Policy consistency on Papua is imperative

Policy consistency on Papua is imperative

Israr Iskandar
Jakarta

Indonesian leaders were quite disturbed on hearing that two
members of the U.S. House of Representatives had questioned the
status of Papua within the Unitary State of the Republic of
Indonesia (NKRI). Under Bill No. 2601, the U.S. House cast doubt
on the effectiveness of Papua's special autonomy and disputed the
presence of this territory within NKRI. They even broadened the
focus, describing as unfair the Act of Free Choice (plebiscite)
that took place in 1969.

The Indonesian government should avoid panic in facing such
maneuvers in the U.S. congress. The government take a stance and
act against the internationalization of Papuan problems. Papuan
issues are Indonesian domestic matters, meaning that no foreign
citizens or countries have the right to interfere. Foreign
intervention in Indonesia's internal affairs is equivalent to
encroachment on sovereignty.

Nonetheless, the U.S. maneuver cannot be taken lightly,
either. The government should take the opportunity to seek a
comprehensive settlement of outstanding problems in Papua. The
sensitivity and sincerity of Jakarta towards this issue at the
present stage is badly needed. The government has a great deal of
unfinished homework in Papua, and extra attention is required.

Above all, putting off settlement of Papua's problems means a
delay in this region's development, and accelerated development
is imperative. Though abundant in natural resources, Papua has
been left far behind other regions in Indonesia. It is faced with
crucial political, social, economic, cultural and security
problems. Furthermore, suspending the handling of Papuan
quandaries also increases the government's burden in resolving
the plethora of other critical issues.

From the beginning, the government has sought solutions to the
problems in Papua, but the quest has been neither consistent nor
comprehensive. Instead of creating an atmosphere conducive to
settlement, the government has left Papua trapped in a protracted
crisis, marked by not only separatism, but also human rights
abuse and many other forms of violence.

There were high expectations for change in Papua when the
government introduced Law No. 21/2001 on special autonomy (Otsus)
for the province. In socio-cultural terms, the Otsus law was seen
as affirmative action favoring indigenous Papuans of Melanesian
extraction over migrants from outside Papua. Politically, many
believed at that time that conflicts -- particularly those
connected with separatist aspirations -- would dissipate as most
of their political goals were accommodated under the law.

In reality, however, Papuans' expectations remained unsettled.
The trouble again came from policymakers in Jakarta with the
support of orthodox nationalists. The government as initiator of
Otsus was regarded as inconsistent in its own commitments. For
over four years Papua's fate was uncertain. In fact, Otsus was
originally meant not only to resolve conflicts but also to serve
as the starting point for accelerating Papua's development.

Various new cases later appeared, with political conflicts,
violence, rights infringements and poverty continuing to engulf
Papua. One of the latest sources of conflict in Papua is the plan
for direct regional elections in West Irian Jaya, which again
indicates Jakarta's inconsistency.

In actual fact, regional elections in West Irian Jaya should
have been carried out after the formation of the Papuan People's
Assembly (MRP). As stipulated by the Otsus law, this body must
come first.

All political matters in Papua should refer to the Otsus law,
which is the legal umbrella for the region's overall
implementation of decentralization. It is difficult to understand
why the government has been so ambivalent. Unless a remedy is
found soon, more complicated problems will arise, thus prolonging
the political crisis in Papua and attracting even more unwelcome
external "attention".

The public still remembers President Susilo Bambang
Yudhoyono's promise for dialogue with the Papuan people several
months ago to put Otsus into consistent operation. But the long-
drawn-out controversy over West Irian Jaya, without heed to the
non-existence of the MRP, is an obvious reflection of the
government's policy inconsistency.

The primary solution to the Papuan problem is first of all
realization of the Otsus law and the establishment of the MRP.
Only thereafter should Papua's democratization be initiated,
including direct regional elections. Why MRP? The empowerment of
Papua should start with the fostering of its cultural society as
mirrored in the institution of the MRP. The question is now is
how to promptly set up the MRP in a transparent, fair and
democratic fashion, without in any way denying Papuans their
democratic rights.

In future, there should be no more "rubber band policies" for
Papua, which only serve as invitation for foreign "concern" (i.e.
involvement). The government should be consistent with its own
policies. Any inconsistency, as is happening at the present, will
only reduce the confidence of Papuan people and the world in the
Indonesian government. The authority of the government and the
cohesion of the Indonesian state are therefore at stake.

The writer is a researcher from the Center for Indonesian
Regional and Urban Studies (CIRUS), Jakarta.