The need to persuade U.S. House and Senate over Papua

The need to persuade U.S. House and Senate over Papua

Neles Tebay, Rome

The government is beginning to pay the price for its
reluctance to honor its commitment to fully implement Law No.
21/2001 on special autonomy for Papua. And if the government does
not take measures to prevent more damage from its blunders in
Papua, it will face more international pressure about the
country's easternmost province. So far the government has made
little progress on the special autonomy implementation, while
resentment against the central government continues to grow in
the province.

The government should learn from East Timor and also from
Aceh. It cannot just say that foreign countries have no right to
interfere in Indonesia's domestic affairs, while continuing to
violate the rights of locals. Papua, like it or not, could become
an international issue unless the government takes substantial
measures to win the hearts and minds of local people, something
that has been ignored for decades.

The Committee on International Relations at the U.S. House of
Representatives has already included the Papua case in a bill
(H.R. 2601) on the State Department Authorization Act for 2006.

The bill was passed by the committee on June 9 and still needs
to be approved by the Senate.

The bill highlights 10 points about Papua.

First, Papua, a resource-rich province whose indigenous
inhabitants are predominantly Melanesian, was formerly a colony
of the Netherlands.

Second, while Indonesia has claimed Papua as part of its
territory since its independence in 1945, Papua remained under
Dutch control until 1962.

Third, on Aug. 15, 1962, Indonesia and the Netherlands signed
an agreement in New York (commonly referred to as the New York
Agreement), which transferred administration of Papua first to a
United Nations Temporary Executive Authority (UNTEA), and then to
Indonesia in 1963, pending an "act of fee choice ... to permit
the inhabitants to decide whether they wish to remain with
Indonesia".

Fourth, in the New York Agreement, Indonesia formally
recognized "the eligibility of all adults (in Papua) ... to
participate in [an] act of self-determination to be carried out
in accordance with international practice", and pledged "to give
the people of the territory the opportunity to exercise freedom
of choice ... before the end of 1969".

Fifth, in July and August 1969, Indonesia conducted an Act of
Free Choice, in which 1,025 selected Papuan elders voted
unanimously to join Indonesia, in circumstances that were subject
to both overt and covert forms of manipulation.

Sixth, in the intervening years, indigenous Papuans have
suffered extensive human rights abuses, the exploitation of their
natural resources, environmental degradation, and commercial
dominance by immigrant communities. Some individuals and groups
estimate that more that 100,000 Papuans have been killed during
Indonesian rule, primarily during the Sukarno and Soeharto
administrations.

Seventh, while the U.S. supports the territorial integrity of
Indonesia, Indonesia's historical reliance on force for the
maintenance of control has been counterproductive, and long-
standing abuses by security forces have galvanized independence
sentiment among the majority of Papuans.

Eighth, while the Indonesian legislature passed a special
autonomy law for Papua in October 2001 that was intended to
allocate greater revenue and decision making authority to the
Papuan provincial government, the promises of special autonomy
have never been realized.

The government then broke its own promise by dividing Papua
into three provinces, which is against the law on special
autonomy. And the government made the change without the consent
of the provincial authorities in Papua.

Ninth, rather than demilitarizing its approach, Indonesia has
reportedly continued to send thousands of additional troops to
Papua. Military operations in the central highlands since 2004
have displaced thousands of civilians into very vulnerable
circumstances, contributing further to mistrust of the central
government by the majority of Papuans.

According to the bill, the secretary of state is requested to
report on two things.

The first report is on special autonomy for Papua. The bill
states that no later then 180 days after the date of the
enactment of this act and one year thereafter, the secretary of
state shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a
report detailing implementation of special autonomy for Papua and
Aceh.

Such a report shall cover five aspects. They include an
assessment of the extent to which each province has enjoyed
increased allocations of revenue and decision making authority, a
description of access by the international press and non-
governmental organizations to each province, and an assessment of
the role played by local civil society in governance and decision
making.

The second report is on the 1969 Act of Free Choice (AFC) in
Papua. The bill (H.R. 2601) clearly states that no later than 180
days after the date of enactment of the act, the secretary of
state shall submit to the appropriate congressional committees a
report analyzing the 1969 AFC.

Nevertheless, Indonesia still has time to persuade the U.S.
Congress that the bill is not necessary. The government must be
able to provide concrete evidence that it has and will continue
to implement Law No. 21 on special autonomy for Papua.

In Jakarta, the government should support this diplomatic
effort by demonstrating its consistency in implementing the
Papuan autonomy law. Many foreign countries have reiterated their
support for Indonesia's territorial integrity on Papua,
especially since Indonesia promised to provide more autonomy for
the province. However, breaking this promise will make it more
difficult for those countries to continue their support for
Indonesia.

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