Can Susilo be taken at his world on Papua?

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.