JP/4/NELES

Special autonomy will not solve crimes against Papuans

Neles Tebay Pontifical University of Urbaniana The Jakarta Post Rome

In December 2001, the Papuans, through peaceful rallies, rejected Jakarta's offer of special autonomy and demanded the government reveal who killed Theys Hiyo Eluay, chairman of the Papuan Presidium Council (PPC), the motive behind the killing and who ordered it.

Tom Beanal, the PPC deputy, has demanded that the government stop introducing the bill on Papua's special autonomy before settling the case. In response the president set up the national inquiry team (KPN) which is gathering data on the case.

But even if Theys' killers are revealed, would Papuans welcome Jakarta's offer of special autonomy? I'm not sure -- despite its official implementation since Jan. 1 this year following the passing of the bill by the House of Representatives.

There are two different perceptions on the special autonomy for Papua. Jakarta considers it the political solution to the Papua case. The House has passed the bill; the only problem is how Jakarta can convince its acceptance. This is the duty of the provincial government.

Jakarta must identify and listen to the influential parties in Papua. These are the local government, the PPC, the Papuan students, and the religious leaders, particularly the church.

The provincial government has no choice other than to welcome and implement special autonomy. Governor Yacobus Salossa recognizes that the bill provides many badly needed opportunities for the Papuans.

Yet the administration, with the support of the provincial legislature, will not simply obey Jakarta. These two institutions will be more critical regarding intervention by the government. Local scholars will likely support the provincial government and council in implementing the bill. As it has been passed, it must be implemented regardless of problems of acceptance.

Then there is the PPC. The members were elected by the second Papuan Congress attended by some 5,000 Papuans. Recognized as the de facto Papuan government, the PPC is listened to more than the Governor.

The PPC has rejected the bill, saying it is not a result of a genuine dialog between the government and the Papuans led by the Presidium.

A third influential group is the Papuan students. Having studied the bill thoroughly, they have concluded that the bill does not address the fundamental problems behind the Papuans' demand for independence -- the past human rights violations and the denial of the right to self-determination in 1969.

The fourth group is the highly respected religious leaders, who outside the bureaucracy are the only ones who have welcomed the special autonomy bill. The bill is regarded as a result of a review of development under the New Order in Papua, a review which they recommended to former president Abdurrahman Wahid when he visited Jayapura in December 1999.

Since the bill is Jakarta's response to the Papuans' demand for independence, do the church leaders welcome the bill of the special autonomy as the political solution to the Papua case?

The religious leaders were involved in formulating the draft on special autonomy proposed by the Governor. Their involvement followed their study of the draft bill proposed by the House of Representatives.

However the bill passed mainly accommodated the House draft. The leaders concluded that the Jakarta bill assumes that Papua's main problem is welfare, and decided to accept it at least for the time being.

However church leaders also realize that prosperity is not the fundamental problem behind the Papuan case: Human rights violations in Papua since 1963 and the denial of the right to self-determination in 1969.

They later said the abduction and assassination of Theys is nothing new. In their letter to the President on Dec. 14, the church leaders wrote, "The abduction and murder of Theys Hiyo Eluay is nothing more than a repetition of the same methods applied in the past against Papuan figures who were considered subversive because they voiced the people's aspirations, like Arnold Ap and Willem Onde."

The same methods, they continued, had also been used against civilians accused of being members or supporters of the Free Papua movement (OPM), accusations which were never brought to trial. According to Amnesty International, some 100,000 Papuans have been killed by the Indonesian military.

Some human rights violations have been investigated and reported by the National Commission on Human Rights. But Papuans know that the perpetrators have never been tried. Some have instead been promoted and are even regarded as heroes. The more they kill Papuans, the more their prestige grows.

Jakarta has continued claiming that the 1969 popular consultation was held with Papuans' participation through their representatives, under the assistance and supervision of the United Nations.

The Papuans have said that the consultation was undemocratic. They said they had never selected representatives to participate in the popular consultation. The 1,025 people involved were selected by the Indonesian government. Theys was among these hand-picked people.

In 1999 I interviewed Theys, asking why he was now fighting for West Papua's independence when he joined the Republic in 1969. "My son," he said, "I have never decided to join Indonesia, including during the 1969 popular consultation."

What did he expect from Jakarta? "Nothing else other than reviewing the implementation of the 1969 popular consultation, and let the Papuans decide their fate and future, freely and democratically, without any form of violence." Theys had indeed led calls regarding the problematic consultation and human rights violations.

So even if President Megawati announces the killer, the motive and the one who ordered Theys' assassination, Papuans will not welcome special autonomy as the political solution.

Implementation will be troublesome given likely rejection by all groups. They would conclude that the bill only addresses welfare, which is indeed the duty of all governments.

Papuans will continue to demand a settlement to human rights violations since 1963 and the right to self-determination.

Only genuine dialog will be able to overcome these differences -- an appeal made since the second Papua Congress in December 2001. Now, is the government ready to take part in a genuine dialog with the Papuans, led by the Presidium Council?