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.