ThirdWorld Quarterly, Vol 18, No 2, pp 363± 376, 1997 Problemsof aid conditionality: TheNetherlands and Indonesia PETER RBAEHR Formany years, two policy objectives have held central position in the foreign policyof the Netherlands: the promotion and protection of human rights on the onehand, and the giving of ® nancialsupport to poor countries in the form of developmentassistance onthe other. The government of the Netherlands has alwaysconsidered these policy objectives to be in line with each other. This becomesclear from two major policy papers written by the Minister for DevelopmentCooperation, Mr Jan Pronk: AWorldof Difference (1990) and AWorldin Dispute (1993).Also in the general review of foreign policy (Herijkingsnota ),which was publishedby the government in 1995, it is tacitly assumed thatthere is nocon¯ ict between the two said policy aims. However,in foreign policy practice, situations may be facedin which the two policyobjectives are notalways in accordance with each other. A choicemay haveto bemadebetween alternatives, all of whichhave negative consequences. Sucha situationpresents itself when the government of anaid receiving country isfoundresponsible for the violation of humanrights. Should the donor country continueits support, diminish or suspend it or terminate it altogether? An argumentin favour of continuation is thatdevelopment aid is meantto give supportto the poor, who, in the case ofdiscontinuation, might become dual victims:once through the violation of human rights by their own government andsecondly by thesuspension of aidby thedonor government. Moreover, it is notat all certain that the offending government would be harmed by the suspensionor stoppage of aid. On the other hand, continuation of aid could be seen asa(tacit)form of supportto the offending regime, which would make the donorgovernment, as itwere, an accomplice in the violation of human rights. Diminishingor suspending aid can have at least a symbolicsigni® cance. The donorgovernment thereby distances itself explicitly from the violations of humanrights in the receiving country. Thistype of choice has presenteditself in the relations between the Nether- landsand its former colony Indonesia, since the coming to power of President Suhartoin 1965 until the ending of the aid relationship by Indonesia in 1992. Inthis paper an overview is presentedof Netherlands human rights and developmentaid policy. Next, its meaning for Dutch relations with Indonesia is dealtwith and it is shownthat this presented a dilemmafor Dutch policy makers. Finally,the question is raisedof suitable solutions to such a dilemma. Peter RBaehris atJacobvan Ruisdaellaan 25, 2102 AM Heemstede, theNetherlands. 0143-6597/97/020363-14$7.00 Ó 1997Third World Quarterly 363 PETER RBAEHR Humanrights anddevelopment cooperation as objectives ofDutch foreign policy In1979, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for Development Cooperationpublished a majorpolicy paper, HumanRights and Foreign Policy .1 Thepaper referred to the promotion of human rights as oneof the ` important aims’ offoreignpolicy, but ` itcannotbe itspredominating aim’ . 2 Sincethen, the Netherlandsgovernment has repeatedlystated that human rights are acentralor fundamentalaspect of its foreign policy. For example, Mr Hansvan den Broek, thenMinister of Foreign Affairs, said in 1988 that he considered human rights as an` assignmentto contribute within the possibilities of foreign policy to the respectof human dignity’ . 3 Someof the policy conclusions contained in the 1979 paper are ofdirect relevanceto the relationship between human rights and development cooper- ation.The government rejected the idea that aid should be used to reward countrieswhich respect human rights and conversely withheld to punish coun- trieswhich disregard those rights (policy conclusion no 35). That principle did, however,not alter the fact that, in the shaping of developmentcooperation, one mustconsider in what ways development aid can be made to serve thebest possiblerealisation of human rights. In that respect it was necessary totake accountof the human rights situation in recipientcountries, including the policy pursuedby the authorities. The aid-giving countries should, however, ` actwith acertainrestraint and without presumption in this delicate area’ (policycon- clusionno 36). Nevertheless, in cases whereabuses deriveddirectly from governmentpolicy, one should try to ensure that aid did not contribute directly tothe perpetuation of repression. Policy conclusion no 39 ended as follows: Wherethere is gross and persistent violation of fundamental human rights, non- allocationor suspension of aid can be considered, but other relevant policy considerationsmust be taken into account before such exceptional measures are taken.One of these considerations is of course the consequences which complete withholdingof development aid will have for sectionsof the population who live inpoverty and whose lot development co-operation primarily seeks to improve. 4 MrJan Pronk,who was Ministerfor Development Cooperation from 1973 until 1977and again from 1989 until the present, has beenone of themain architects ofpolicy making in this ® eld.Therefore, what he has tosay aboutthe subject isofprimeimportance. In his 1990 policy paper, AWorldOf Difference: ANew Frameworkfor DevelopmentCooperation in the 1990s ,5 humanrights received agreatdeal of attention. 6 Aclearchoice was madefor freedom and fundamental humanrights. Human rights were said to play an essential role as aguiding principleand moral foundation for democratisation processes. Classic human rightsare thebasis ofdemocracy and provide opportunities to the lower levels ofsocietyto presentand, if possiblelegalise, their justi® ed claims and interests. 7 Theargument that governments must be allowed to restrict civil and political rightsin order to make progress in the ® eldof social± economic rights, is explicitlyrejected: ` Thereis nofreedom without food, but freedom prevails’ . 8 Politicaland civil rights are seen as preliminaryconditions for achieving social andeconomic rights. Poverty must be fought by strengthening the autonomy of 364 PROBLEMS OF AID CONDITIONALITY marginalgroups. An explicit choice is madein favour of ` developmentof, for andby the people’ . 9 Atthe same time,the paper notes the weak position of the statein many developing countries, which makes itimpossiblefor governmental bodiesto prevent violations of human rights. Therefore, a pleais madefor strengtheninginstitutional frameworks. Training of judges, public prosecutors andsupport for human rights organisations should be given priority.’ 10 Thesethemes received renewed attention in the 1993 paper A World in Dispute.1 Againit is statedthat freedom and democracy are necessary toachieve manageablegrowth in the world. ` Goodgovernance’ must be stimulated,which means supportfor governmental services andprivate organisations in developing countrieswhich aim for a sustainablegrowth of legal security and of civil and politicalliberties. ` Furthermore’, Mr Pronkwrote, ` itis justi®ed on grounds of developmentpolicy, in case ofaseriousrelapse of democratizationor incase of sustainedexcessive military expenses, to cutor stopfully the giving of aidto the countryin question’ . 12 Thetwo policy papers clearly expose the importance of promoting human rightson the one hand, of emphasising aid to poor countries on the other, and theirmutual relationship. The Netherlands government directed its development aidpolicy in the 1980s to the promotion of human rights as well.It did not excludethe possibility that, in case ofserious violations of human rights, developmentaid might be decreased, suspended or even fully terminated. Whatdid those ideas mean in practice for relations with Indonesia? Dutchdevelopment cooperation with Indonesia Tounderstandpresent-day Dutch± Indonesian relations, it is necessary tokeepin mindthat for over 300 years theEast Indies were a colonialpossession of the Netherlands. 13 Since1619, when Jan PieterszoonCoen founded the city of Batavia,having destroyed the original town of Jacatra, the Netherlands ruled overthe territory, while Dutch settlers helped to developit and pro® ted from its wealth.Up until the Japanese occupationin 1941, no serious efforts had been madeto meet the Indonesian nationalists’ wish for independence. It was only duringthe second world war, on 7December1942, that, in anoft quoted speech, QueenWilhelmina announced somewhat vaguely that after the war there would bejoint talks about the structure of the Kingdom and its parts, ` toadapt it to thechanged circumstances’ . However,the declaration of independence by Indonesiannationalists Sukarno and Hatta on 17 December 1945 came as an unwelcomesurprise to the Dutch. They reacted by sending an expeditionary forceof 120 000 men overseas. In two ` policeactions’ in 1947 and 1948 the Netherlandstried to subdue the nationalist movement, but in the end it had to bowto international pressure, exerted through the UN Security Council. On 27 December1949, the Netherlands transferred sovereignty to Indonesia. It only heldon to the territory of West New Guinea, which it eventually, in 1962, had togive up as well. 14 Tothis day, the events of the years 1945±49 have remained an issue of controversyin the Netherlands. Only very recently, proposals were launched 365 PETER RBAEHR (andsubsequently rejected) to holda `nationaldebate’ to come to terms withthe issue.The immediate cause ofthe controversy was thegranting of a visitor’s visato a formerDutch