Government policy in Papua must be consistent<\/p>\n
Israr Iskandar, Jakarta<\/p>\n
Indonesian leaders were quite disturbed on hearing that two
\nmembers of the U.S. House of Representatives had questioned the
\nstatus of Papua within the Unitary State of the Republic of
\nIndonesia (NKRI). Under Bill No. 2601, the U.S. House cast doubt
\non the effectiveness of Papua's special autonomy and disputed the
\npresence of this territory within NKRI. They even broadened the
\nfocus, describing as unfair the Act of Free Choice (plebiscite)
\nthat took place in 1969.<\/p>\n
The Indonesian government should avoid panic in facing such
\nmaneuvers in the U.S. congress. The government take a stance and
\nact against the internationalization of Papuan problems. Papuan
\nissues are Indonesian domestic matters, meaning that no foreign
\ncitizens or countries have the right to interfere. Foreign
\nintervention in Indonesia's internal affairs is equivalent to
\nencroachment on sovereignty.<\/p>\n
Nonetheless, the U.S. maneuver cannot be taken lightly,
\neither. The government should take the opportunity to seek a
\ncomprehensive settlement of outstanding problems in Papua. The
\nsensitivity and sincerity of Jakarta towards this issue at the
\npresent stage is badly needed. The government has a great deal of
\nunfinished homework in Papua, and extra attention is required.<\/p>\n
Above all, putting off settlement of Papua's problems means a
\ndelay in this region's development, and accelerated development
\nis imperative. Though abundant in natural resources, Papua has
\nbeen left far behind other regions in Indonesia. It is faced with
\ncrucial political, social, economic, cultural and security
\nproblems. Furthermore, suspending the handling of Papuan
\nquandaries also increases the government's burden in resolving
\nthe plethora of other critical issues.<\/p>\n
From the beginning, the government has sought solutions to the
\nproblems in Papua, but the quest has been neither consistent nor
\ncomprehensive. Instead of creating an atmosphere conducive to
\nsettlement, the government has left Papua trapped in a protracted
\ncrisis, marked by not only separatism, but also human rights
\nabuse and many other forms of violence.<\/p>\n
There were high expectations for change in Papua when the
\ngovernment introduced Law No. 21\/2001 on special autonomy (Otsus)
\nfor the province. In socio-cultural terms, the Otsus law was seen
\nas affirmative action favoring indigenous Papuans of Melanesian
\nextraction over migrants from outside Papua. Politically, many
\nbelieved at that time that conflicts -- particularly those
\nconnected with separatist aspirations -- would dissipate as most
\nof their political goals were accommodated under the law.<\/p>\n
In reality, however, Papuans' expectations remained unsettled.
\nThe trouble again came from policymakers in Jakarta with the
\nsupport of orthodox nationalists. The government as initiator of
\nOtsus was regarded as inconsistent in its own commitments. For
\nover four years Papua's fate was uncertain. In fact, Otsus was
\noriginally meant not only to resolve conflicts but also to serve
\nas the starting point for accelerating Papua's development.<\/p>\n
Various new cases later appeared, with political conflicts,
\nviolence, rights infringements and poverty continuing to engulf
\nPapua. One of the latest sources of conflict in Papua is the plan
\nfor direct regional elections in West Irian Jaya, which again
\nindicates Jakarta's inconsistency.<\/p>\n
In actual fact, regional elections in West Irian Jaya should
\nhave been carried out after the formation of the Papuan People's
\nAssembly (MRP). As stipulated by the Otsus law, this body must
\ncome first.<\/p>\n
All political matters in Papua should refer to the Otsus law,
\nwhich is the legal umbrella for the region's overall
\nimplementation of decentralization. It is difficult to understand
\nwhy the government has been so ambivalent. Unless a remedy is
\nfound soon, more complicated problems will arise, thus prolonging
\nthe political crisis in Papua and attracting even more unwelcome
\nexternal \"attention\".<\/p>\n
The public still remembers President Susilo Bambang
\nYudhoyono's promise for dialogue with the Papuan people several
\nmonths ago to put Otsus into consistent operation. But the long-
\ndrawn-out controversy over West Irian Jaya, without heed to the
\nnon-existence of the MRP, is an obvious reflection of the
\ngovernment's policy inconsistency.<\/p>\n
The primary solution to the Papuan problem is first of all
\nrealization of the Otsus law and the establishment of the MRP.
\nOnly thereafter should Papua's democratization be initiated,
\nincluding direct regional elections. Why MRP? The empowerment of
\nPapua should start with the fostering of its cultural society as
\nmirrored in the institution of the MRP. The question is now is
\nhow to promptly set up the MRP in a transparent, fair and
\ndemocratic fashion, without in any way denying Papuans their
\ndemocratic rights.<\/p>\n
In future, there should be no more \"rubber band policies\" for
\nPapua, which only serve as invitation for foreign \"concern\" (i.e.
\ninvolvement). The government should be consistent with its own
\npolicies. Any inconsistency, as is happening at the present, will
\nonly reduce the confidence of Papuan people and the world in the
\nIndonesian government. The authority of the government and the
\ncohesion of the Indonesian state are therefore at stake.<\/p>\n
The writer is a researcher from the Center for Indonesian
\nRegional and Urban Studies (CIRUS), Jakarta.<\/p>",
"url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/government-policy-in-papua-must-be-consistent-1447893297",
"image": ""
},
"sponsor": "Okusi Associates",
"sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com"
}