JP/4/NELES
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?