Prospects for peace in Papua
Prospects for peace in Papua
Paul Barber, London
It is not yet clear whether the election of Susilo Bambang
Yudhoyono as president of Indonesia is a positive development for
West Papua and whether he will bring peace and stability to the
restive territory any closer.
The signals are ambiguous and we simply do not know what
policies the new president will pursue when in office.
Susilo was the preferred candidate of many Papuans. He was
regarded as the more competent and wiser leader who in the past
has supported dialogue as a means of resolving the West Papua
conflict and made encouraging statements about reforming the
military.
However, his attraction may have been more a reflection of
Megawati's inadequacies than his own merits. Megawati was a
largely ineffectual leader, an ultra-nationalist who relied on
military solutions to political problems and left West Papua in a
state of chaos through her attempt to divide the territory into
three provinces in contravention of a law on special autonomy.
On the other hand, Susilo is a military man who retains a team
of retired military officers from the Soeharto era as advisers.
His reformist credentials are questionable given his support for
the military's territorial command structure, which provides it
with a means of control and political influence at the provincial
and local level. This is highly significant in the context of
Indonesia's current devolution of power from Jakarta to the
regions.
It should also be remembered that Susilo, while an apparent
supporter of dialogue, did little to resolve the West Papua
conflict when in the influential position of security minister
under presidents Wahid and Megawati, despite some early progress
under Wahid.
Furthermore, although his hand may have been forced by hard-
line military leaders, Susilo was the government minister
responsible for declaring and coordinating martial law in Aceh in
2003/2004.
Unfortunately, policy debate on West Papua and Aceh was
notable by its absence from the election campaign so we are none
the wiser about what approach Susilo might adopt.
One point that needs to be made very strongly is that although
the Indonesian national elections were proclaimed as peaceful,
free and fair, West Papua and Aceh continue to suffer from huge
democratic deficits. Local political parties are forbidden and
people are still thrown into jail for exercising their right to
express their support for self-determination and independence.
There can be no meaningful progress towards democracy as long
as human rights remain unprotected, the rule of law does not
function properly and military personnel enjoy impunity for gross
violations.
One of Susilo's first tasks should be to attempt the peaceful
resolution of the West Papua conflict. At all times he should
ensure that human rights and an understanding of the specific
grievances of the West Papuan people remain at the center of his
policy making. He should concentrate on three key issues.
Firstly, the political status of West Papua. He must resolve
the crisis caused by Megawati's divisive three-way split policy
and her failure to establish a Papuan People's Assembly as
required by the special autonomy law. He must also remember that
special autonomy falls far short of the self-determination
desired by the overwhelming majority of Papuans since the
fraudulent 'Act of Free Choice' in 1969.
His response should be to institute a process of peaceful
dialogue with West Papuan representatives to consider all options
for the future of the territory.
Secondly, he must address the need for demilitarization of
West Papua. The continuing military operations in West Papua and
the activities of pro-Jakarta militias are inimical to the
peaceful resolution of the conflict and the establishment of
democracy. He should end all military operations, start a process
of demilitarization and halt all militia activities. He should
also respect the proposal of the West Papuan people for West
Papua to be made a 'Land of Peace'.
The recent announcement that the military would lose its role
in protecting vital assets, such as the Freeport mine and BP
Tangguh project, was encouraging. Susilo should ensure that this
decision is implemented without delay.
Thirdly, he must take immediate steps to improve the human
rights situation. He should press for credible investigations and
prosecutions, according to international standards, of all
serious crimes committed in West Papua since its occupation by
Indonesia in 1963.
In particular he should respond to the findings of the
National Commission on Human Rights that gross violations were
committed in Wasior in 2001 and Wamena in 2003. He should press
the Attorney General to complete his own inquiry into these
incidents without delay and prosecute those responsible,
including those with command responsibility.
He should note the persistent and credible allegations of
military involvement in the killing of an Indonesian and two
Americans near the Freeport mine in August 2002 and he should
ensure that the police are able to complete their current follow-
up investigation without obstruction and harassment.
Finally, he should respond positively to requests for UN human
rights rapporteurs and monitors to visit West Papua and ensure
that human rights defenders are not subject to threats and
intimidation and that they are freely able to carry out their
vital work.
The writer is a researcher for the London-based TAPOL, the
Indonesia Human Rights Campaign. He can be reached at
plovers@gn.apc.org.
Paul Barber, London
It is not yet clear whether the election of Susilo Bambang
Yudhoyono as president of Indonesia is a positive development for
West Papua and whether he will bring peace and stability to the
restive territory any closer.
The signals are ambiguous and we simply do not know what
policies the new president will pursue when in office.
Susilo was the preferred candidate of many Papuans. He was
regarded as the more competent and wiser leader who in the past
has supported dialogue as a means of resolving the West Papua
conflict and made encouraging statements about reforming the
military.
However, his attraction may have been more a reflection of
Megawati's inadequacies than his own merits. Megawati was a
largely ineffectual leader, an ultra-nationalist who relied on
military solutions to political problems and left West Papua in a
state of chaos through her attempt to divide the territory into
three provinces in contravention of a law on special autonomy.
On the other hand, Susilo is a military man who retains a team
of retired military officers from the Soeharto era as advisers.
His reformist credentials are questionable given his support for
the military's territorial command structure, which provides it
with a means of control and political influence at the provincial
and local level. This is highly significant in the context of
Indonesia's current devolution of power from Jakarta to the
regions.
It should also be remembered that Susilo, while an apparent
supporter of dialogue, did little to resolve the West Papua
conflict when in the influential position of security minister
under presidents Wahid and Megawati, despite some early progress
under Wahid.
Furthermore, although his hand may have been forced by hard-
line military leaders, Susilo was the government minister
responsible for declaring and coordinating martial law in Aceh in
2003/2004.
Unfortunately, policy debate on West Papua and Aceh was
notable by its absence from the election campaign so we are none
the wiser about what approach Susilo might adopt.
One point that needs to be made very strongly is that although
the Indonesian national elections were proclaimed as peaceful,
free and fair, West Papua and Aceh continue to suffer from huge
democratic deficits. Local political parties are forbidden and
people are still thrown into jail for exercising their right to
express their support for self-determination and independence.
There can be no meaningful progress towards democracy as long
as human rights remain unprotected, the rule of law does not
function properly and military personnel enjoy impunity for gross
violations.
One of Susilo's first tasks should be to attempt the peaceful
resolution of the West Papua conflict. At all times he should
ensure that human rights and an understanding of the specific
grievances of the West Papuan people remain at the center of his
policy making. He should concentrate on three key issues.
Firstly, the political status of West Papua. He must resolve
the crisis caused by Megawati's divisive three-way split policy
and her failure to establish a Papuan People's Assembly as
required by the special autonomy law. He must also remember that
special autonomy falls far short of the self-determination
desired by the overwhelming majority of Papuans since the
fraudulent 'Act of Free Choice' in 1969.
His response should be to institute a process of peaceful
dialogue with West Papuan representatives to consider all options
for the future of the territory.
Secondly, he must address the need for demilitarization of
West Papua. The continuing military operations in West Papua and
the activities of pro-Jakarta militias are inimical to the
peaceful resolution of the conflict and the establishment of
democracy. He should end all military operations, start a process
of demilitarization and halt all militia activities. He should
also respect the proposal of the West Papuan people for West
Papua to be made a 'Land of Peace'.
The recent announcement that the military would lose its role
in protecting vital assets, such as the Freeport mine and BP
Tangguh project, was encouraging. Susilo should ensure that this
decision is implemented without delay.
Thirdly, he must take immediate steps to improve the human
rights situation. He should press for credible investigations and
prosecutions, according to international standards, of all
serious crimes committed in West Papua since its occupation by
Indonesia in 1963.
In particular he should respond to the findings of the
National Commission on Human Rights that gross violations were
committed in Wasior in 2001 and Wamena in 2003. He should press
the Attorney General to complete his own inquiry into these
incidents without delay and prosecute those responsible,
including those with command responsibility.
He should note the persistent and credible allegations of
military involvement in the killing of an Indonesian and two
Americans near the Freeport mine in August 2002 and he should
ensure that the police are able to complete their current follow-
up investigation without obstruction and harassment.
Finally, he should respond positively to requests for UN human
rights rapporteurs and monitors to visit West Papua and ensure
that human rights defenders are not subject to threats and
intimidation and that they are freely able to carry out their
vital work.
The writer is a researcher for the London-based TAPOL, the
Indonesia Human Rights Campaign. He can be reached at
plovers@gn.apc.org.