The complex Papuan situation

The complex Papuan situation

By J. Soedjati Djiwandono

JAKARTA (JP): Behind the declaration of independence by the
people of West Papua is without doubt the demand for justice. The
people of Papua, officially Irian Jaya, feel that since their
"re-unification" with the Unitary Republic of Indonesia a little
over 30 years ago, they have suffered great injustice.

That is an undeniable fact that the government in Jakarta must
above all bear in mind when considering its response to the
Papuan's declaration of separation from the Indonesian Republic.

To reject the declaration out of hand for the defense of the
unitary republic by threats of force and accusing West Papuans of
separatism may be counterproductive. The demand for independence
by the people of West Papua is not an instant dream.

Threats of force and recommendations for the possible use of
force coming from military and political leaders would further
inflame the desire for independence.

Of no less importance, it would be an unrealistic attitude.
Everyone in this country knows full well that the military is now
in a weak position, not only in political terms, but also in
terms of the number of its personnel, its armament and equipment.

In terms of leadership, the Indonesian military is a house
divided. The increasing local conflicts and cases of violence
across the nation in the past two years attest to its apparent
impotence and incompetence.

Moreover, West Papua is a remote province, farther away than
Maluku from Jakarta, and apart from Papua New Guinea, it is a
huge island of its own with its homogeneous population despite
migrants from outside the province.

It is a territory of dense jungles and mountainous terrain
that would be a formidable advantage to its population for
purposes of defense against intruders. It would be an ideal field
for guerrilla warfare.

By contrast, it would be a horrendous impediment to the
Indonesian military in the event of military action by the
government short of a random and aimless bombing of the
territory.

In any event, it would be a war it is unlikely to win.
Should the government ultimately succeed, if at all, in putting
down the Papuan independence movement, it seems doubtful if it
would be worth the price.

It would only result in the loss of innumerable human lives
with no end in sight. Remember the conflict in Sri Lanka.

Meanwhile, the complacency on the part of Indonesian leaders,
politicians and political observers alike, given that Papuan
independence is not (yet) recognized by the international
community, is misplaced.

Indeed, the Indonesian style of a "plebiscite" in 1969 under
the auspices of the United Nations (i.e. the United States using
the UN umbrella) resulting in the integration of West Papua with
the Indonesian republic was recognized by the international
community.

This recognition, however, must be understood in the context
of the Cold War. The possibility of a superpower (nuclear)
confrontation was then the utmost preoccupation, even an
obsession, of the United States as well as the United Nations.

The world of today has undergone a drastic change. While more
remote, the possibility of a nuclear devastation remains a grave
concern, and the concern of the United Nations has continued to
be with international peace (that is, the absence of war among
nations); there is increasing concern with human rights and human
lives.

The result of the so-called plebiscite in West Papua, though
not based on one-man-one-vote principle, and thus by definition
not representative of the people of the territory in terms of
modern democracy, was recognized as valid.

Yet after the end of the Cold War, even Cambodia, then no more
developed than West Papua in the 1960s, was expected to have a
general election on the basis of that very same principle: one-
man-one-vote.

Intervention in the interest of human rights, designated as
humanitarian intervention by UN Secretary General Kofi Annan, has
been carried out or at least endorsed by the United Nations.

The international community no longer stands idle in the face
of the use of force by the central government of a country
against a separatist movement.

The Russian military action against Chechnya has been a
subject of condemnation by the international community, if mainly
in the form of appeal to respect human rights as well as threats
of certain kinds of sanction.

In Europe, the UN intervened in Bosnia and NATO in Kosovo, and
in Africa the UN intervened in Somalia and Sierra Leone.

Even during the Cold War, India conducted military
intervention in Pakistan in 1971 resulting in the birth of
Bangladesh which, surprisingly, was also swiftly recognized by
Indonesia.

Meanwhile, Israel has survived, and so has Taiwan, in spite of
a lack, though not the absence altogether, of recognition by the
international community.

In other words, the importance of recognition by the
international community should not be exaggerated. The way a
nation-state behaves is dictated above all by considerations of
its own national interest, however perceived, at a given moment.

The government's basic policy of avoiding violence in dealing
with the problem of Aceh and West Papua, as well as a similar
problem involving some other provinces, is to be appreciated.

But the non-negotiable maintenance of the unitary state as its
starting point in any peaceful dialogs would render such
dialogs meaningless.

The aspirations of the people of West Papua for independence
may be genuine. To reject their declaration of independence at
once by questioning its legitimacy may be detrimental to any hope
for a meaningful dialog.

The "plebiscite" that led to the integration of West Papua
with Indonesia was no more legitimate. To resort to the use or
threat of force would be futile.

Unity cannot possibly be imposed, especially in today's world.
It must be voluntary, based on the free choice of the people
concerned. And it can only be maintained through the promotion of
welfare and justice. These factors should be uppermost in mind
before the government embarks on any action in dealing with West
Papua just as in the case of Aceh.

However, President Abdurrahman Wahid, in particular, must take
extra caution for another reason. Just as in the case of the
continuing violence in various regions of the country, it would
not seem inconceivable that the Papuan problem, while probably
based on genuine issues, may be subject to, or partly the result
of, instigation and exploitation by his political friends or foes
among the short-sighted politicians, to push him into a dilemma.

The president may be in for a trap set by those eying for his
position.

The writer is a political analyst based in Jakarta.