Foster dialog, end violence in Papua

Foster dialog, end violence in Papua

Muridan S. Widjojo, Research Institute for Democracy and Peace
(RIDeP), Jakarta

The murder of Papuan Presidium Council (PDP) chief Theys Eluay,
who was found dead on Nov. 11, represents just one episode in
Papuan history under the unitary state of the republic, dominated
so far by the politics of violence.

From the time of Papua's integration into the republic in the
early 1960s up to when Theys was slain, the security forces have
continued to resort to violence, mostly under the pretext of
eradicating the Free Papua Movement (OPM) and maintaining the
republic's territorial integrity.

However, after nearly four decades, the Indonesian Military
(TNI) has not been able to rout the OPM. Ironically the
republic's integrity is increasingly under threat because
excesses of military operations have bred violence and other
human rights violations.

Instead of increased political stability and loyalty of
Papuans to the republic, demands for independence have spread and
militancy has increased. The politics of violence pursued by
security personnel has made the Papuans even more resilient.
Repression, once considered a deterrent and a means to enforce
compliance, has failed.

The PDP clearly showed its defiance after Theys' burial. PDP
meetings and regency's panels have demanded UN protection, the
withdrawal of TNI from Papuan soil and a referendum.

The militancy demonstrated by the Papuan independence
supporters is becoming more and more visible through the
unfurling of the Morning Star flag, the use of other Free Papua
symbols and defiance of the agenda offered both by the central
government and the provincial administration. These movements
have shown greater militancy as they are based on the local
belief that Papuan independence shall mean liberalization and the
advent of a new and more prosperous era for the people.

Theys was the chairman of the Papuan Presidium Council who was
elected by the second Papuan congress. The congress was
participated in by representatives from all regencies. Hence his
leadership is held high in the eyes of Papuans. Theys' leadership
is reinforced by mythology and the messianic ideology in which
Theys is positioned as a kind of messiah, a savior.

He was therefore the leader of the largest faction of
organized political resistance in Papua. Traditionally he was
indeed only the leader, the ondoafi of the Sentani area, but the
congress made him the leader of Papua.

The PDP under his leadership had "panels" which were the
Council's structures in each regency. Most Papua intellectuals
supported the PDP. For these reasons the Papua Free Movement
(OPM) was less popular than the PDP among Papuans.

The people's increased militancy has served as a pretext for
the TNI and the police to resort to repressive actions. Unless
this is checked, the relationship between the republic and
Papuans will never be harmonious and will always be marred by
atrocities.

The government seems unable and unwilling to review whether
its militaristic approach is effective in maintaining the
country's unity or whether such an approach has brought about the
opposite effect.

The political elite of Jakarta and Papua alike have been
trapped in debates involving issues of the nation's integrity and
the rights to independence. The government is preoccupied with
special autonomy -- while autonomy to the Papuans is akin to
their prolonged suffering. Hence their demand for "freedom", the
antithesis of these sufferings.

Papuan leaders are overly ambitious to have a new state
without realizing that it would merely be a superstructure, an
instrument to enable a nation state manage its interests and
achieve its goals.

The danger that both Papuans and others in Indonesia commonly
fall into is protracted conflict that will lead to further misery
for the people.

Even when the form of the province was not an issue, Papua
faced a myriad of problems related to its development. Now both
parties have been dragged backward into a dispute over autonomy
and independence. There is a risk of neglecting development
efforts to the disadvantage of the community.

Neither wide-ranging autonomy under the unitary republic, nor
a free West Papua state, would guarantee a settlement of the
problems of development and welfare of the Papuans.

These two alternatives still provide space for oppression, or
even violence in another form, as long as Papuans are without
political, economic and cultural strength.

The growth of civil society is thus crucial. Yet a civil
society in Papua will never become powerful if the politics of
violence continues amid the dispute over autonomy or
independence.

The government must stop this politics of violence and allow
room for the growth of civil society. People's empowerment must
be achieved to ensure their pragmatic and rational involvement in
the dynamics of politics, the economy and culture. Papuans would
be able to voice their interests on an individual or collective
basis, and protect their land, forests, rivers, seas and natural
resources belonging to their forefathers.

Today, the urgent agenda for the pro-independence Papuan
leaders and their counterparts in Jakarta is to sit together and
try to understand each side's concerns with cool heads. Both
sides must, in the shortest time possible, have a common
understanding that the present uncertainty is disadvantageous to
the Papuan people.

Uncertainty will only rob the Papuans of their right to enjoy
recovery from the damage caused by the New Order regime and later
governments. The government of Megawati Soekarnoputri must be
able to introduce a new discourse, one not confined only to a
dichotomy of special autonomy and independence. The language of
culture and humanity must be given priority.

The Papuan political elite have said that their demand for
independence is not a "fixed price". This means that in the
Papuan political tradition, this demand is negotiable. The
leaders of the PDP such as Tom Beanal, Herman Awom, Thaha
Alhamid, Agus Alua and others are nurtured in a culture which
prioritizes negotiation in the settlement of disputes.

The above demand for independence can be interpreted as an
attempt to gain stronger bargaining power in dealing with the
central government. The government must thus humbly open up and
learn to understand the characteristics and patterns of
negotiation commonly found among the Papuans.

Openness, sincerity and patience may win the hearts of the
Papuan leaders and people and pave the way for a better future.