Papuans need sincerity

The 42 members of the Papuan People's Assembly (MRP) were installed on Oct. 31, 2005, in Jayapura, capital of the easternmost province of Papua. But whether the assembly will be able to play the role it is supposed to play is another question. The controversy surrounding the formation of the assembly in recent weeks is reason enough to have reservations about the performance of the assembly.

The controversy over the selection of MRP members is indicative of poor communication between the government and the Papuan people. It is an old problem, but people could be forgiven for harboring some hopes of a change in the government's attitude toward its easternmost constituents now that peace is dawning in Aceh Nanggroe Darussalam, another province with a long history of separatism. Any change, however, remains elusive.

Opponents to the formation of the assembly have asked for the postponement of the confirmation of its members in office on the grounds that they are not the people's choices. The opposition comes from virtually across the whole of society, including the influential Papua Presidium Council, and church and tribal leaders.

The controversy over the assembly should have never arisen in the first place. In fact, the establishment of the MRP should have been an occasion for joy as it is part of the most liberal effort ever by the government to reduce separatist sentiment in the resource-rich province. The MRP, mandated by the Papua Special Autonomy Law No. 21, which was signed by former president Megawati Soekarnoputri in 2001, was the brainchild of her predecessor, the reform-minded president Abdurrahman Wahid. The legislation was intended to give more power and greater revenue to the Papuan provincial government.

The enactment of the legislation led many to believe that a middle way had finally been found to resolve the decades-old separatist conflict that has killed more than 100,000 people. But after the legislation was enacted, things ground to a halt, ostensibly because the government had yet to issue the necessary ancillary regulations to give effect to the legislation. All of which proves, once again, that a good concept will not necessarily translate itself into good results without the political will to see it through.

Local leaders say they were not consulted about the MRP formation process and that the seeming haste involved was intended to rubber stamp the reelection of Governor Jaap E. Solossa, a functionary of the Golkar party, in the upcoming gubernatorial election.

Golkar, led by Vice President Jusuf Kalla, is the dominant party in the House of Representatives. According to the Papua Special Autonomy Law, the MRP will have the power to approve the candidates standing in gubernatorial elections and for the People's Consultative Assembly (MPR), as well as make recommendations and give its special approval to collaborative projects between the Papua administration and third parties.

Actually, poor communication is only the tip of the iceberg. The government needs to decide how it wants to define its relationship with the Papuans. Does it see itself as a colonial master, like many Papuans allege, or does it want to define the relationship as one of trust and an encounter between equals? Nothing will actually change until the right definition is found.

There are other no less serious issues that have to be resolved. What does it mean when the government uses the term "Papua"? Is it referring to the original province as defined in the Special Autonomy Law, or does Papua comprise the eastern part of the original Papua and Western Irian Jaya, as postulated by the Constitutional Court last year?

To Papuans, these are all contradictory signals that only reinforce their believe that Jakarta is not serious about autonomy for their land.

If sincerity is absent from the government's policies, resentment will persist. The Papuans, like the Acehnese, have deep resentment against Jakarta, which they hold responsible for the prolonged violence and human rights abuses. All they want is sincerity on the part of the government.

We certainly don't want another tsunami, like that in Aceh, to force the government to improve its attitude toward the Papuans. The Papuans do not deserve more uncertainties. They have had enough of them.

The government needs to reflect on the case of East Timor and learn that the strategy of buying time in order to maintain absolute control in Papua is no longer appropriate, unless it wants to lose another province. There is no reason why the government cannot do the same in Papua as it has done in Aceh. Listen to what the Papuans say and treat them with respect and sincerity!