~[b]Claims that the military build-up is necessary to guard the

~Claims that the military build-up is necessary to guard the
border with Papua New Guinea make little sense.

;JP;CD;
ANPAk..r..

SBY's pledge on Papua: Can he be taken at his word?
JP/6/CARMEL

SBY's pledge on Papua: Can he be taken at his word?

Carmel Budiardjo
London

The historic agreement concluded this week between the
Indonesian government and the Free Aceh Movement (GAM) has been
widely welcomed, both in Indonesia and abroad. It was also
highlighted by President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono (SBY), in his
Aug. 16 address to the nation to mark the 60th anniversary of
Indonesian Independence Day on Aug. 17.

Now that the Aceh conflict has been resolved, for the time
being at least, attention has predictably turned to West Papua.
In his address to the nation, SBY drew attention to the
differences between Aceh and Papua. Unlike Aceh, he said, Papua
has only a small armed movement. He also acknowledged that Papua
touches on historical matters that have elicited interest from
abroad. It would therefore require "a political settlement".

Quite predictably too, SBY said the settlement should be made
within the framework of special autonomy as part of the Unitary
Republic of Indonesia. In other words, while showing flexibility,
the President at the same time imposed constraints on issues that
lie at the very heart of the problem.

For a correct analysis of the issue, we need to focus on the
current situation in West Papua. In the first place, there are
the contradictory policies being pursued by Jakarta. Having
granted the status of special autonomy according to a law adopted
in 2001, Jakarta has nevertheless pressed ahead with an earlier
law to partition the province. One of the provisions of the
Special Autonomy Law was the establishment of the Papuan People's
Assembly (MRP), which should be consulted on major government
decisions. This would certainly include the partitioning of the
province. But the MRP has not yet been set up while it remains
unclear whether it will have powers broad enough to have a say on
such matters.

Meanwhile, the partitioning of West Papua is proceeding apace;
a new province called West Irian Jaya has been created and
preparations are underway for local elections to be held there.
While a decision by the Constitutional Court earlier this year
found that partitioning was unlawful, the court refrained from
calling for the dissolution of the West Irian province as this
would have meant taking a retroactive decision. This appears to
have left the Special Autonomy Law in tatters.

In its recent action to "hand back" the Special Autonomy Law,
the Papuan Customary Council did not draw attention to the
existence of this new province, which is surely the most serious
challenge to the law's legitimacy. After bringing forward the
date of its action from Aug. 15 to Aug. 12, the customary council
went ahead with the decision, taken at its Third Congress in
February this year, to hand back the Special Autonomy Law.

The demonstration in Jayapura was attended by more than 10,000
people, many of whom occupied the building of the provincial
assembly, the DPRP, in Jayapura. As the organizers had promised,
the action was entirely peaceful and the security forces appear
to have decided to lie low and let the action proceed. While this
is certainly out of character for the Indonesian Military (TNI),
it is likely that they were under orders to avoid clashes and
casualties so as not to take the shine off the government's
success in clinching a deal with GAM, which was signed in
Helsinki on Aug. 15.

The customary council's Aug. 12 action has certainly drawn
international attention to the unsatisfactory nature of special
autonomy, the law will remain in place, albeit mired in
confusion. Little has been said about the impact of the law on
the daily lives of the Papuan people but reports being received
from West Papua show that conditions have not improved in the
three years since its enactment.

One sustained criticism is that money allocated for the
implementation of special autonomy has been used unlawfully to
finance military operations. According to the head of West
Papua's Baptist Church, Rev. Socratez Sofyan Yoman, funds
amounting to Rp 19 billion allocated to the Puncak Jaya district,
are being used for military operations, which have been underway
there since August last year. There are also allegations of
corruption on the part of West Papuan Governor J.P Salossa and
members of his staff, which has led to the threat of defamation
charges being filed against the customary council.

One of SBY's points distinguishing the situation in Papua from
Aceh was that the armed movement there is small. He might have
added that the Free Papua Movement (OPM) has already declared its
intention to forego military actions and focus on making West
Papua a Land of Peace. This being the case, why did the President
allow the Army to announce plans in March to increase the number
of troops in Papua by 12,000 to 15,000 men, bringing the total to
around 50,000?

The TNI has also announced plans to set up new resort and
district military commands and to deploy a new division of the
Army Strategic Reserves Command (KOSTRAD) in the province. Claims
that the military build-up is necessary to guard the border with
Papua New Guinea make little sense as there have been no reports
of OPM operations on either side of the border.

Furthermore, while the President spoke of his intention to
resolve the conflict by means of dialog, he failed to acknowledge
the fact that the churches in Papua, which are acknowledged as
being the most important institutions speaking out on behalf of
the Papuan people, have for years declared their attachment to
creating a land of peace in Papua, while calling for dialog.

Surely SBY should recognize that the last thing Papua needs is
more troops; on the contrary, all troops recruited from outside
of Aceh should be withdrawn without delay, and an early date set
for disbanding the Army's territorial structure in West Papua.
More than anything else, this would prove that Jakarta's peaceful
intentions are genuine.

But most important of all, SBY referred in his address to
"historical issues". This must surely refer to the way in which
West Papua was incorporated into the Indonesian Republic, which
brings us to the central issue, the so-called Act of Free Choice
in 1969. Just over a thousand tribal chiefs were coerced into
declaring unanimously for integration; they had no choice and the
Act was not free. This happened during the days of military rule
under Gen. Soeharto when the level of repression was far too
heavy for Papuans to take action.

Today, Indonesia can take pride in having its first directly
elected president in sixty years. Of all people, the man who was
elected should have the courage to acknowledge that what happened
in 1969 is an appalling stain on Indonesia's history, which
cannot be upheld in a country that prides itself on being a
democracy.

This historical issue will continue to rankle with the people
of West Papua. It is surely within SBY's powers to set in motion
diplomatic moves to annul this fraudulent Act and to enter into
dialog with Papuan leaders on the future status of the province.

SBY has expressed his anger that Papua was included by the
House of Representatives in the 2006 Appropriations Bill for the
State Department, requiring it to "reinforce efforts to promote
human rights in Papua and Aceh" and has set in motion diplomatic
efforts to have this deleted. Were he to succeed, it would only
draw more attention to the Papuan problem and infuriate many
senators, congressmen and congresswomen.

International interest in West Papuan has certainly grown in
the past few years and there is nothing the Indonesian President
can do to reverse this. Indonesia's international reputation can
best be served by a courageous move at the very top to revise the
government's policy on West Papua, to withdraw its troops, and,
as a matter of urgency, to enter into dialog with representatives
of the people of West Papua. If SBY were to move in this
direction, he would have another important success to be proud of
in next year's anniversary address.

The writer is the founder of TAPOL, the Indonesia Human Rights
Campaign, set up in 1973.