The impact of a Dutch study on Papua vote

The impact of a Dutch study on Papua vote

Neles Tebay, Rome

The government has every right to play down the impact of the
Dutch study on the Papua vote in 1969 by simply viewing it as
academic research (The Jakarta Post, Nov. 19).

Yet, other people, institutes, and countries may have a
different opinion. The political impact of the study, then,
cannot be predicted.

So, it would be better for the government to see the study as
a challenge to counter its impact with solid arguments, instead.
Why?

First, the Dutch study has revealed that the 1969 Act of Free
Choice (AFC) in Papua was a "sham" vote orchestrated by Jakarta.
The study detailed how the Indonesian government rigged the vote
by more than 1,000 Papuan tribal leaders who supposedly
represented the territory's population of 700,000. The shameful
vote officially made Papua part of Indonesia.

The study has clearly identified Indonesia as the party that
orchestrated the vote. Consequently, the government will be seen
as the one responsible for the shameful vote and its aftermath.

Since it was academically proven, it will be more difficult
for Indonesia to convince the international community that the
vote was conducted democratically. Papua's integration into
Indonesia, then, might be seen as annexation.

The findings of the study will become powerful ammunition for
the campaign launched by the NGOs and some members of parliament
around the world that have called on the UN secretary-general to
review the UN's conduct in relation to the 1969 vote in Papua.
Perhaps other NGOs and even foreign countries will join the
campaign.

Knowing that Papua was incorporated into Indonesia through a
fraudulent vote that denies fundamental principles such as
democracy, liberty, freedom and human rights, some foreign
governments may decide to reconsider -- at least morally -- their
support of Papua's integration into Indonesia. They might even be
challenged by their own people if the governments recognize
Papua's integration into Indonesia.

Despite the fraudulent vote in 1969, the United States, the
Pacific Island Forum (PIF) and the European Union, including the
Dutch, have given full support to the full and effective
implementation of the Papuan autonomy Law. For them, the adequate
implementation of the law is a realistic option for the future of
Papuans.

Yet the government has been inconsistent in implementing the
law. The government allowed the controversial province of West
Irian Jaya to conduct a gubernatorial election on Nov. 28, 2005,
despite the strong rejection of the Papuan legislative council
(DPRP) and the newly established Papuan People's Assembly (MRP).

The conflicting policies on Papua could become obstacles for
the government in convincing foreign countries that Papuans would
have a better future under Indonesian rule.

The foreign countries might even be reconsidering their
support for the Papuan autonomy law.

From the above description, we could say that new and solid
arguments are needed to counter the impact of the Dutch study.
The arguments should be sustained by Jakarta's consistent
policies that guarantee the safety and better future of the
Papuans.

There are some possible policies that the government could
take into account:

First, the government must implement fully and effectively the
Papuan autonomy Law. The controversial province of West Irian
Jaya, then, should no longer exist.

Second, the government should declare Papua as a land of
peace. Consequently the government should end military
operations, halt the military build-up in Papua, withdraw troops
recruited outside Papua, and address unresolved cases of human
rights violations from 1963 until today.

Third, the government has been running development programs in
Papua since it became part of Indonesia. So it would be helpful
for Indonesia to abolish the visa restrictions imposed on
international journalists, researchers and NGO workers, so that
they could come and see for themselves the achievement of the
government in Papua.

Fourth, the government needs to engage in peaceful dialogs
with the Papuans to discuss the problems in Papua. The issue of
the AFC needs to be included as part of the agenda of the dialog,
so that the government and the Papuans can discuss it internally
and arrive at a peaceful solution. By so doing, the government
could tell the international community that the issue of the AFC
could be settled internally.

Without seeking a peaceful solution through an open dialog
facilitated by a third party, the government itself will
give latitude for the internationalization of the Papua issue.

The writer is a postgraduate student at Pontifical University
of Urbaniana, Rome. He can be reached at nelestebay@hotmail.com.