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.