Reflecting on the internationalization of the Papuan issue

Reflecting on the internationalization of the Papuan issue

Aleksius Jemadu, Bandung

It was surprising that two members of the U.S. Congress
launched a campaign aimed at the establishment of a bill
questioning the legitimacy of the 1969 Act of Free Choice on the
grounds that the participants in the referendum did not represent
the popular will of the Papuans. The reaction of Indonesian
government officials has been mixed.

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono expressed his
dissatisfaction with the move and urged the U.S. government to
support Indonesia's territorial integrity. Members of the House
of Representatives reacted strongly to the move, calling it
blatant interference in Indonesia's domestic affairs.

Compared to the conflict resolution of Aceh, the issue of
Papuan independence is actually more complicated for the
Indonesian government for at least three reasons.

First, anthropologically the Papuans belong to the Melanesian
ethnic group and they have quite different physical
characteristics compared to other Indonesians.

On top of that, unlike Aceh, the province of Papua is unique
in that it is close to countries that support its independence
struggle. Our diplomats find it difficult to approach the
governments of countries in the South Pacific to lead them to
accept Indonesia's sovereignty over the province.

Second, the issue of Papuan independence has been made more
complicated by the existence of the 1969 Act of Free Choice which
has invited conflicting interpretations by the Indonesian
government and the Papuan protagonists. It is a normal practice
among separatist movements all over the world to make a problem
out of any international agreement that can be used to justify
the demand for self-determination.

Third, the Papuan activists abroad have a greater chance of
getting support from Western societies as the Indonesian
government cannot associate the rebels in the predominantly
Christian territory with any religion-inspired terrorism.

Minister of Defense Juwono Sudarsono acted prudently when he
made a statement that the Indonesian people should stay calm in
responding to the move made by the U.S. congressmen.

However, there is also no reason for the government to take
things lightly. The course of events in Papua since the fall of
Soeharto's regime has been characterized by policy
inconsistencies and an endless struggle for resources among
different political groups who are keen to take advantage of the
loosening of Jakarta's control over the province through special
autonomy.

The contradiction between the special autonomy status and the
division of the province is an indication that Jakarta lacks a
coherent policy platform on Papua.

The assassination of Theys Eluay, the former chairman of the
Presidium of Papuan Council, allegedly by members of the Army's
Special Forces (Kopassus) in November 2001 was particularly
damaging to the whole strategy of Indonesian diplomacy on Papua.
As far as the mother state is concerned one thing the government
cannot afford is the creation of a hero on the part of the rebel
group. Indonesia's diplomatic struggle over East Timor in the
late 1990s was made more difficult when the Indonesian security
authorities detained Xanana Gusmao in Jakarta.

All these events lead us to a very clear conclusion that the
Indonesian government has never been serious about making the
Papuans feel comfortable within the framework of the Indonesian
unitary state. Leaders in Jakarta are only concerned with taking
advantage of the backwardness of the Papuans so that their
natural resources can be exploited.

To make things worse, Papuan local leaders themselves have
used the special autonomy law to enrich themselves at the expense
of the grass roots.

It was recently shown on television how the National Police
were brutal toward demonstrators who were protesting against the
trial of their friends. All these events lead us to a foregone
conclusion that the Indonesian authorities have never been
serious with the improvement of the wellbeing of the Papuan
people.

It is no exaggeration to say that currently Indonesian
diplomacy on Papua has had to face dual pressure. On the domestic
level the central government has failed to formulate an
integrated policy on Papua, hence our diplomats abroad find it
difficult to make a strong argument against aggressive questions
from their fellow diplomats or human rights activists.

In the normal practice of global diplomacy, most of the time
diplomats who are in the defensive position tend to lose the game
especially when they come from a weak state.

The second pressure comes from the fact that the
internationalization of the Papuan conflict is initiated by
foreign parties which are beyond Indonesia's control. We should
not underestimate the powerful impact of collaboration between
members of the U.S. Congress and the international networks of
Papuan activists.

Those who are dissatisfied with the Indonesian government in
the U.S. Congress would be keen to use the Papuan issue as an
instrument to increase the political stake should Indonesia be
seen as an unreliable partner in the global fighting against
terrorism.

The Papuan independence activists abroad will continue to
capitalize on the shortcomings of government policies in Papua.
This is a great challenge for the Indonesian government to review
all its policies for Papua and then come up with a more
integrated policy for the sake of the Papuans themselves. Thus,
the real battle is not in the U.S. Congress or anywhere else but
here within the reach of our wisdom and statesmanship.

Aleksius Jemadu is Head of the Department of International
Relations Parahyangan Catholic University, Bandung. He can be
reached at aleks@home.unpar.ac.id.