Govt move only hardens Papuans's determination

Govt move only hardens Papuans's determination

Neles Tebay, Pontifical University of Urbaniana, Rome

The controversial plan to divide Papua into three provinces
was delayed on the heels of the fatal clashes following the
announcement of the Central Irian Jaya province in Timika.

Yet while the controversial Presidential Decree No.1, 2003 on
Papua's division has not been canceled, the central government
needs to take into account all potential effects of its imminent
materialization.

Jakarta's endorsement of the establishment of new provinces in
Papua would only fuel the Papuan people's campaign for self-
determination.

The presidential decree on Papua's division has been and will
be used by the Free Papua Movement (OPM) in some foreign
countries to show how Jakarta deceives the international
community by violating its own law on Papua's autonomy.

Such a move was already expressed in the OPM's letter dated
June 30, to the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF). "Indonesia went out
to sell its Special Autonomy Law," however it added, "Indonesia
has destroyed it," through the division of Papua into three
provinces. The letter continues, "the subdivision of West Papua
does not serve any purpose other than security. It will pave the
way for more security forces and militia".

Therefore, the Vanuatu based-OPM has appealed to the PIF "to
collectively and individually take up the West Papuan case with
the United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan and the United
Nations General Assembly".

The PIF members' annual meeting in Auckland, New Zealand, from
Aug. 12 to Aug. 18, which was also participated in by the OPM's
representative John Otto Ondowame through Vanuatu's delegation,
did not express their support either for Papua's division nor the
OPM's appeal.

Rather the Pacific countries reiterated their support for
special autonomy for Papua, which for them "offers realistic
prospects for peaceful resolution of the situation in Papua."

The PIF then urged Indonesia "to expedite promulgation of the
necessary regulations and to take other steps needed to give
effect to special autonomy."

With the possible creation of the third province in Timika,
the OPM might be convincing the PIF that Jakarta has undermined
PIF's support for Papua's autonomy law, and it calls for PIF's
support for its campaign for the review of the 1969 Act of Free
Choice in Papua.

Jakarta should not underestimate this campaign.

The campaign is no longer merely limited to OPM; it is now
widely supported by the international solidarity movement for
Papua, composed of many leading non-governmental organizations
(NGOs) in foreign countries.

For the NGOs, the root cause of the Papua problem is the
denial of the right to self-determination in 1969.

The solidarity movement, in its fourth annual conference
earlier in Auckland from Aug. 8 to Aug. 10, recognized that "the
root cause of the human rights problems in West Papua is the
fraudulent Act of 'Free' Choice, which was part of an attempt to
legitimize the take over of West Papua by Indonesia in 1969".

John Gershmen, a senior analyst at the Interhemispheric
Resource Center, recognizes that "West Papua was not part of
Indonesia at the time of Independence and weakly integrated into
Indonesia," (Foreign Policy in Focus, October 2002).

Anthony L. Smith, a senior research fellow at the Asia-Pacific
Center for Security Studies in Honolulu, acknowledges that West
Papua was annexed by Indonesia through the 1969 plebiscite, and
the UN simply "noted" the plebiscite as having occurred, but it
never actually endorsed its outcome (Foreign Policy in Focus,
Nov. 27, 2002).

The European Commission's (EC) independent mission to
Indonesia further reports: "Indonesian troops immediately took
control of the territory, and the 'Act of Free Choice' which took
place on Aug. 2, 1969, was never more than a farce. A grand total
of 1,025 Papuans, all selected by the Indonesian authorities,
were permitted to vote -- with virtually no UN monitoring -- on
the future of West Papua's 800,000 inhabitants."

The then UN deputy secretary general, Chakravarthy Narashiman
acknowledged that the plebiscite "was just a whitewash". He was
closely involved in overseeing the work of the UN mission that
was present in Papua at the time.

John Saltford, a British scholar, has published his study on
the UN's role in relation to the 1969 plebiscite in Papua, under
the title, The United Nations and the Indonesian take-over of
West Papua 1962-1969: The Anatomy of Betrayal.

Collecting data from the UN documents, Australian and British
documents, Saltford indicated the failure of the UN in conducting
its obligation and responsibilities, and how the UN officials
advised Jakarta how to "prevent a heated debate at the UN General
Assembly" when a UN report on the plebiscite came up for
discussion.

He also discovered some misleading statements by senior UN
Secretariat officials in the run-up to the plebiscite, some
evidence of the role of the UN secretariat and staff in the take-
over of West Papua by Indonesia, and how the New York agreement
as the guideline of the plebiscite was not properly implemented.

All these strengthen the NGOs' campaign for Papua's self-
determination by calling on the UN Secretary General to review
the UN's conduct in relation to the 1969 plebiscite.

Initiated in March 2002, some 79 leading NGOs and 134
parliamentarians from several countries have since joined the
campaign.

In July 19, 2002, some 34 members of the European Parliament
called on the European Commission and Council "to urge the UN
Secretary General to instigate an immediate review of the UN's
conduct in relation to the "Act of 'Free' Choice" and reconsider
the act of self-determination in West Papua of August 1969, as it
continues to be a source of unrest and protest in West Papua and
constitutes a threat to stability and peace in the region of
Southeast Asia".

The NGOs might be influencing their respective governments by
saying that Indonesian government has undermined their
government's support for autonomy through the planned division of
the provinces, apart from suspending the establishment of the
Papua People's Assembly (MRP).

The solidarity movement has even already urged the PIF to also
support demands that "West Papua" be "reinstated on the agenda of
the UN Decolonization Committee".

Given its non commitment to its own law on autonomy, the
central government should not be surprised if many more NGOs,
governments, and parliamentarians in foreign countries, support
the campaign for the UN's review of its conduct in relation to
the 1969 Plebiscite.