For 11/5)

For 11/5)

JP/6/EDIT01

Papuans need sincerity

The 42 members of the Papuan People's Assembly (MRP) were
installed on Oct. 31, 2005, in Jayapura, capital of the
easternmost province of Papua. But whether the assembly will be
able to play the role it is supposed to play is another question.
The controversy surrounding the formation of the assembly in
recent weeks is reason enough to have reservations about the
performance of the assembly.

The controversy over the selection of MRP members is
indicative of poor communication between the government and the
Papuan people. It is an old problem, but people could be forgiven
for harboring some hopes of a change in the government's attitude
toward its easternmost constituents now that peace is dawning in
Aceh Nanggroe Darussalam, another province with a long history of
separatism. Any change, however, remains elusive.

Opponents to the formation of the assembly have asked for the
postponement of the confirmation of its members in office on the
grounds that they are not the people's choices. The opposition
comes from virtually across the whole of society, including the
influential Papua Presidium Council, and church and tribal
leaders.

The controversy over the assembly should have never arisen in
the first place. In fact, the establishment of the MRP should
have been an occasion for joy as it is part of the most liberal
effort ever by the government to reduce separatist sentiment in the
resource-rich province. The MRP, mandated by the Papua Special
Autonomy Law No. 21, which was signed by former president Megawati
Soekarnoputri in 2001, was the brainchild of her predecessor, the
reform-minded president Abdurrahman Wahid. The legislation was
intended to give more power and greater revenue to the Papuan
provincial government.

The enactment of the legislation led many to believe that a
middle way had finally been found to resolve the decades-old
separatist conflict that has killed more than 100,000 people. But
after the legislation was enacted, things ground to a halt,
ostensibly because the government had yet to issue the necessary
ancillary regulations to give effect to the legislation. All of
which proves, once again, that a good concept will not
necessarily translate itself into good results without the
political will to see it through.

Local leaders say they were not consulted about the MRP
formation process and that the seeming haste involved was
intended to rubber stamp the reelection of Governor Jaap E.
Solossa, a functionary of the Golkar party, in the upcoming
gubernatorial election.

Golkar, led by Vice President Jusuf Kalla, is the dominant
party in the House of Representatives. According to the Papua
Special Autonomy Law, the MRP will have the power to approve
the candidates standing in gubernatorial elections and for the
People's Consultative Assembly (MPR), as well as make
recommendations and give its special approval to collaborative
projects between the Papua administration and third parties.

Actually, poor communication is only the tip of the iceberg.
The government needs to decide how it wants to define its
relationship with the Papuans. Does it see itself as a colonial
master, like many Papuans allege, or does it want to define the
relationship as one of trust and an encounter between equals?
Nothing will actually change until the right definition is found.

There are other no less serious issues that have to be
resolved. What does it mean when the government uses the term
"Papua"? Is it referring to the original province as defined in
the Special Autonomy Law, or does Papua comprise the eastern part
of the original Papua and Western Irian Jaya, as postulated by
the Constitutional Court last year?

To Papuans, these are all contradictory signals that only
reinforce their believe that Jakarta is not serious about
autonomy for their land.

If sincerity is absent from the government's policies, resentment
will persist. The Papuans, like the Acehnese, have deep
resentment against Jakarta, which they hold responsible for the
prolonged violence and human rights abuses. All they want is
sincerity on the part of the government.

We certainly don't want another tsunami, like that in Aceh, to
force the government to improve its attitude toward the Papuans.
The Papuans do not deserve more uncertainties. They have had
enough of them.

The government needs to reflect on the case of East Timor and
learn that the strategy of buying time in order to maintain
absolute control in Papua is no longer appropriate, unless it
wants to lose another province. There is no reason why the
government cannot do the same in Papua as it has done in Aceh.
Listen to what the Papuans say and treat them with respect and
sincerity!