Papua problems: More pebbles in Jakarta's shoes?<\/p>\n
Aboeprijadi Santoso, The Hague<\/p>\n
A Dutch study on Papua, charged with political implications
\nfor Indonesia, has been greeted with rejoicing by many Papuans,
\nand led to controversy in the Netherlands and growing concern
\nabout the prospects for Papua.<\/p>\n
Nov. 15, 2005, will go down in history as an important day for Papuans
\nas Prof. P.J. Drooglever's long awaited study, Een Daad van Vrije
\nKeuze (An Act of Free Choice), was finally launched in The Hague.
\nThe Dutch-commissioned report has now confirmed international
\nfindings that the UN held \"vote\" in 1969, that put Papua under
\nIndonesian sovereignty, was \"a sham\" -- a conclusion likely to
\nstrengthen the pro-independence Papuan perspective and the
\ninternational criticism of Papua's integration into Indonesia.<\/p>\n
Jakarta has always considered Papua its province in the
\nlegitimate and ultimate sense, and The Hague has stated that it
\ncategorically respects Indonesia's territorial integrity.
\nDrooglever's work, though, is not a political document, but a
\nstudy written at the request of the Dutch Foreign Ministry. Yet
\nthe launching of the report has been a delicate and sensitive
\naffair precisely because of its conclusions.<\/p>\n
Neither Indonesian diplomats nor Dutch government officials,
\nboth moving in tandem, were willing to attend. Foreign Minister
\nBernhard Bot refused to officially receive the book, which he
\ndismissed as \"superfluous\" despite it being sponsored by his
\nministry. Instead, it was presented to his predecessor, Joziaas
\nvan Aartsen, the man who actually gave the go-ahead to the study.<\/p>\n
The two governments' conspicuous silence indicates a cautious,
\nbut undeclared concern that Drooglever's findings might
\ncomplicate the issue of Papua by provoking Papuan and
\ninternational demands for a \"historical rectification\" of the
\n1969 vote, i.e. a new referendum.<\/p>\n
Few anticipated such a prospect when, following President
\nAbdurrachman \"Gus Dur\" Wahid's opening up toward Papua in 1999, a
\nDutch-Papua lobby proposed a historical study on Papua. But, then
\nForeign Minister J. van Aartsen, perhaps naively, agreed without
\nseeking parliamentary consent or considering its implications.<\/p>\n
The proposal by two legislators from small Christian-based
\nparties, E. van Middelkoop and G. van den Berg, thus resulted in
\nthe Drooglever assignment. But, much to their dismay, Gus Dur was
\ndeposed a year later and, worse, the special autonomy offered and
\nwelcomed by the Papuans in 2001 has since been effectively
\ndecapitated by the division of the province, resulting in growing
\nlocal resistance.<\/p>\n
Thus, the success of the Papua lobby and Drooglever's
\npublication in the Netherlands, came just as the condition in
\nPapua has grown worse, leaving Jakarta and The Hague with its
\nconsequences.<\/p>\n
Minister Bot, anxious to guard the improved relationship with
\nIndonesia, has denied that The Hague was responsible for the
\nDrooglever assignment. Indeed, recognizing that the project would
\nbe viewed as an unfriendly act to a friendly country, Bot took a
\nhistoric step, acknowledging Indonesia's Aug. 17, 1945
\nindependence day. Neither is the Dutch parliament planning to do
\nanything with Drooglever's findings. Yet van Aartsen and the
\nPapua lobby, the \"heroes\" at launch day, maintained, \"the
\nbook is about our (Dutch) history\", hence, the government's
\nsponsorship.<\/p>\n
Viewed from the Papuan perspective, however, Drooglever's
\npublication -- precisely because it was commissioned by the Dutch
\nadministration -- has assumed an importance that it is hoped will
\ntake Papua to a new departure after decades of abuse,
\ninconsistencies and confusion.<\/p>\n
In particular, it is seen as opening up an opportunity for
\nencouraging a dialog on \"historical rectification\" as demanded by
\nthe historic Second Papua People's Congress of 2000 -- the first
\never Pan Papua mass meeting, which significantly defined the
\nparameters of Papuan identity, dignity and objectives.<\/p>\n
Certainly, no book will by itself change history, but
\nDrooglever's publication has started a momentum that could bring
\nPapuan politics into line with history. The presence, therefore,
\nof a dozen representatives of key Papuan organizations at the
\nseminar is a clear sign of a new determination among Papuans to
\npursue a peaceful struggle to encourage the international
\ncommunity to help Papuans rectify history.<\/p>\n
Ironically, the Papua issue has always evoked sympathy from
\namong the paternalistic conservatives, including the Dutch Foreign
\nMinister of the 1960s and 1970s, Joseph Luns -- the last Dutch
\n\"imperialist\" and champion of Papuan rights.<\/p>\n
P.J. Drooglever has no doubt written a credible and most
\ncomprehensive study on Papua. He recognizes that the Papua issue
\nbegan after the Dutch raised the idea of zelf-beschikkingsrecht
\n(right to self-determination) at the Linggardjati talks (1948)
\nand put it in the Round Table Agreement (1949). However,
\nPresident Sukarno and Foreign Minister Soebandrio's successful
\ndiplomacy cornered Joseph Luns after the two Kennedys, John and
\nRobert, threw U.S. support behind Indonesia.<\/p>\n
The sham that thwarted a free vote began after Gen. Soeharto
\ndeclared he would only accept the results if Papua, then called
\nWest Irian, joined Indonesia. Based on archives and testimony,
\nDrooglever argues, the 1969 vote was not, in fact, held quite in
\naccordance with the 1962 New York Agreement. In fact, there was
\nno vote at all as the process went through stages where
\ndecisions were taken collectively by carefully selected Papuans
\non the basis of written prescriptions -- often with intimidation
\nand threats of violence forming the backdrop.<\/p>\n
It seems unfair for Jakarta to deal with the problems in Papua
\nwithout addressing the very issues the Papuans themselves have
\nbeen raising since the 2000 Papuan People's Congress. Like Aceh's
\npro-referendum mass meetings and the pro-democracy manifestations
\nelsewhere in Indonesia during the late-1990s, the forgotten
\nPapuan congress produced genuine expressions of local aspirations
\nthat need to be respected.<\/p>\n
To restore Papuan dignity means to rectify history. Papuans
\nneed peace and dialog, and to be made the masters in their own
\nland -- without having to endure ever-changing rules from
\nJakarta. The New Order's total failure to win hearts and minds by
\ncombining diplomacy and violence made the East Timor issue --
\nthat \"pebble in Jakarta's shoe\" -- unbearable the East Timor was
\nfinally resolved.<\/p>\n
A similar process is now taking place in Aceh with the
\nsuccessful implementation of the Helsinki deal. It's time to
\nlearn these lessons and apply them also in Papua.<\/p>\n
The writer is journalist with Radio Netherlands.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/papua-problems-more-pebbles-in-jakartas-shoes-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }