Agreement
On 9 January, the Dutch delegation said that if the Indonesian side did not accept its proposals within three days, it would ask its government for further instructions. The CGO put forward six principles to counter the 12 from the Dutch. Among their provisions were that Dutch sovereignty would continue until transferred to the United States of Indonesia, or which the Republic of Indonesia; fair representation for each component of the provisional federal state in its government; a referendum within six months to ask people if they wanted their region to the Republic of Indonesia or the United States of Indonesia and a constitutional convention to draw up constitution. Furthermore, any state would be free to not join RIS.
The Dutch side said it would accept these proposals if the Republicans accepted them and its original 12 proposals by the 12 January deadline. After a 48-hour extension to the deadline and discussions to clarify the Dutch proposals, Dr Frank Graham, the US member of the CGO convinced the Republicans to accept, saying they could rely on the US using its influence to ensure the Dutch kept to their side of the bargain. The Indonesian side also felt that referendums in the regions would result in victory for the pro-Republicans and that they would be able to dominate the federal government. Graham also told Amir Sjarifuddin that the US would provide aid to help rebuild a free Indonesia.
Initially President Sukarno and Vice-president Hatta opposed the agreement, but after hearing reports of shortages of ammunition and worried that Dutch would attack again if the agreement not signed, they agreed. They were also reluctant to accept responsibility for substantial civilian and military casualties if the fighting continued. After the Dutch and republican sides agreed on a truce along the Van Mook Line and the proposals put forward by the CGO and the Dutch, the agreement was signed on the foredeck of the USS Renville on 17 January 1948
Read more about this topic: Renville Agreement
Famous quotes containing the word agreement:
“The doctrine of those who have denied that certainty could be attained at all, has some agreement with my way of proceeding at the first setting out; but they end in being infinitely separated and opposed. For the holders of that doctrine assert simply that nothing can be known; I also assert that not much can be known in nature by the way which is now in use. But then they go on to destroy the authority of the senses and understanding; whereas I proceed to devise helps for the same.”
—Francis Bacon (1560–1626)
“The methodological advice to interpret in a way that optimizes agreement should not be conceived as resting on a charitable assumption about human intelligence that might turn out to be false. If we cannot find a way to interpret the utterances and other behaviour of a creature as revealing a set of beliefs largely consistent and true by our standards, we have no reason to count that creature as rational, as having beliefs, or as saying anything.”
—Donald Davidson (b. 1917)
“Truth cannot be defined or tested by agreement with ‘the world’; for not only do truths differ for different worlds but the nature of agreement between a world apart from it is notoriously nebulous. Rather—speaking loosely and without trying to answer either Pilate’s question or Tarski’s—a version is to be taken to be true when it offends no unyielding beliefs and none of its own precepts.”
—Nelson Goodman (b. 1906)