Entering its tenth year since the fall of the authoritarian President Suharto, Indonesia has progressed towards consolidating its democratic system, respecting rule of law and resolving ethnic grievances.
Notably, after a couple of false starts, the direct election of President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono helped consolidate Indonesia’s reform process. Yet despite this progress, Indonesia retains a blot on its democratic and human rights record; that of West Papua.
There was some hope after 2001 that Indonesia’s process of political and economic decentralization would allow West Papua a degree of genuine autonomy.
On paper, the “special autonomy” package offered to West Papua, and Indonesia’s other formerly troubled province of Aceh, looked to address many outstanding issues.
Yet as has since been noted by many observers, West Papua’s “special autonomy” status has been methodically undermined until it has become next to meaningless.
In particular, dividing the province into three provinces, later ratified by Indonesia’s constitutional court as two, destroyed much of the substance of its autonomy package. A proposal to create even further provinces even further diminishes the original “special autonomy” package.
Meanwhile, since the redeployment of troops following Aceh’s successfully negotiated peace settlement, West Papua has seen a significant build-up of soldiers and paramilitary police. The human rights situation, while not at record bad levels, has consequently deteriorated.
Underlying West Papua’s problems with Jakarta has been the means by which the territory was incorporated into the state in 1968. In this, a little over one thousand hand-picked village leaders were compelled to ratify West Papua’s forced incorporation into Indonesia in 1963. This process was sanctioned by the UN, but has since been discredited.
West Papua was not only constructed by many Indonesian leaders as central to completing their nationalist project, but the wealth it generates has since underpinned Indonesia’s economy.
As a largely self-funded institution, Indonesia’s military, the TNI, also has a major economic stake in West Papua, and for both reasons is profoundly opposed to its separation.
Yet for a wealthy province, most West Papuans are poor, have abysmally low levels of education, health care and other development indicators.
And, as Melanesians, West Papuans are looked upon by malay Indonesians with attitudes ranging from pity to contempt. Many Indonesians, in particular in the military, regard West Papuans as being less than fully human, which has exacerbated human rights abuses.
Following the Aceh peace agreement which has seen that province prosper in peace over the past two years, many West Papuan political leaders hoped for a similar resolution.
In order to achieve this, last year the province’s disparate political groups, including the Free Papua Organisation (OPM), came together under an umbrella organization, the West Papua National Coalition for Liberation (WPNCL).
The word “liberation” in the WPNCL’s title refers to freeing West Papuans from oppression, not necessarily separating from Indonesia.
However, to date, President Yudhoyono has refused to talk with the WPNCL, at least under international mediation, perhaps fearing political backlash from the often fractious and self-serving politics of Jakarta.
Yet following from Aceh’s relative success, such a process might offer a means of resolving Indonesia’s outstanding separatist issue while significantly improving the lives of a people who have been treated as second class citizens.
From an international perspective, such a resolution would remove a significant impediment from relations with Indonesia, particularly with Australia and the United States.
The West Papua issue retains the potential to destabilize bilateral relations, especially in Australia was faced with accepting another boat-load of West Papuan asylum seekers. Last year’s Lombok Treaty does not trump Australia’s international and humanitarian obligations to legitimate refugees, and the West Papuan issue continues to come up with members of the US Congress.
It is in Indonesia’s interests, and those of its friends, to see the West Papua problem disappear. This cannot happen by sweeping it under the carpet, as with East Timor until the fateful referendum of 1999.
Rather, the problem of West Papua will only disappear when the government of Indonesia decides to seriously address the myriad issues that have bedeviled the territory.
The international community has a role in monitoring events in West Papua, at least as best it can given the continuing restrictions on travel there. And the international community might, as with Aceh, have a role in mediating and overseeing the implementation of any future agreement.
In this, Indonesia can build on its success in Aceh, which brought the government international accolades including Nobel Peace Prize nominations. The question really is, though, whether Indonesia is still serious about reform, or whether the gains of democratization will again be allowed to slip between it political fingers.
David Thackrah’s question, “So why bother to even talk about it?” deserves a response, as he is accurate in all he says. Richard Samuelson’s response could be used as a good answer, but David had a different take on that. It seems he thinks the problem is someone else’s, or is insurmountable. It actually fits neither of those categories.
Damien Kingsbury’s ideas could be influenced by his own role in the Aceh autonomy deal which he helped broker; but Aceh is not West Papua, and the West Papuans are not “Indonesians”. West Papua is part of Melanesia and West Papuans are Melanesian. This means Australian policy is supporting an illegitimate colonisation, which was expedited by illegitimate means, contrary to International Law.
These are some of the reasons why it should still be talked about.
When Australians were asked, in a few polls (after the time the 43 West Papuan refugees were granted asylum), they were very sympathetic to the plight and claims of the West Papuans. Over 70% talked in favour of a more appropriate government stance on refugees and foreign policy.
If our democracy is worth anything then >70% should be worth listening to. If we are worth anything, then we should talk about it, until we can convince our government to act in a way that supports International Law, Rights of Indigenous Peoples, democratic ideals and democratic process.
Right now we do have a government that is subservient to Indonesia in many ways, yet claims the moral “high-ground” in its domestic and international fora. In this regard our government is similar to the Indonesian government; but they are subservient to their own military. This situation is reminicent of the
subservience to military in Japan before WWII; nothing positive can come of it. We also, therefore, owe it to the Indonesian people to talk about it.
And if we want to be part of the world, we owe it to ourselves.
How much longer do the West Papuans have to suffer continuing violence and intimidation at the hands of the indonesian military whilst the Australian, British and US governments look on, stay silent and do nothing? President Yudhoyono has had four years to fulfill his promises.
Damien Kingsbury is right to identify deeply ingrained Javanese anti-Papuan racism as being at the heart of Jakarta’s reluctance to enter into genuine dialogue with West Papuan leaders, coupled with a knowledge that following the sham 1969 Act of NO Choice, West Papua’s legal and moral claim to self-determination is rock solid.
The Free West Papua Campaign (UK) would however question Mr Kingsbury’s suggestion that the “L” in the West Papua National Coalition for Liberation (WPNCL) doesn’t necessarily mean “liberation”. Ask any West Papuan what they really want (if they feel safe in telling you their true feelings) and they will say “MERDEKA PENUH – FULL INDEPENDENCE!”
Richard Samuelson, Oxford, England
Australians have swept “West Papua” under the carpet. Whitlam’s government handed the west end of Papua New Guinea to Indonesia whose policy was to transmigrate people from crowded Java. The melanisian indigneous people have been subject to armed invasion, attack, brutality and dispossession.Australia complies with this policy So why bother to even talk about it ? It is paradise lost, ruined, and sold out.