Indonesia's withdrawal from the United Nations: a case study

Abstract

The decision of Indonesia to withdraw from the United Nations on 7 January 1965 was unique in the history of this Organization. She was the only Member ever to do so since its establishment. The reason to "withdraw" was the seating of Malaysia as a member of the Security Council of the United Nations. Indonesia considered that the election of Malaysia to this important organ was contrary to the spirit of Article 23 of the Charter. Article 23 says that the election of a non-permanent member of the Security Council should be guided by the importance and contribution of the candidate country in the maintenance of peace and security in the world. Indonesia contested that Malaysia had such a qualification and she accused that the colonial powers in the United Nations had orchestrated it. Indonesia's motive had a direct link with the confrontation policy against Malaysia pursued by Indonesia at that time. How should the United Nations respond to Indonesia's decision to withdraw in the absence of a withdrawal clause in its Charter? The United Nations had no precedent in this matter. At the San Francisco Conference the framers of the Charter deliberately dropped the idea of inserting such a clause in the Charter. They did not wish that the United Nations should go through the experiences similar to those of the League of Nations. Nevertheless, the framers adopted a declaration which reflected their attitude towards the question of withdrawal. This declaration neither permits nor prohibits the withdrawal of a Member from the Organization, but places certain conditions which have to be met by a Member intending to withdraw in exceptional circumstances. Was Indonesia's reason to withdraw from the United Nations in accordance with the terms set forth in the declaration? Almost all Members of the Organization including the United Nations itself considered the absence of Indonesia from the Organization, since 7 January 1965 until its return to the United Nations in September 1966, constituted a withdrawal. But this attitude was altered at a later stage when Indonesia decided to rejoin the Organization in September 1966. The United Nations adopted a new attitude on the withdrawal of Indonesia by terming it a "cessation of co-operation". Why did the United Nations have to modify its previous position? What was Indonesia's reason to follow such a Step? In substance, what are the differences between the two notions, strictly from the political and legal angles? This thesis attempts to give better perspective on the "withdrawal" of Indonesia from the United Nations, since the issue does not receive proper attention in its totality. Differences of opinion still exist on this issue. Two approaches are used in dealing with the issue of the withdrawal of Indonesia. The issue of withdrawal has two facets - political and legal. Both are intertwined. Approaching the question merely from the legal plane without touching the political aspects involved in it would give a distorted picture. Stressing only the political aspects without considering its legal aspects would produce a blurred picture. The United Nations, as a political institution, in its decisions has to observe both aspects, political and legal. Both are closely related. Even though the main reason of Indonesia to withdraw from the United Nations was closely linked with the confrontation policy pursued by the Government of Indonesia at that time, it is not my intention to focus on this matter. The main theme is the issue of the withdrawal per se. Several terms have been used in the past in the official texts to describe the action taken by Indonesia. President Sukarno used the term "keluar" which has been translated in English as "to get out" or "to pull out". Some foreign journalists translated it as "to walk out". In the letter of the First Deputy Prime Minister/Minister of Foreign Affairs of Indonesia addressed to the Secretary-General of the United Nations, he used the term "to withdraw". Some Member States of the United Nations have used the term "recession", "to place itself outside the United Nations", "to leave the United Nations", "the departure from the United Nations", "resignation", "to terminate its membership". In this study the term "to withdraw" or "withdrawal" is used. The term "to withdraw" is commonly used in the constitution of interstate or intergovernmental organizations. The San Francisco Conference adopted the same terminology. This study is divided into five chapters. A brief history of the relations between Indonesia and the United Nations is provided in the Introduction. Chapter I describes the international reactions both within the United Nations and outside to Indonesia's withdrawal. Chapter II discusses the issue of withdrawal with specific reference to the San Francisco declaration. Chapter III discusses the attitude of the United Nations on the withdrawal of Indonesia from the United Nations. Chapter IV discusses the return of Indonesia to the Organization. The discussion will be focused on the preparations made by Indonesia before deciding to rejoin the United Nations, the interpretation of the United Nations' Legal Counsel on the telegram addressed to the Secretary-General, and the attitude of the Members regarding the statement of the President of the General Assembly relating to the decision of Indonesia to rejoin the Organization. Conclusions of the study are provided in Chapter V. As mentioned above, the opinion of the Members including the Organization was that Indonesia's action constituted a withdrawal. As argued in Chapter IV, at the time of the return of Indonesia, the Members had changed their opinion and agreed with the President of the General Assembly that Indonesia's action amounted only to a "cessation of co-operation". Indonesia could only claim that she was the first Member ever to cease its co-operation with the United Nations and not to withdraw.