New era of openness fuels Irianese hopes

The following article is based on an interview with the Bishop of Jayapura, Irian Jaya, Monseigneur Dr. Leo Laba Ladjar, OFM.

Question:Could you describe why the people of Irian Jaya's independence demands have intensified lately?

Answer: Flag-hoisting of the Free Papua Movement's (OPM) flag is not a new phenomenon. It has happened for a long time. Then, for quite a long time we did not hear anything about this movement. It seemed as if it had been abandoned. But in 1996, Wanggai, one of the Irianese leaders who hoisted the OPM flag in a field here, died in Jakarta. There were rumors that he had been ill in prison, but was not taken to hospital until his death. The rumors incited OPM sentiment. When his body was taken to Jayapura, a massive demonstration was staged there.

Many people wanted to see the body at Sentani Airport but the security forces played a trick on them. There were two ambulances. One of them passed the crowd, but this one was empty. The other one, which carried the body, took another route. So the crowd waited to stop the ambulance at Abepura, where Cendrawasih University is located. Many migrants also live in this area. Arson then broke out here. This incident gave rise to renewed demands for independence.

How did the political reform which began after Soeharto's downfall affect the independence sentiment?

The sentiment has become more obvious. In 1998, openness began to happen in the central government, or in the capital. Then in July that year a number of cities, such as in Jayapura, Biak and Sorong, the OPM flag began to be hoisted again. There was violence then, especially in Biak, where many were killed.

In addition, human rights violations, already reported a number of times, began to be exposed. And the Irianese began to feel that actually they had not been treated as fellow compatriots. They felt they had been colonized and that their dignity had been degraded. So, they prefer independence. They prefer to secede.

In this connection, what is the role of intellectuals?

Last year, the Irianese intellectuals had a meeting and set up a Team of 100 to be sent to Jakarta to see B.J. Habibie, then Indonesia's president. At that time Habibie diplomatically said: "Well, please think it over." All right, they all went home and considered the president's viewpoint. Early this year they had another meeting to formulate their ideas.

In short, this group has never considered themselves part of the Malay race. In addition, historically and politically they do not consider the 1969 Act of Free Choice (Pepera) legitimate because while the principle of the referendum was "one person, one vote", in practice one person represented a group of people. Besides, there was also a rumor about the Rome meeting between the Indonesian and Dutch foreign ministers, in which it was agreed that after 25 years Irian would be given its independence. Well, about all this time, there has never been a clear report or quotation. The then foreign minister Ali Alatas said the Rome meeting had never been convened.

What is behind this independence sentiment?

This emotional expression is simply an expression of their plight. The demand for independence has become very strong now thanks to the political openness brought about by the reform drive. Second, this demand is an expression of the suffering and years of repression since Indonesia took control of Irian Jaya in the early 1960s, particularly by the military and the government.

The government seems to be ignorant of this repression. It is also a highly centralized government. The region's wealth has been taken to Jakarta. Most officials have come from other regions, and the Irianese are considered to be unprepared for any job.

All these (slights) must have been long-buried communal grievances, of which not even the slightest hurt has ever been expressed. This is a spiritual wound, an accumulation of illnesses.

Is that all?

There is also a feeling that the dignity of the Irianese has been debased. This is quite obvious. When an outsider comes to Irian, for example, he will be afraid that he will meet savage cannibals. This must be downgrading to the Irianese. They feel that their dignity has been trampled on and therefore they want their independence.

Is the independence sentiment stronger in cities or rural areas?

The vociferous demand for independence is heard in cities like Biak, Jayapura and Manokwari because in these places there are a lot of intellectuals. If I go to rural areas and ask the people whether they want independence they will say: "What is the problem? We are Indonesians."

I do not know how long this demand for independence will persist. Well, there is fear that things will be like what happened in East Timor. People in rural areas know little about independence, but they can be easily influenced by the elite.

Now there is another trouble spot, Timika, where PT Freeport McMoran is located. There is a lot of money in circulation and many non-Irianese are employed. There are a lot of liquor vendors so clashes often occur with an underlying antimigrant sentiment. I'm afraid that in such a situation, certain people may cash in on it, triggering riots everywhere.

What about the special or wide-ranging autonomy offered by the government?

Whether or not the situation will be normal again if special autonomy is implemented will depend on the honesty of the government and the military. Of course, a number of migrants will stay. It is not possible to rely only on the Irianese because Irian Jaya is such an extensive region.

In fact, in fighting for their independence the Irianese are not against migrants. They say that they consider all people living in Irian Jaya to be Irianese. Of course, these people must sincerely work for the benefit of Irian Jaya.

What is frequently found to be the case now is not good. There are many migrants working in Irian Jaya, but they remain oriented to the regions outside Irian Jaya. It seems that they will only stay in Irian Jaya to amass wealth. "When we come home, we'll take with us all that we can amass here." Well, the impression is certainly not good.

What are your expectations?

If they say, for example, that they are Indonesian citizens working in Irian Jaya for the benefit of this region and that they will live and die in Irian Jaya, the situation will be different.

About injustices, although unjust practices are still going on now, I believe if they are properly and honestly addressed and eliminated, including the unfair distribution of wealth, Irian Jaya will have a lot of money for improvements, for example, the (people's) educational level, as well as other matters.

We do talk about this matter all the time. We have been fighting for human rights, yes, the values of humanity, justice and truth. These are what we are resolved to fight for.

However, if it is said that the church stands by itself and fights for independence, I will say this is politics, practical politics. I don't want to have any part in it. Besides, I am afraid of the consequences: bloodshed, refugees etc. I think we'll fight for special autonomy, which will practically make Irian Jaya a federal state of its own, and we will work for our own benefit.

Do you foresee the birth of the State of Irian in the near future?

Well, it depends on whether the tribal groups can unite themselves because tension can easily occur between tribal groups and also between people living in the coastal and mountain areas. Now they say: "Well, independence first and then we'll think about other matters and attend to them later. Don't turn them into problems." They also say: "Indonesia proclaimed its independence first without waiting for everything to be prepared."

What is your opinion about this attitude?

Last year the bishops in Irian Jaya got together along with indigenous Irian leaders who are church activists. At that time we wanted to be able to speak openly without causing any suspicion. At first they had a discussion on the problems they were facing.

Then they finally asked: "Bishop, as the leader of the church, what is your stance?" I said that I stuck to my stance that I would speak openly for humanity, truth and justice. I will never speak for independence. If I voice independence claims, I split the Catholics. Some of them are in favor of independence, while others are not.

It was obvious that the leaders were not too happy about it. They wanted me to openly support them.

What about the recent report about human rights violations?

A number of reports on human right violations have been aired. The latest was a report on the Mapenduma incident, which was brought to the National Human Rights Commission and the House of Representatives. Later, the commission made a statement that there had been human rights violations in Irian Jaya and that an investigation team into this matter should be established.

The regional police chief and the military region commander responded that there was no evidence to corroborate the statement. There is yet to be any justification as to why they have reacted that way.

Did you take follow-up action?

I sent a letter to the military region commander with copies to many relevant parties, including newspapers. I said that if the military commander said that there was no evidence, it was very surprising because this would mean that the commander had not read the reports that the church had sent him.

In these reports we clearly mentioned witnesses and evidence. Of course, the military commander referred to court exhibits. Then I said that if they wanted legal evidence and a court proceeding, these were available because in 1995, when there was a report on a human right violations in Tembagapura, Timika, a military tribunal was held.

To the best of my knowledge, five persons were convicted in this tribunal. It means that legal evidence is available.

After sending the letter, I went to rural areas. That night I got a telephone call from Cendrawasih Post and was interviewed for a short time over the phone. I said: "You can get my letter in the editorial office because a copy has been sent there." When I returned home, I found the letter had been published in newspapers and magazines, including my reaction to the statement made by the military commander.

Did you contact the commander afterwards?

I had not made any contact with the commander as I had to go to the Bintang mountain range near the Papua New Guinea border. When I got there, an intelligence team had just concluded a visit there. They wanted to fly to another place in a chopper. When asked what the intelligence team was after, a Catholic priest told me that they were looking for facts concerning the report "made by the bishop". Then I asked him again what he had told them, the priest said: "I had the local Catholics convene and I told them to tell the team what they had gone through."

The gathering was held for two days. It is said Irianese speak honestly. One, standing with broken teeth, said, "Look at my broken teeth. I have been hit by a rifle butt". The priest said that the head of the team repeatedly offered an apology, admitting that some of his men had behaved in a bad way. Then he said that the report made by the bishop was much more tolerant compared to what really happened in the incident, adding that they had heard of many more such incidents. Then they went to another place, stayed there for two or three days and held a similar gathering of locals.

What happened afterwards?

After I returned to Jayapura, a lieutenant colonel called me, saying that he wanted to see me. I asked him what was up. He said it was about social affairs. Well, it turned out the intelligence team had returned and submitted their report to their superior. Then the lieutenant colonel came to tell me that he had seen the report. I asked him what the result was and he said that they would consider what was right and what was wrong. He added that some events had taken place too long ago, so that the perpetrators were no longer around and no action could be taken against them. Then I said that if that was the case it would be all right as long as the military showed that they had done something.

What was your reaction?

Well, that was the first time I found that the military openly took follow-up action to a report. Previously, they would simply ignore the report and take no action at all. But after I sent them my report they really tried to find the facts. Then we were invited to the headquarters of the commander to discuss a book on human rights, which would be used as a handbook for the military in regard to discipline and human rights principles.

At that time the commander wanted to see me because I was close to religious figures. When we met he said that he had received a lot of letters calling for an end to the dispute. I told him that for the benefit of the community what was important was that improvements should be made.

It seems that the military is undergoing a change for the better.

Yes, there is a change for the better, which is also observable in their attitude. Units from the Army's Special Force (Kopassus), for example, have been withdrawn from a number of places where they used to be stationed. Now there are only command stations. But Commander Amir Sembiring at that time said: "I no longer want to deploy my men in remote places to chase rebels. I would like to place them in villages to help the villagers build their villages. I have told my men not to chase the rebels. Let them stay where they are. As citizens, they can always go to towns. If they carry guns and commit criminal offenses, they will be arrested. Otherwise, they must not be chased."

I think this is a good attitude. Some rebels once came to town and wanted to see him. All this has led to an atmosphere of freedom and the consequence is that the calls for independence has been getting all the more vociferous. People who used to be afraid to speak up are now bold enough to do so.

I do not know exactly the course of developments in the future. The problem lies in a group of people who will inevitably enjoy their freedom some time in the future, that there are always some who will consider an action which is actually well- intended simply a sweetener offered by the central government.

In the case of Freddy Numberi, the governor, who has now been appointed minister, for example, I fear there are still some people who will say that his appointment as minister is only a sweetener to please the Irianese. (F. Sihol Siagian)