The complex Papuan situation<\/p>\n
By J. Soedjati Djiwandono<\/p>\n
JAKARTA (JP): Behind the declaration of independence by the
\npeople of West Papua is without doubt the demand for justice. The
\npeople of Papua, officially Irian Jaya, feel that since their
\n"re-unification" with the Unitary Republic of Indonesia a little
\nover 30 years ago, they have suffered great injustice.<\/p>\n
That is an undeniable fact that the government in Jakarta must
\nabove all bear in mind when considering its response to the
\nPapuan's declaration of separation from the Indonesian Republic.<\/p>\n
To reject the declaration out of hand for the defense of the
\nunitary republic by threats of force and accusing West Papuans of
\nseparatism may be counterproductive. The demand for independence
\nby the people of West Papua is not an instant dream.<\/p>\n
Threats of force and recommendations for the possible use of
\nforce coming from military and political leaders would further
\ninflame the desire for independence.<\/p>\n
Of no less importance, it would be an unrealistic attitude.
\nEveryone in this country knows full well that the military is now
\nin a weak position, not only in political terms, but also in
\nterms of the number of its personnel, its armament and equipment.<\/p>\n
In terms of leadership, the Indonesian military is a house
\ndivided. The increasing local conflicts and cases of violence
\nacross the nation in the past two years attest to its apparent
\nimpotence and incompetence.<\/p>\n
Moreover, West Papua is a remote province, farther away than
\nMaluku from Jakarta, and apart from Papua New Guinea, it is a
\nhuge island of its own with its homogeneous population despite
\nmigrants from outside the province.<\/p>\n
It is a territory of dense jungles and mountainous terrain
\nthat would be a formidable advantage to its population for
\npurposes of defense against intruders. It would be an ideal field
\nfor guerrilla warfare.<\/p>\n
By contrast, it would be a horrendous impediment to the
\nIndonesian military in the event of military action by the
\ngovernment short of a random and aimless bombing of the
\nterritory.<\/p>\n
In any event, it would be a war it is unlikely to win.
\nShould the government ultimately succeed, if at all, in putting
\ndown the Papuan independence movement, it seems doubtful if it
\nwould be worth the price.<\/p>\n
It would only result in the loss of innumerable human lives
\nwith no end in sight. Remember the conflict in Sri Lanka.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, the complacency on the part of Indonesian leaders,
\npoliticians and political observers alike, given that Papuan
\nindependence is not (yet) recognized by the international
\ncommunity, is misplaced.<\/p>\n
Indeed, the Indonesian style of a "plebiscite" in 1969 under
\nthe auspices of the United Nations (i.e. the United States using
\nthe UN umbrella) resulting in the integration of West Papua with
\nthe Indonesian republic was recognized by the international
\ncommunity.<\/p>\n
This recognition, however, must be understood in the context
\nof the Cold War. The possibility of a superpower (nuclear)
\nconfrontation was then the utmost preoccupation, even an
\nobsession, of the United States as well as the United Nations.<\/p>\n
The world of today has undergone a drastic change. While more
\nremote, the possibility of a nuclear devastation remains a grave
\nconcern, and the concern of the United Nations has continued to
\nbe with international peace (that is, the absence of war among
\nnations); there is increasing concern with human rights and human
\nlives.<\/p>\n
The result of the so-called plebiscite in West Papua, though
\nnot based on one-man-one-vote principle, and thus by definition
\nnot representative of the people of the territory in terms of
\nmodern democracy, was recognized as valid.<\/p>\n
Yet after the end of the Cold War, even Cambodia, then no more
\ndeveloped than West Papua in the 1960s, was expected to have a
\ngeneral election on the basis of that very same principle: one-
\nman-one-vote.<\/p>\n
Intervention in the interest of human rights, designated as
\nhumanitarian intervention by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, has
\nbeen carried out or at least endorsed by the United Nations.<\/p>\n
The international community no longer stands idle in the face
\nof the use of force by the central government of a country
\nagainst a separatist movement.<\/p>\n
The Russian military action against Chechnya has been a
\nsubject of condemnation by the international community, if mainly
\nin the form of appeal to respect human rights as well as threats
\nof certain kinds of sanction.<\/p>\n
In Europe, the UN intervened in Bosnia and NATO in Kosovo, and
\nin Africa the UN intervened in Somalia and Sierra Leone.<\/p>\n
Even during the Cold War, India conducted military
\nintervention in Pakistan in 1971 resulting in the birth of
\nBangladesh which, surprisingly, was also swiftly recognized by
\nIndonesia.<\/p>\n
Meanwhile, Israel has survived, and so has Taiwan, in spite of
\na lack, though not the absence altogether, of recognition by the
\ninternational community.<\/p>\n
In other words, the importance of recognition by the
\ninternational community should not be exaggerated. The way a
\nnation-state behaves is dictated above all by considerations of
\nits own national interest, however perceived, at a given moment.<\/p>\n
The government's basic policy of avoiding violence in dealing
\nwith the problem of Aceh and West Papua, as well as a similar
\nproblem involving some other provinces, is to be appreciated.<\/p>\n
But the non-negotiable maintenance of the unitary state as its
\nstarting point in any peaceful dialogs would render such
\ndialogs meaningless.<\/p>\n
The aspirations of the people of West Papua for independence
\nmay be genuine. To reject their declaration of independence at
\nonce by questioning its legitimacy may be detrimental to any hope
\nfor a meaningful dialog.<\/p>\n
The "plebiscite" that led to the integration of West Papua
\nwith Indonesia was no more legitimate. To resort to the use or
\nthreat of force would be futile.<\/p>\n
Unity cannot possibly be imposed, especially in today's world.
\nIt must be voluntary, based on the free choice of the people
\nconcerned. And it can only be maintained through the promotion of
\nwelfare and justice. These factors should be uppermost in mind
\nbefore the government embarks on any action in dealing with West
\nPapua just as in the case of Aceh.<\/p>\n
However, President Abdurrahman Wahid, in particular, must take
\nextra caution for another reason. Just as in the case of the
\ncontinuing violence in various regions of the country, it would
\nnot seem inconceivable that the Papuan problem, while probably
\nbased on genuine issues, may be subject to, or partly the result
\nof, instigation and exploitation by his political friends or foes
\namong the short-sighted politicians, to push him into a dilemma.<\/p>\n
The president may be in for a trap set by those eying for his
\nposition.<\/p>\n
The writer is a political analyst based in Jakarta.<\/p>", "url": "https:\/\/jawawa.id\/newsitem\/the-complex-papuan-situation-1447893297", "image": "" }, "sponsor": "Okusi Associates", "sponsor_url": "https:\/\/okusiassociates.com" }