Jakarta sabotages

Jakarta sabotages
Papua's autonomy

Kanis Dursin
Staff Writer
The Jakarta Post
Jayapura

The decision to split up Papua into three provinces has eroded
what little trust the Papuans had developed toward the government
since the implementation of the special autonomy law on Jan. 1,
2002.

This decision also sends out a strong message to other
troubled provinces, particularly Aceh, that the central
government has no intention to honor agreements into which it
voluntarily enters.

President Megawati Soekarnoputri issued Decree No. 1/2003
dividing Papua into the three provinces of Papua, Central Irian
Jaya and West Irian Jaya. Dated Jan. 27, the decree serves the
political interests of the central government and power-hungry
opportunists in Papua more than the well-being of its people.

Dividing Papua, home to 2.3 million people, into several
provinces will surely bring the government closer to the people,
accelerate development, and boost indigenous Papuans' involvement
in developing the province. In comparison, Java, which is one-
third the size of Papua, is divided up into six provinces,
including the capital of Jakarta.

But the decree -- a copy of which was faxed to the Papua
governor's office from a telephone kiosk in Jakarta instead of
the office of the home affairs ministry -- violates Law No.
21/2001, article 76 of the special autonomy law, which clearly
states that any move to divide Papua into several provinces must
be with the approval of the Papuan People's Assembly (MRP).

The Papuan People's Assembly, the highest legislative body in
autonomous Papua, has not yet been established, but the central
government has already divided the province. This leaves Papuan
leaders and intellectuals wondering whether Jakarta is serious
about implementing the special autonomy law there.

The Papuan administration, fully backed by its legislature,
has set up a joint team to look into legal flaws in the decree
and to file a judicial review with the Supreme Court.

"We want to show that we Papuans understand how law works,"
Papua legislature (DPRP) chairman John Ibo told The Jakarta Post.

However, the Presidential Decree goes far beyond the legal
wrangle. By unilaterally dividing Papua into three provinces, the
government has taken over the function of the Assembly and has
raised questions as to the government's sincerity in granting the
special autonomy status to Papua.

Under the special autonomy law, the Assembly has the authority
to approve candidates for the positions of governor and deputy
governor. It also has the final say in the selection of the
People's Consultative Assembly (MPR) members representing Papua,
and enacts bills submitted by the Papuan House of Representatives
(DPRP) and the Papuan governor.

The absence of the Papuan People's Assembly has deprived DPRP
and the governor their rights to submit badly-needed regulations
of the special autonomy law. The law has never been implemented
since it came into effect in January 2002, thanks to Jakarta.

The draft of a government regulation on the establishment of
the Assembly was submitted to the home affairs ministry six
months ago, but has not yet been approved. Jakarta has clearly
sabotaged the implementation of the special autonomy law by
delaying the establishment of the Papuan People's Assembly.

This explains, at least partially, why Papuan leaders and
intellectuals reacted angrily to Presidential Decree No. 1/2003.

John Ibo accuses the government of duping Papuans into
accepting the special autonomy law. "We have been cheated
repeatedly and even now, we are being deceived," John said.

The special autonomy law -- drafted by Papuan leaders and
intellectuals -- was adopted to accommodate the Papuans' strong
aspirations toward independence, which emerged following the
forced resignation of former dictator Soeharto in May 1998.

The law allows Papua to have "its own government", complete
with the MRP people's assembly, the House, an anthem, a flag and
symbol, as well as a local political party. The role of the
central government is limited to foreign policy, defense and
security, monetary and fiscal matters, religion and the judicial
system.

The province is also allowed to retain up to 90 percent of its
land and building tax, 80 percent of its revenues from forestry,
fishery and general mining industries, and 70 percent of receipts
from the oil and natural gas sector.

Papuans had now finally begun to feel that they were "masters
in their own land". Indigenous Papuans have taken over almost 90
percent of all key positions in the province, from the
gubernatorial office and the provincial legislature down to the
village level. Under the special autonomy arrangement, Papua was
basically "an independent province within a sovereign country".

The law somewhat successfully muffled the demands for
independence among indigenous Papuans. Since the autonomy law
came into effect, pro-independence rallies were conspicuously
absent from Jayapura streets, including at the Papua legislature
compound -- until the announcement of the above Decree.

Papuan leaders and intellectuals suspect that the division of
the province into three smaller provinces stems from "groundless
fears" that the special autonomy law, if fully implemented, would
lead to Papuan independence; a consequence Indonesia cannot
afford, following the loss of East Timor in a United Nations-
sponsored referendum in 1999.

Jakarta is particularly suspicious of the Papuan assembly,
whose members are to hail from tribal societies, religious
leaders and women's groups. Most leaders, if not all, of the
Lembaga Masyarakat Adat, or tribal communities, are members of
the Papua Presidium Council, a loose organization that has
campaigned for and independent Papua. This explains why Jakarta
has not endorsed the draft of a government regulation on the
establishment of the Papuan People's Assembly.

The government seems to think that dividing the province would
weaken the secessionist movement and give Jakarta free reign to
monitor and control the leaders of the poorly-organized Free
Papua Movement (OPM). If this is true, then the government has
not learned its lesson: A small population does not prevent a
people from fighting for and achieving independence, as proved by
the East Timor experience.

In any case, the welfare of its people seems to have taken a
back seat. Papuans were not consulted, and their social and
cultural conditions were not taken into account in splitting up
the province. In some parts, borders run through ancestral lands
and divide people from the same minor ethnic groups into two
different provinces. This, according to local leaders, would
sooner or later create horizontal conflicts resulting from land
disputes along provincial borders.

Consulting Papuans before splitting up the province is
necessary, not only because Papua is an autonomous province, but
also because the division concerns their lives. Involving the
Papuans in decision-making is part and parcel of its right as an
autonomous province. Denying them of such an opportunity is
tantamount to negating their existence as an integral part of the
country, which has fueled renewed demands for independence.

The controversial decree has clearly served as a wake-up call
for indigenous Papuans, that not everything is fine with the
special autonomy status.

"This (the decree) will harden our struggle for independence,"
said a prominent youth leader in Jayapura last week, expressing
his conviction that, sooner or later, Papua would be independent.