• Abstract and Figures
• Public Full-text

INFORMATION TO USERS This material was produced from a microfilm copy of the original document. While the most advanced technological means to photograph and reproduce this document have been used, the quality is heavily dependent upon the quality of the original submitted. The following explanation of techniques is provided to help you understand markings or patterns which may appear on this reproduction. 1. The sign or "target" for pages apparently lacking from the document photographed is "Missing Page(s)". If it was possible to obtain the missing page(s) or section, they are spliced into the film along with adjacent pages. This may have necessitated cutting thru an image and duplicating adjacent pages to insure you complete continuity. 2. When an image on the film is obliterated with a large round black mark, it is an indication that the photographer suspected that the copy may have moved during exposure and thus cause a blurred image. You will find a good image of die page in tfie adjacent frame. 3. When a map, drawing or chart, etc., was part of the material being photographed the photographer followed a definite method in "sectioning" the material. It is customary to begin photoing at the upper left hand corner of a large sheet and to continue photoing from left to right in equal sections with a small overlap. If necessary, sectioning is continued again — beginning below the first row and continuing on until complete. 4. The majority of users indicate that the textual content is of greatest value, however, a somewhat higher quality reproduction could be made from "photographs" if essential to the understanding of the dissertation. Silver prints of "photographs" may be ordered at additional charge by writing the Order Department, giving the catalog number, title, author and specific pages you wish reproduced. 5. PLEASE NOTE: Some pages may have indistinct print. Filmed as received. Xerox University Microfilms 300 North Zeeb Road Ann Arbor, Michigan 48106 MASTERS THESIS M-4416 NOLTON, Jr., John Sowerby, THE ROLE OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE INDONESIAN INDEPENDENCE MOVEMENT: 1945-1949. The American University, M.A., 1972 Political Science, international law and relations University Microfilms, A XERO\Company , Ann Arbor, Michigan THE ROLE OF THE UNITED STATES IN THE INDONESIAN INDEPENDENCE MOVEMENT : 1945-1949 by John S. Nolton, Jr. Submitted to the School of International Service of the American University in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements for the Degree of Master of Arts in International Studies THE AMERICAN UNIVERSITY FEB 26 1973 Signatures/tffYCommittee: Chairman ; - : / Deans of the School Date : Date I The American University Washington, D.C. TABLE OF COLT ENT L, CHAPTEh I. IMTHOBUCTICN AND bTATEMENT OF THE PHOBLEI/........... 1 CHAPTEh II. THE HOh-lWi'EnVETfiTON PERIOD: AUGUOT 1943 TO JUNE 1 9 4 7 .............................................. B CHAPTER III. THE "EUROPE-FI RET" PERIOD: JUNE 1947 TO DECEMBER 1948 ............................................ 74 CHAPTER IV. THE DENuUrJ/iENT: 1949 ................................... 199 APPEND IE 293 1. TEXT OF THE lINGGADJATI AGREEMENT 2. SECURITY COUNCIL RESGLUl’lONS ADOPTED AUGUST 25 , 1947 5. THE RENVILLE POLITICAL PRINCIPLES BIBLIUGR/iPHY 305 CHAPTER I INTRODUCTION AND STATEMENT OF THE PROBLEM THE PROBLEM It is the objective of this investigation to examine, critically and in some detail, the role played by the United States, by its Govern­ ment, its press, and public opinion, in the struggle of the fledgling Republic of Indonesia for complete independence from the Netherlands in the critical postwar years of 1945-1949. It is not intended, secondly, that this examination be conceived in a political or policy vacuum, but rather that the actions taken or postures assumed by the United States Government with regard to the Indonesian Question be viewed within the context of the larger and more far-reaching international issues of this most important period, A further objective which will be pursued in these pages is to examine and assess the process of the formulation and the means and skill of execution of American foreign policy vis-a-vis the Republic of Indonesia's independence struggle for purposes to be set forth below. VALIDATION The value of such an undertaking can be demonstrated on a number of different grounds, first of all, a judicious and objective study of 1 the part played by the United States in either hastening or delaying or in other ways materially affecting the Republic of Indonesia's tortuous progress toward the attainment of "Merdeka" should be of significant help in understanding the course of the bilateral relationship between these two republics in the years following the transfer of sovereignty. The impressions and attitudes built up during this four-year period on each side (but more particularly on the Indonesian side) obviously were to have a great influence on the policies adopted by each independent nation toward the other. Secondly, this is the first of a long line of post-war "colonial" issues which impaled the United States on the horns of its by now famil­ iar (indeed, classic) dilemma of how to apportion its support between; (l) the unfamiliar peoples of Asia and Africa who were striving to attain nationhood and who insisted upon invoking a moral-political weltaun- schauung not at all unfamiliar to the American national experience, on the one hand, and (2) on the other hand, the kindred Western European states with and for whom it had recently suffered so much, now in the agony of divesting themselves of the colonies on which (all were agreed) their past greatness and future prosperity depended. Being the first of these postwar crises in policy-making, the Indonesian Question in American foreign policy should provide us with some insights as to how the United States can be expected to react when faced with this dilemma— insists made particularly interesting due to the fact that the period witnessed the final death of American isolationism and took place just as the United States was striving to rebuild and then rearm a Western Ehirope with which it was increasingly to identify its own national security. 3 As such, this study should lead us into some suggestive insists subordinate to the above considerations. First of all, by keeping a close eye on the manifestations of congressional, press, and public opinion, it might be possible to cast some light on the potency with which the American anti-colonial tradition emerged into the postwar era. Additionally, Indonesia provides a kind of steppingstone from a period of nearly exclusive concern in American foreign policy with Euro­ pean questions (from 1945 to 1948) to a period of major preoccupation with Asian matters brought on by the communist victory in the Chinese civil war and the advent of the Korean conflict. It may be possible to suggest what the effects of this shift were on the American attitude toward the Indonesian issue, as well as the ways in which Indonesia may have, in turn, contributed to the new policy emphasis. A third major justification for this thesis would be the insists which might be gleaned into the means of formulation and techniques of execution of American foreign policy generally. In this issue, one is dealing with a most interesting "case study" in American foreign policy; 'iVhat factors in the Indonesian Question appeared to have relatively great or little relevance for American policy makers, as can be detected from the external policy manifestations subject to the scrutiny of the historian? How did the policies of the Soviet Union toward Indonesia alter the formation or execution of American policy? What effects did the propaganda efforts of the Netherlands and the Republic of Indonesia have on American policy and American public opinion? Did public and congressional opinion exercise a noticeable restraining or limiting influence on the policies of the United States State Department (or those of the parties to the dispute) in this issue? Can any difference in emphasis or sympathy be discerned in the exposition and execution of United States policy in Washington, at the United Nations, and "in the field"? Largely because such matters have been competently discussed elsewhere, and because they would in any case fall outside the parameters of this study, the course of the Indonesian revolution from the stand­ point of internal Republican politics, the role of the United Nations, per sc, and the role of other major powers are largely ignored herein, except as these matters may reasonably be adjudged to have affected the policies of the United States. Obviously, however, there is a great deal to be said about how the policies of the Netherlands, the United Kingdom, the Soviet Union, Australia, or India, for example, did affect American policies. These should and will be examined, as will the extent to which United States policies were identifiable with, or were carried into effect by means of the United Nations. ORGANIZATION For purposes of ease and clarity of presentation, the organi­ zation of this thesis is basically a chronological one. Prom the stand­ point of the United States, the Indonesian independence struggle might be separated into three more or less distinct phases or periods: The first period, starting with the Republic's declaration of independence at the end of the war in August 1945 and ending with the United States' note to the Republic in late June 1947, just prior to the first Dutch "police action," m i ^ t be described as the "hands-off" or "non-policy" period. During this time, as the United States observed the opening rounds of the struggle and the maneuvers of the two major protagonists, while itself engaged in the joining of the Gold War, little was known and even less was officially said or done about Indo­ nesia.

Load more

  315

Copy Link