COMPARISON
OF OPERATION TRIKORA AND DWIKORA
�IN THE CONTEXT OF WAR RULES
Benedictus Benny Koessetianto1,
Hari Prasetyo2
Universitas
Pertahanan Indonesia, Jawa Barat, Indonesia
[email protected]1,
[email protected]2
ABSTRACT
This study explores the fundamental differences in
the approach and application of the rules of war between Operations Trikora and
Dwikora, two significant milestones in Indonesian history related to the
defense of national sovereignty and territorial integrity. Operation Trikora
was a military campaign against Dutch efforts to seize the territory of West Irian, demonstrating Indonesia's
commitment to asserting its claim over Papua and achieving unification with the
homeland. Dwikora, on the other hand, was a confrontation with Malaysia that
began in 1963, aiming to strengthen national identity and defend sovereignty.
The research employs descriptive qualitative analysis, supported by literature
reviews, scientific journals, anecdotes, relevant documents, and theoretical
frameworks. Through this approach, the study highlights how differences in the
rules of war between Trikora and Dwikora reflect each conflict's distinct
historical and strategic contexts and their impact on how Indonesia defended
its sovereignty and territorial integrity. �The findings offer insights into the dynamics
of war and diplomacy in Indonesian history and their implications for the
development of nationalism and foreign policy. The study concludes that
understanding these differences is crucial for appreciating the complexities of
war and diplomacy in the context of Indonesian history and its influence on the
country's national identity and foreign policy. The analysis provides valuable
knowledge that can guide future research and policymaking in related areas.
Keywords: Operation
Trikora, Operation Dwikora, Rules of War, Diplomacy, Populist Factors, Conflict
Resolution.
Corresponding Author: Benedictus
Benny Koessetianto
E-mail: [email protected]
INTRODUCTION
Operations Trikora and Dwikora are two important
milestones in Indonesian history closely related to the defence of the
country's sovereignty and integrity. Operation Trikora, initiated by President
Soekarno in 1961, responded to the Dutch attempt to retain Nederlands Nieuw
Guinea or West Irian as its colony (P. S. J. F. Kennedy,
2017). The initiative signalled Indonesia's commitment to
assert its claim to West Irian and fight for its unification with the rest of
the region (Hartono, 2017). This operation marked an important moment in
Indonesia's diplomatic and political struggle on the international stage.
Meanwhile, Operation Dwikora was a confrontation with
Malaysia that began in 1963 and was initiated by President Soekarno (Irshanto, 2019). This conflict arose as part of an effort to
strengthen Indonesia's national identity and defend the country's sovereignty.
Dwikora was not only a war between two neighboring countries, an arena for the
involvement of other powers (Britain and Australia), and a foreign policy
gamble, but it also galvanized the spirit of nationalism in domestic political
competition. This initiative united the Indonesian people to support a greater
national goal, strengthening unity amidst regional and global challenges.
Both operations reflect the
spirit and determination of the Indonesian people to deal with threats to their
sovereignty and territorial integrity. Trikora and Dwikora also demonstrated
Indonesia's ability to play an active role in regional and international
politics (P. S. J.
Kennedy, 2017). Trikora and Dwikora are
important events in Indonesian history and symbols of struggle that inspire
later generations to continue fighting for the country's integrity and honour.
The study addresses critical
theoretical and practical problems related to the application of the rules of
war in different historical and strategic contexts, emphasizing the challenges
of adapting international law to complex conflict situations. It explores how
populist factors and leadership dynamics influence foreign policy and military
strategy, underscoring the importance of understanding the interplay between
public opinion and national security decisions. Additionally, the research
examines the impact of colonialism and imperialism on national identity and
foreign policy, highlighting the ongoing relevance of historical legacies in
shaping contemporary international relations.
The practical implications of
the study involve the need for nuanced approaches to understanding the
historical and strategic contexts of conflicts, accounting for the challenges
of applying theoretical frameworks to real-world scenarios. It stresses the
significance of considering the influence of leadership and public opinion on
shaping foreign policy and military strategy, particularly the role of populist
factors. The study also underscores the continued impact of historical legacies
on international relations, calling for a comprehensive understanding of
historical contexts to navigate contemporary conflicts effectively.
METHOD
The research employed a descriptive qualitative analysis
method, as outlined by (Lambert & Lambert,
2012), to examine the Indonesian struggle to reclaim West
Irian from Dutch rule. This approach involved the careful analysis of
historical facts and events surrounding the conflict, providing an in-depth
look at Indonesia's efforts to assert its sovereignty over the region. By
focusing on the narratives from this period, the study offers a comprehensive
view of the complexities of the conflict and Indonesia's strategic responses.
The
analysis was further supported by an extensive review of literature, including
national and international scientific journals and relevant documents. These
sources and theoretical and juridical perspectives referenced by (Hanschel et al., 2022) provided a solid foundation for the journal's writing
and analysis. This comprehensive approach enabled the research to draw
meaningful conclusions about Indonesia's historical struggles and the broader
implications for its national identity and foreign policy.
RESULTS AND DISCUSSION
Definition and Background of Operation Trikora
Tri Komando
Rakyat (Trikora) was a military operation launched by President Soekarno on
December 19, 1961, in Yogyakarta in response to the unresolved issue of West
Irian, which the Dutch controlled. Based on the Round Table Conference (RTC)
decision in 1949, West Irian was to be handed over to Indonesia one year after
the conference. However, until 1961, the territory was never handed over. After
Indonesia's independence, West Irian was the last region under Dutch colonial
rule. Under President Soekarno's leadership, the Indonesian government demanded
that the Netherlands hand over West Irian to Indonesia to realize the concept
of "one Indonesia" that was fully independent and sovereign. Thus,
the main objective of Trikora was to reclaim West Irian (now Papua) from the
Netherlands and ensure that the region was integrated into the Unitary State of
the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI) (Hari Purwanto, 2021); (Kurnia & Miftahuddin, 2019).
This
operation had three main orders: thwarting the formation of a puppet state of
Papua by the Dutch, raising the Red and White in West Irian and preparing for
general mobilization to defend independence; preparing the military to face the
Dutch; and increasing domestic production to support military operations.
Operation Trikora manifested Indonesia's aggressive and principled
anti-colonialist foreign policy, showing Indonesia's firmness in fighting for
its territorial sovereignty. (Hartono, 2017).
Definition and Background of Operation Dwikora
Dwi Komando
Rakyat (Dwikora) was an operation announced by President Soekarno on May 3,
1964, in response to forming the Federation of Malaysia. The main objective of
Dwikora was to oppose the formation of the Federation of Malaysia consisting of
Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak, and Sabah, which Indonesia considered a
neocolonialism project by Britain. Dwikora had two main commands: to mobilize
the Indonesian military and people to prepare for potential aggression and to
support the struggle of the people of Malaysia, Singapore, Sarawak, and Sabah
against the formation of the Malaysian Federation (Irshanto, 2019).
The
background of Dwikora is closely related to the relationship between Indonesia
and Malaysia, which has experienced ups and downs since Malaysia became
independent from Britain on August 31, 1957. The relationship between the two
countries was initially good and marked by the signing of a friendship treaty
on April 17, 1959. However, the relationship began to suffer mainly due to the
different political ideologies practised by the two countries. Tensions
increased when Tunku Abdul Rahman, the Prime Minister of Malaysia, attempted to
form a Malaysian Federation that included Malaya, Singapore, Sarawak and Sabah,
which was declared on September 16, 1963. Indonesia strongly opposed the formation of this federation and withdrew
its ambassador from Malaysia on January 30, 1963. Indonesia also withdrew from UN membership in January
1965 due to Malaysia's acceptance as a non-permanent member of the UN Security
Council. The confrontation between Indonesia and Malaysia lasted from
January 20, 1963, when Indonesian Foreign Minister Soebandrio announced a
hostile stance with Malaysia until the peace agreement of August 11, 1966. The
armistice took place on February 11, 1963 and was followed by the announcement
of Dwikora by President Soekarno on May 3, 1964 (Irshanto, 2019).
The Difference between Operation Trikora
and Dwikora in the Perspective of the Theory of the Rules of War
The rules
of war theory include principles and norms that govern behavior in armed
conflicts, including war. Clear war aims, the conduct of war, and the dignified
end of the war are important aspects of this theory, which aims to limit the
impact of war on soldiers and civilians and ensure that actions in war are
conducted ethically and morally.
A clear
war aim is often associated with the concept of jus ad bellum, one of the main
pillars of just war theory. This concept emphasizes that war can only be
justified if it meets certain criteria, such as a just cause for war, war as a
last resort, and proportionality in the use of force.
The rules
of war, or jus in bello, govern how armed conflicts should be conducted. They
emphasize the importance of distinguishing between combatants and
non-combatants and prohibiting the use of unnecessary or cruel force against
those not engaged in combat. This principle also includes prohibitions against
the use of weapons that cause unnecessary suffering or do not distinguish
between military and civilian targets.
The dignified end to war, or jus post bellum,
encompasses principles that apply after a war has ended, including just peace
agreements, rehabilitation for war victims, and efforts to rebuild
conflict-affected communities. This principle ensures that the peace achieved
after an armed conflict is sustainable and just for all parties involved.
In
addition, the ethics of war also provide guidance on how armed conflict should
be conducted, including the treatment of prisoners of war and the protection of
non-combatants. They emphasize the importance of treating prisoners of war well
and protecting the environment (Basyar, 2020).
The rules
of war are also set out in international humanitarian law, which includes
conventions such as the Geneva Conventions, which aim to protect those who are
not participating or have ceased to participate in combat and limit the
permissible methods and means of warfare (Mahfud, 2020); (Awoah, 2016); (Antouw, 2020).
The
following is a table of the differences between Operation Trikora and Dwikora
from the perspective of the Theory of War that shows the differences between
the two operations based on the four aspects mentioned. Operation Dwikora and
Operation Trikora had different objectives and methods. However, both were
carried out in the same context of opposing colonialism and imperialism.
Table 1.
Differences between Operation Trikora and Dwikora
in the
Perspective of the Rules of War Theory.
|
Aspects
|
Operation Dwikora
|
Operation Trikora
|
|
Purpose of War
|
1.
Operation
Dwikora was implemented in response to the formation of the Federation of
Malaysia, which the British considered a form of neocolonialism. The rules of
war applied included military, political and diplomatic aspects to show
rejection of the formation of the Federation of Malaysia.
2.
The
purpose of Operation Dwikora was to oppose the formation of the Federation of
Malaysia and show resistance to imperialism and colonialism.
|
1.
Operation
Trikora was implemented to thwart the Dutch East Indies government in
maintaining power in West Irian and ensure the region's unification with
Indonesia. The rules of war applied focused on liberating the territory from
the rule of the action and national unification.
2.
The
goal of Operation Trikora was to thwart the creation of a puppet state of
Papua by the Netherlands and unite West Irian with Indonesia.
|
|
War Procedures
|
Operation Dwikora involved the infiltration
of guerrilla forces into Malaysian territory in North Kalimantan and an
international campaign against the formation of the Federation of Malaysia.
|
Operation Trikora involved military
education (mobilization), the use of warships for transporting troops, tanks,
and logistics, and military action against the Dutch.
|
|
A Dignified End to the War
|
Operation Dwikora ended without achieving
its main objectives after the political changes in Indonesia with the fall of
President Soekarno and Suharto's rise to power.
|
Operation Trikora succeeded in handing over
West Irian to Indonesia through the New York Agreement in 1962, followed by
the Act of Free Choice in 1969.
|
Source:
Processed by the author
Political Influence and Populist Factors
of President Soekarno in Confrontation with Malaysia in Operation Dwikora
In addition to the differences between Operation Trikora and Dwikora in
the Rules of War Theory perspective, other factors distinguish between
Operation Trikora and Dwikora. In Operation Dwikora, there was President
Soekarno's populist factor. President Soekarno, as a charismatic leader and an
accomplished orator, did have a significant ability to mobilize popular support
through his uplifting speeches. In the context of Operation Dwikora, this
ability became very important. Operation Dwikora was launched in response to
the formation of the Federation of Malaysia in 1963, which Indonesia saw as a
neocolonialist attempt by Britain, with the support of other Commonwealth
countries, to maintain their influence in the Southeast Asian region.
The political influence in the confrontation with Malaysia during
Operation Dwikora was significant, as this confrontation was triggered by
Indonesia's foreign policy, which was influenced by President Soekarno's
ideology of anti-colonialism and anti-imperialism. In the context of foreign
policy, Indonesia then adopted a "Free and Active" policy, which
meant that Indonesia did not want to be tied to any bloc during the Cold War.
However, Britain's formation of the Federation of Malaysia was perceived as an attempt
to maintain its influence in Southeast Asia, which contradicted Indonesia's
anti-colonialism principles. Therefore, President Soekarno launched Operation
Dwikora to oppose the formation of the Federation of Malaysia, which was
considered a form of neo-colonialism (Kusmayadi,
2017).
The populist factor in Soekarno's leadership was evident in how he
communicated the purpose and rationale behind Operation Dwikora to the
Indonesian people. Through his speeches, Soekarno managed to evoke a sense of nationalism
and awareness of the importance of national sovereignty and integrity. In
addition, Soekarno also utilized existing political and social organizational
structures to spread ideas and mobilize support. For example, through
organizations with nationalist and anti-imperialist ideologies, he invited
various groups of people to support the government's foreign policy (Widariyanti, 2022).
Using mass media and public speeches, Soekarno garnered widespread
support from various layers of Indonesian society. This support was important
for the legitimization of Operation Dwikora in the eyes of the Indonesian
people. It boosted the morale of the soldiers and individuals directly involved
in the operation (Irshanto, 2019). This populist
factor, rooted in Soekarno's ability to communicate and build emotional connections
with his people, became one of the key aspects that distinguished his
leadership and strengthened Indonesia's position in the international arena
during the confrontation with Malaysia.
Consistency in the
Implementation of the Rules of War in Trikora and Dwikora
Several aspects, including the objectives of the operation, the tactics
used, and respect for international humanitarian law, can be used to compare
the consistency of the implementation of the rules of war in Operation Trikora
and Dwikora.
Operation Trikora
Operation Trikora was launched with the main objective of thwarting the
establishment of a puppet state of Papua by the Netherlands and ensuring the
integration of West Irian into Indonesian territory. Indonesia undertook a
massive military mobilization in this operation, including deploying troops and
military equipment to the conflict area. Despite intensive military
preparations, a large-scale armed confrontation was avoided thanks to the
intervention of the United Nations and the signing of the New York Agreement,
which allowed for conflict resolution through international mechanisms (Suryawan,
2019).
Operation Dwikora
Meanwhile, Operation Dwikora was a
response to forming the Federation of Malaysia (Haidah, 2023). In this operation, Indonesia carried out a
series of actions known as Confrontation, which included infiltration and
sabotage against Malaysia. The tactics used tended to be guerrilla and not
always overt, which raises questions about consistency with the rules of war,
especially in terms of identifying troops and protecting civilians.
Comparison of Consistency of Implementation of
the Rules of War
In the context of the rules of
war, the two operations have differences in terms of implementation, which are
presented in the following table:
Table 2.
Comparison of Consistency Implementation Rules
The War
Between Operation Trikora and Dwikora
|
Aspects
|
Operation Dwikora
|
Operation Trikora
|
|
Objectives and Tactics
|
Dwikora was more military with guerrilla
tactics and confrontation with Malaysia.
|
Trikora focused more on the political and
diplomatic goal of integrating West Irian.
|
|
Respect for International Humanitarian Law
|
In Dwikora,
there were reports of actions that may not have been fully compliant with
international humanitarian law, such as infiltration and sabotage, which
could endanger civilians and did not always adhere to the principles of
legitimate warfare.
|
In Trikora,
Indonesia sought to avoid open armed conflict and eventually resolve the
issue through international negotiations.
|
|
Conflict Resolution
|
Dwikora ended after political changes in
Indonesia and increased diplomacy between Indonesia and Malaysia.
|
Trikora ended with a diplomatic settlement
through the UN
|
Source: Processed
by the author
Overall,
the consistency of implementing the rules of war in the two operations varied.
Trikora tended to follow international rules of war more consistently, mainly
because the conflict could be resolved through diplomatic mechanisms. Dwikora,
on the other hand, showed some challenges in applying the rules of war, mainly
due to the nature of the confrontation, which involved guerrilla tactics and
sabotage.
Reflections on the Influence of Leadership
on the Rules of War
President
Soekarno, as the leader of Indonesia during the Old Order era, had significant
influence in determining the direction of the country's foreign and military
policies, including in Operations Dwikora and Trikora. His idiosyncratic
leadership, which reflected his unique and strong personal characteristics,
played an important role in the formation and implementation of these
operations.
Soekarno's Leadership Influence in
Operation Dwikora
In the
context of Operation Dwikora, Soekarno's revolutionary and visionary leadership
showed itself through his opposition to forming the Federation of Malaysia.
Soekarno saw the formation of the Malaysian Federation as an unacceptable form
of neo-colonialism. By combining nationalism, religion and communism in the
Nasakom political concept, Soekarno tried accommodating various domestic
ideologies to garner support for his anti-Malaysian policy (Hakim, 2023). His charismatic leadership allowed him
to mobilize popular and military support in this confrontation, although the
tactics used in Dwikora-such as infiltration and sabotage-raised questions
about consistency with international rules of war.
Soekarno's Leadership Influence in Operation Trikora
Meanwhile, in Operation Trikora, Soekarno's glorious
and fashionable leadership was seen in his mobilising international and
domestic support for integrating West Irian into Indonesia. Soekarno used anti-colonialism
rhetoric to galvanize nationalism and gain widespread support from the public (Antouw,
2020). His leadership ensured that despite
massive military preparations, large-scale armed confrontation was avoided, and
conflict resolution was eventually achieved through diplomacy and international
mechanisms.
Reflections on Soekarno's Leadership
Influence
Reflection on
the influence of Soekarno's leadership on the rules of war in these two
operations shows that a leader's characteristics and ideology can influence a
country's military strategies and tactics. With his idiosyncratic approach,
Soekarno was able to mobilize national resources and influence public opinion
to support an aggressive and bold foreign policy (Demaine,
2022). However,
this also posed challenges regarding consistency with international rules of
war, especially in Dwikora
Soekarno's
leadership also reflected the complex relationship between domestic and
international politics, where factors such as ideology, nationalism, and Cold
War dynamics interacted and influenced decisions in armed conflict. In the case
of Trikora, Soekarno's more diplomatic approach and resolution of the conflict
through the UN showed respect for international rules of war, while in Dwikora,
the tactics used raised questions about the application of these rules (Siti,
2023).
Overall, Soekarno's leadership in these two operations shows that strong
and charismatic leadership can influence the direction of a country's military
and foreign policy but also poses challenges in complying with international rules of war.
CONCLUSION
In conclusion, this study has revealed significant
disparities in the implementation and approach to the rules of war between
Operation Trikora and Operation Dwikora, marking critical junctures in Indonesian
military history. The analysis underscores how these disparities are
intricately linked to the historical and strategic backdrop of each conflict,
thereby shaping Indonesia's defense of its territorial sovereignty. Operation
Trikora's initiation was prompted by Dutch territorial ambitions in Papua,
showcasing Indonesia's resolute stance to uphold its claim over Papua and
advocate for its integration into the Indonesian state. Conversely, Operation
Dwikora unfolded as a response to the Malaysian confrontation in 1963, aimed at
fortifying national identity and safeguarding territorial sovereignty. Moreover,
this research accentuates the imperative of comprehending the interplay between
warfare dynamics and diplomatic maneuvers in Indonesian historical narratives,
illuminating their implications on nationalism's evolution and foreign policy
development. It articulates that both operations epitomize Indonesia's
unwavering spirit and resolve in safeguarding its sovereignty amidst external
threats, while also exemplifying Indonesia's proactive engagement in regional
and global politics. The study's outcomes hold profound implications for
elucidating the nuances of war regulations and their contextual application
across different historical and strategic frameworks. It underscores the
challenges of aligning international legal frameworks with the intricacies of
conflict, underscoring the enduring influence of historical legacies on
contemporary international relations. In summary, this study presents a nuanced
perspective on the disparities in implementing the rules of war between
Operation Trikora and Operation Dwikora, pivotal episodes in Indonesian
history. It delineates the historical and strategic underpinnings of each
conflict, illuminating Indonesia's defense of its sovereignty and territorial
integrity. Additionally, the study underscores the pivotal roles of leadership
and public sentiment in shaping foreign policy and military strategies,
recognizing the substantial impact of populist elements on national security
decisions.
REFERENCES
Antouw, Y. R. (2020). Peran International Committee Of The
Red Cross Dalam Perlindungan Korban Perang Menurut Konvensi Jenewa 1949. LEX
ET SOCIETATIS, 8(2).
Awoah, A. E. (2016). Perlindungan Terhadap Korban Perang
Dalam Perspektif Konvensi-Konvensi Internasional Tentang Hukum Humaniter Dan
Ham. Lex Crimen, 5(7).
Basyar, M. H. (2020). Etika Perang dalam Islam dan Teori Just
War. Jurnal Penelitian Politik, 17(1), 17�30.
Demaine, H. (2022). Furnivall reconsidered: plural societies
in South-East Asia in era. In Geography & Ethnic Pluralism (pp.
25�50). Routledge.
Haidah, A. (2023). Internalisasi Nilai-Nilai Keteladanan
Pahlawan Revolusi Termuda Pierre Tendean dalam Pembelajaran Sejarah. Sajaratun:
Jurnal Sejarah Dan Pembelajaran Sejarah, 8(2), 1�16.
Hakim, A. B. (2023). Soekarno dan Nasakom dalam Pendekatan
Idiosinkratik (psikologi kepemimpinan. Conseils: Jurnal Bimbingan Dan
Konseling Islam, 3(1), 13�19.
Hanschel, D., Bravo, M. G. A., Dashpurev, B., & Idris, A.
K. (2022). Environmental Rights Between Constitutional Law and Local Context:
Reflections on a Moving Target. German Law Journal, 23(7),
1012�1028.
Hari Purwanto, S. H. (2021). Gejolak Papua dalam
Perspektif Intelijen. Jakad Media Publishing.
Hartono, A. (2017). KORPS KOMANDO OPERASI ANGKATAN LAUT
DALAM MENJAGA KEDAULATAN REPUBLIK INDONESIA 1961-1968. Universitas Pendidikan Indonesia.
Irshanto, A. B. (2019). Dari Konfrontasi
Ke Perdamaian (Hubungan Indonesia�Malaysia 1963-1966). CRIKSETRA: Jurnal Pendidikan Sejarah, 8(2), 84�97.
Kennedy, P. S. J. (2017). The Indonesian Defense and The
Views on Threats and Ambitions in Every Era of Indonesian Regime. Fundamental
Management Journal, 2(2), 71�76.
Kennedy, P. S. J. F. (2017). Bayang-bayang Intervensi.
Kurnia, D. D., & Miftahuddin, M. (2019). PERAN GERWANI
DALAM TRI KOMANDO RAKYAT (TRIKORA) 1961-1963. Mozaik: Kajian Ilmu Sejarah,
10(2).
Kusmayadi, Y. (2017). Politik Luar
Negeri Republik Indonesia Pada Masa Konfrontasi Indonesia-Malaysia Tahun
1963-1966. Jurnal Artefak, 4(1), 23�34.
Lambert, V. A., & Lambert, C. E. (2012). Pacific Rim
International Journal of Nursing Research. Qualitative Descriptive Research:
An Acceptable Design, 16, 255�256.
Mahfud. (2020). Hukum humaniter internasional dan rezim
perlindungan situs budaya dan benda budaya dalam suatu konflik bersenjata.
Syiah Kuala University Press.
Siti, M. (2023). Analisis Bentuk Pemerintahan di Lingkup
Negara ASEAN. CV MITRA ILMU.
Suryawan, I. N. (2019). Jiwa yang patah. BasaBasi.
Widariyanti, C. (2022). Eksistensi Lekra
dalam Pusaran Manifesto Kebudayaan Demokrasi Terpimpin. ISTORIA Jurnal Pendidikan Dan Ilmu Sejarah, 18(1).
