1948, what the fighters of the Indonesian
Republic termed “military aggression” was justified by the Dutch as
“police action.”
Moreover the Dutch advanced the domestic jurisdiction argument on “the
Indonesian question” before the UN Security Council from 1947 to 1950.
In effect, the process of “diplomacy” and “struggle” that the Indonesian
Republic had to wage was a battle between the new national order, which
centres on the right to independence, and the new international order that
did not explicitly recognize this right. It was really a battle of legal
principles rather than a fight between nations. The crucial question was
whether subjugated peoples actually have the inalienable right to
independence.
The Preparatory Committee for Indonesian Independence adopted on 22
June 1945 the draft of the Preamble of the Indonesian Constitution—now
called the 1945 Constitution—which provides, in its very first sentence,
8
„Gebaarlezing‟ by Dr. Hassan Wirajuda, 23 November 2010, Den Haag
that: “Whereas independence is the inalienable right of every nation,
therefore colonialism on the face of the earth shall be abolished since it is
against humanity and justice.”
To declare independence as an inalienable right was something novel and
starkly against the grain of traditional Grotian international law. It did not
help that the United Nations Charter, which entered into force on 24
October 1945, did not give any clear meaning of the principle of selfdetermination, which is in one of its provisions.
Moreover, according to the travaux preparatoir of the United Nations
Conference on International Organization (UNCIO), self-determination did
not mean the outright grant of independence to colonial countries and
peoples as a matter of right. Consequently, independence was only
possible if the metropolitan powers agreed to it.
Naturally, like other colonial powers, the Netherlands supported this
interpretation of the legal issue.
So the Dutch position was the product of a mix of several factors: the
prevailing view that had been expressed by Governor General Van Mook,
a rigid interpretation of Grotian principle of international law and the
Dutch being completely uninformed on what transpired in Indonesia
during the three and a half years of Japanese military occupation. Of
course, the need for access to cheap raw materials for the post-war
reconstruction of the Netherlands was also a key factor.
Hence, the prolonged debate on whether Indonesia gained independence as
a result of the Proclamation of Independence of 17 August 1945 or
because of the transfer of sovereignty on 27 December 1949 should be
understood in the context of competing jurisprudence—on whether
independence is a matter of inalienable right, or the product of an
agreement, in this case the Round Table Agreement of 1949.
9
„Gebaarlezing‟ by Dr. Hassan Wirajuda, 23 November 2010, Den Haag
It took the United Nations twenty-two years to adopt a clear position—
when its Covenant of Political and Civil Rights of 1967 finally affirmed
that “all peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right
they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their
economic, social and cultural development.”
It took the Netherlands even longer, 60 years, to come to terms with this
reality. All along the Netherlands recognized the independence of
Indonesia not as proclaimed on 17 August 1945 but by virtue of a transfer
of sovereignty as a result of the Round Table Agreement of 1949.
That is why the statement made by then Foreign Minister Bernard Bot
when he visited Jakarta was exceedingly momentous. It made possible the
conclusion of a Comprehensive Partnership Agreement between the two
countries. The task today is to get the agreement formally signed, ratified
and successfully implemented.
The completion of that task, I am convinced, would make a great deal of
difference for both the Netherlands and Indonesia.
But first we must begin to make a vigorous effort to get to know each other
better.
It is in that spirit that I should like to tell you now a few things about what
Indonesia went through after proclaiming independence and what it has
become today.
Ladies and Gentlemen,
My Friends,
When we became a Republic in 1945, we were greeted with skepticism not
only in the Netherlands but elsewhere. After all, at that time, we had little
more than a flag, a song and a dream of occupying a respectable place in
the community of nations.
10
„Gebaarlezing‟ by Dr. Hassan Wirajuda, 23 November 2010, Den Haag
During the first two decades of the life of the Republic, we went through a
period of frenzied nation building and political instability. We seemed to
be proving the skeptics right.
But then came the President Soeharto’s New Order in the mid-1960s.
From that point on, the focus was on stability and economic
development—to the neglect of our political development. Human rights
were disregarded and the exercise of freedom of expression and political
rights were repressed.
And for all of three decades, this formula seemed to work. During that
period, Indonesia enjoyed an average annual economic growth of about
seven percent. But when the Asian Crisis broke out in 1997-1998, all the
weaknesses of our lack of political development and the concomitant lack
of accountability of public and corporate officials were laid bare.
Our economy plummeted to a negative growth of 13.5 percent. We
suffered not only economic chaos but also social turbulence and political
turmoil. National unity and security were in great peril. In short, we had a
multidimensional crisis in our hands. And again the skeptics had a field
day predicting the balkanization of Indonesia.
And again we proved the skeptics wrong. We launched an era of reformasi
during which we made our transition from authoritarian rule to a fully
democratic system.
Through reformasi we corrected our past mistakes by taking a balanced
approach towards both political and economic development. Reform was
carried out on four major pillars: (1) the pursuit of democratization; (2)
respect for human rights and upholding of the rule of law, including the
eradication of corruption, collusion and nepotism; (3) decentralization of
government; and (4) recovery from the financial and economic crisis.
11
„Gebaarlezing‟ by Dr. Hassan Wirajuda, 23 November 2010, Den Haag
As if the multidimensional crisis was not enough, Indonesia also had to
deal with the aftermath of natural disasters that consecutively struck us—
such as the earthquake and tsunami that decimated the population of Aceh
and Nias Island, the earthquakes in Jogjakarta, Central Java, West
Sumatera and Bengkulu and, recently, the flood and landslide in Wasior,
West Papua. And very recently the earthquake and tsunami in Mentawai
Island and the still ongoing eruption of Mount Merapi in Central Java.
But after twelve years of reformasi, we have become a great deal more
resilient. We have made extensive progress in major areas of reform. We
have, in fact, created a New Indonesia.
We have transformed ourselves from a military-dominated system to a
full-fledged democracy, the third largest in the world, after India and the
United States. Where we used to have an all-powerful executive branch of
government, a rubber-stamp parliament, and a judiciary beholden to the
executive, we now have a robust system of checks and balances.
Power-holders are now accountable to the people. The mass media enjoy
freedom of the press. We have a vibrant civil society that serves as gadfly
to government.
We have been holding free, fair and honest national and local elections on
a regular basis—including direct election of our President and Vice
President. This is in spite of the logistical nightmare that these elections
entail: we are dealing with 176 million registered voters spread over 6,000
inhabited islands, with around 600,000 polling stations, many of them
located in far-flung islands and ensconced in remote valleys between
mountain ranges.
No wonder the World Bank labeled Indonesia as the world capital for
elections: since 2003, we held more than 500 local elections. No single
month passed without local direct elections of provincial governors,
district heads or mayors. Decentralization has shortened the distance
12
„Gebaarlezing‟ by Dr. Hassan Wirajuda, 23 November 2010, Den Haag
between the people and those who govern, resulting in greater
accountability and more effective public service.
As our people gained familiarity with the democratic process, they also
became more mature voters, making them more impervious to money
politics, intimidation and other undemocratic political practices. We have
reached a point of no return in our political development. According to a
recent survey by an Australian institute, 72 percent of Indonesians believe
in democratic governance and only five percent still hanker for an
authoritarian government.
Like other democracies in transition, Indonesian democracy must prove
that it can deliver on development—that it can provide a better life for the
people. This is essential to the long-term viability of any democracy. On
this we are very confident because our democracy has yielded a great deal
of political and economic dividends.
Democracy has worked to consolidate internal peace in Indonesia. The
separatist rebellion in Aceh, which raged and simmered for 29 years, was
finally resolved through dialogue and negotiation in 2005, with former
President Marti Ahtisaari of Finland facilitating the process. The tsunami
that devastated Aceh in December 2004 was a factor, of course, but to my
mind, what was decisive was the democratic spirit that enabled the
Indonesian Government to be more open to new ideas toward resolving the
decades-old problem.
Indonesia is grateful to the European Union for supporting and peace
process and the implementation of the peace agreement in Aceh.
Through dialogue towards reconciliation and the redress of legitimate
grievances, we were able to restore peace and security in regions affected
by communal strife, such as Ambon and Poso in eastern Indonesia.
13
„Gebaarlezing‟ by Dr. Hassan Wirajuda, 23 November 2010, Den Haag
Taking a balanced approach to security—with due regard for upholding
the rule of law, human rights and due process in a democracy—Indonesia
has waged a successful battle against international terrorism. Networks of
terrorists have been exposed and broken up and the terrorists themselves
are on the run. More than 450 terrorist suspects have been brought to
justice. A good number have been killed trying to resist arrest.
Our experience has shown that decentralization works. Under a law on
local autonomy, the central government delegated substantial powers to
local governments, empowering them to manage their own households in a
way that is to some extent similar to a federal system.
The delegation of power is attended by a generous revenue-sharing
arrangement, with some provinces like Aceh and Papua retaining some 70
percent of the revenues they generate. On the whole, local governments
receive about 34 percent of the national budget.
There has been healthy competition among local governments in their
drive to provide services in the field of education and health and other
social services, in infrastructures building and in the promotion of
investment.
Taking to heart the poignant lessons of the Asian Crisis of 1997-1998, we
undertook a thorough reform of our economic system. Adopting a prudent
monetary and fiscal policy, we maintained a low budget deficit of between
1.2 and 2.1 percent.
We adopted a firm policy of not taking new loans and working
consistently to reduce the debt-to- GDP ratio, resulting its steady decrease:
from 89 percent in 1999 to 32 percent in 2009; 26 percent in 2010, with a
view to bringing it further down to 23 percent in 2014.
Our foreign currency reserves today stands at a historic high of USD78
billion. Compared to the debt crisis of that some members of the European
14
„Gebaarlezing‟ by Dr. Hassan Wirajuda, 23 November 2010, Den Haag
Union are grappling with, which was discussed at the Toronto Summit of
the G-20, Indonesia is in a very comfortable position.
We do have today a very resilient economy—so resilient that during the
global financial and economic crisis of 2008 and 2009, we maintained a
positive growth of 4.5 percent, making Indonesia the third best performing
economy not only in East Asia but also among the members of the G-20.
In some aspects, the Indonesian economy is outperforming even the
BRICs—the economies of Brazil, Russia, India and China—said to be the
world’s fastest growing economic powers. In August this year, Indonesia’s
equity index skyrocketed by 22 percent, while the equity index of the
BRIC countries lost by 0.6 percent during that period.
Investors from all over the world are beating a path to Indonesia’s door.
The progress that we have made as a New Indonesia has given us the
confidence and the credibility to assume a leadership role in various
multilateral fronts.
At the regional level, it was under Indonesian chairmanship that ASEAN
in 2003 decided to become an ASEAN Community—a vision that is
certain to be fulfilled by 2015. Thus we have promoted political
development in ASEAN, which is now committed to democratic values
and norms, respect for human rights and an exponent of good governance.
Having incorporated the promotion of democracy and human rights into
the agenda of ASEAN—these are now enshrined in the ASEAN Charter—
Indonesia in 2008 established the Bali Democracy Forum.
This is a platform for the exchange of experience and best practices as well
as cooperation in political development among countries of Asia and the
Pacific. It is part of a strategic agenda for the sharing of democratic values
that would contribute to peace and security in our exceedingly diverse
15
„Gebaarlezing‟ by Dr. Hassan Wirajuda, 23 November 2010, Den Haag
region. Our fellow democracies, such as the Netherlands and other
countries in the European Union can help us in this ambitious undertaking.
Meanwhile, ASEAN trade, which boasts a market of 570 million people, is
increasing at an average of 15 percent annually. According to its Economic
Community Blueprint, by 2015 ASEAN will attain free flow of goods,
services, capital and labour.
At the same time ASEAN has been weaving a network of free trade
agreements (FTAs) with dialogue partners. Thus ASEAN has FTAs with
China, Japan, South Korea, Australia-New Zealand and, in the near future,
India. I think it is only a matter of time before all 16 countries of East Asia
develop an East Asia-wide free trade area that covers a market of 3.4
billion people.
The intensity of the regional integration process makes a strong case for
the notion of the Asia-Pacific region being the region of the 21st century. It
is projected that by 2040 the region will contribute some 65 percent of the
world’s GDP.
Next year, Indonesia will again assume ASEAN Chairmanship, and will
therefore be ex officio host of the ASEAN Summit and the expanded East
Asian Summit, which the United States and Russia will be attending for
the first time. In 2012, Indonesia will also be hosting the APEC Economic
Leaders' Meeting and a Democracy Summit in conjunction with the fifth
annual session of the Bali Democracy Forum.
With Indonesia chairing it next year, ASEAN is expected to strive for
global outreach. This will be an ASEAN that will directly contribute to the
solution of problems in other parts of the world— through an expanded
role in peacekeeping. In capacity building for developing countries. In
disaster management. And various other fields.
It will also see to it that the process of regional architecture building is
considerably advanced during its tenure as ASEAN Chair. A regional
architecture that is balanced and inclusive, where no power dominates but
16
„Gebaarlezing‟ by Dr. Hassan Wirajuda, 23 November 2010, Den Haag
all participants cooperate for peace, stability and equitably shared
prosperity.
Meanwhile, Indonesia itself is determined to make significant
contributions to resolving the global challenges of the 20th century.
In the G-20 Indonesia is working hard for the reform of the international
financial architecture and for the interest of the developing world. We see
the important of extrapolating the reform of the system of global economic
governance to other areas of global governance.
Indonesia continues to rally other nations to the cause of climate stability
by way of implementation of the Bali Roadmap toward a new climate
consensus in Cancun, Mexico next month. In such forums as the AsiaPacific Economic Cooperation and the Asia-Europe Meeting, it is a strong
advocate of international cooperation to ensure food security and energy
security.
Over the years, Indonesia has pursued a strong advocacy for nuclear nonproliferation and nuclear disarmament. It is now in the final stages of
ratifying the Comprehensive Test Ban Treaty.
One non-traditional threat to global security that Indonesia has vigorously
addressed is international terrorism. Widely acknowledged as one of the
most successful countries in fighting terrorism, Indonesia is willing to
share its experience and best practices with other countries waging the
same battle.
These fields and sectors and many more are covered by the projected
Comprehensive Partnership between the Netherlands and Indonesia. I have
no doubt that soon enough this Comprehensive Partnership will be signed
and will enter into force. The positive impact of a successful
implementation of that Partnership will be tremendous.
It is worth repeating, however, that for this Partnership to succeed, the
Netherlands and Indonesia must get to know each other much better than
they do now.
17
„Gebaarlezing‟ by Dr. Hassan Wirajuda, 23 November 2010, Den Haag
This means that we must be willing to go through a learning curve. We
must build and maintain channels of communication. These include
institutionalized and structured interactions between our two Governments
on both bilateral and global issues.
It is essential that there be vigorous and well planned efforts to facilitate
and promote people-to-people contacts. These include the holding of
cultural events and cultural exchanges. Exchanges of students and
academics. Exchanges of journalists and media practitioners.
Cooperation between institutions of learning and research is vital. Dutch
universities and their Indonesian counterparts should launch a strong
programme to conduct joint researches and studies—especially in the
fields of sociology, food security and energy security.
Through these and other means, we can get to know each other much
better. We can become much more predictable and transparent to each
other. That means greater trust and confidence.
With full trust and confidence in each other we can make our
Comprehensive Partnership work for us so that we can together face the
challenges of this new century and address them with effective joint
action.
And in the course of that Partnership, the Netherlands can serve as
Indonesia’s gateway to Europe, and Indonesia can serve as the
Netherlands’ gateway to East Asia—the region to which the world’s centre
of economic gravity has already shifted.
In that manner, our two countries will help each other endure and prosper.
And thus in a world that is globalized and increasingly interconnected, the
Netherlands and Indonesia will together be able to contribute so much
more to the long term viability and welfare of all humankind.
I thank you.
18