The need for understanding Papua's history, grievances

The need for understanding Papua's history, grievances

Carmel Budiardjo, London

It has been asserted in your columns this week (Local
Elections and Papuan Politics, July 11, 2005) that because the
majority of West Papuans participated in general elections in
2004, they were therefore participating in an internal
referendum. The writer also claims that they participated in an
external referendum, known as Pepera (the so-called Act of Free
Choice) which took place in 1969.

He did not dispute the fact that only one thousand Papuans
participated in Pepera but alleged that because the result was
endorsed by the United Nations, the Indonesian government was
justified in "relying on the results of Pepera" for its claim
that West Papua is a legitimate part of the Indonesian Republic.

In the first place, to liken general elections to a referendum
shows the shallowness of this analysis. Elections are about
choosing representatives of different political parties which in
today's Indonesia consist of nearly fifty parties. Whereas a
referendum is the occasion for the electorate to choose between
two or more options, and opinions often cross party lines.

Whether or not people participate in elections relates not
only to making choices about party programs but may also be
generated by fear or anxiety that by not participating, they
could face accusations of separatism or sedition.

Recent events in West Papua, such as the military operations
underway in the Central Highlands district of Punjak Jaya, which
forced thousands of villagers to take refuge in the forest,
abandoning their homes and gardens, suggest that fear of the
authorities still plays a role in people's decision about
participating in political events.

Now that Indonesia has entered an important new political era
in which democratic rights are recognized as one of the basic
rights of the population, it is strange that someone who presumes
to have the expertise to hold forth about political affairs fails
to recognize that the Act of Free Choice conducted by the
Indonesian authorities in the Soeharto era was anything but
democratic.

At the time of the Act, the population of Papua was estimated
as being a little over 800,000, yet no one disputes the fact that
only one thousand persons (to be precise, 1,022), not even one
per cent of the population, participated in that Act.

The Act was conducted following the New York Agreement of 1962
which was concluded as the result of intervention from Washington
which feared that Indonesia, then under President Sukarno, was
getting too close to the Soviet bloc. The agreement was concluded
between Indonesia and The Netherlands, without Papuan
participation or consultation.

As a result of Dutch insistence, it included a clause
providing for an Act within six years that should be held in
accordance with "international practice" This can surely only
mean one thing, namely the principle of "one man, one vote".

The issue of West Papua was discussed in the House of Lords
last December. On that occasion, the Bishop of Oxford asked the
British government for its views about the Act of Free Choice
which he had described as being an occasion when a thousand
representatives "were coerced into declaring for inclusion in
Indonesia".

Replying for the government, Baroness Symons said: "He is
right to say that there were 1,000 handpicked representatives and
they were largely coerced into declaring for inclusion in
Indonesia". One can hardly disregard the views of the British
Government, stated in the country's highest political forum.

As we know here in the UK, the British government is closely
following events in West Papua, not least because a major British
company, BP, has decided to invest massively in the exploitation
of West Papua's vast reserves of natural gas. While seeking to
promote this investment, the government has not refrained from
acknowledging that the way in which the territory was
incorporated into the Indonesian Republic was seriously flawed.

West Papua has now been officially part of Indonesia for more
than thirty years, or even longer if you include the six years
following the Dutch withdrawal in 1963, yet the sense of
grievance still runs deep.

When President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono made a visit to West
Papua last December, shortly after his inauguration and after
saying that the resolution of the conflict in West Papua was "one
of his top priorities", the leaders of all the churches there
decided to boycott the visit. As far as we know, not even during
the worst days of the Soeharto era did such a thing ever happen.

No one should make the mistake of disregarding the views of
the churches in West Papua which have always played a prominent
role and have always acted in the best interests of the largely
Christian population.

There are many serious problems in West Papua, not least the
confusion created by the government's decision first to establish
Special Autonomy, and then to split the territory into three or
perhaps even into five provinces. Allegations are being made that
money intended for running the special autonomy administration is
being used to cover the cost of ongoing military operations.

There is also concern that the continuing influx of migrants
from other parts of Indonesia is turning the Papuans into a
minority in their own homeland. In some of the major cities such
as Jayapura, this is already true.

It may be true that events in West Papua are too infrequently
reported in Indonesia's national media which perhaps accounts for
a great deal of misunderstanding about conditions there. We can
only hope that this will be speedily remedied.

In particular, commentators should play closer attention to
the events in the 1960s which lie at the root of the grievances
of the people of West Papua.

The writer is the founder of the Indonesia Human Rights
Campaign, set up in 1973.