There must be wiser ways to deal with Papua

There must be wiser ways to deal with Papua

Neles Tebay, Pontifical University of Urbaniana, Rome

An "integrated" operation is being conducted in Aceh, on the
basis of the martial law decreed by President Megawati
Soekarnoputri. It aims at eradicating the Free Aceh Movement
(GAM) in the name of maintaining Indonesia's territorial
integrity.

Will the "integrated operation", preceded by a status of
martial law, be applied in Papua? There are five considerations
leading to such fears.

First, as in Aceh, there is the Free Papua Movement (OPM),
which has been fighting for an independent state, although
members are poorly armed and organized.

Second, civilian society in Papua has been promoting Papua as
a peace zone. It is even fully supported by the Papuan guerrilla
leaders, such as Kelly Kwalik.

Knowing that a peace zone cannot be created without the
support of Jakarta, including the Indonesian Military, the
Papuans and the provincial legislative council have called upon
the government in Jakarta to declare Papua a peace zone. To date,
the government seems to be reluctant.

Third, at the second Papuan Congress in June 2000, the Papuans
resolved to find a solution for Papua through peaceful dialog and
negotiations with all related parties, including the government.
Since then, they have been calling for a genuine and peaceful
dialog, with the mediation of a third party, to solve the Papua
case.

The Papuans believe that only through a genuine dialog can
both parties reach a common understanding of the problems in
Papua, the root causes of the problems, and jointly determine a
credible and legitimate process of peaceful and democratic
solution.

The local council has conveyed the Papuans' call for dialog
to the central government.

The Papuan Presidium Council (PDP) has even submitted its
version of the terms of reference of the dialog to the central
government.

It seems that the Papuans' call for a genuine dialog is
supported not only by foreign non-governmental organizations, but
also by some foreign countries.

While supporting the territorial integrity of Indonesia and
encouraging the government to address and resolve peacefully
conflicts, such as those in Irian Jaya/Papua and Aceh, the
European Union Council earlier underlined "that the only viable
way to guarantee the territorial integrity of Indonesia is for
the government to engage in a genuine dialog with the provinces
in order to tackle the root causes of separatism".

However, the Jakarta government has not expressed its
willingness to engage in dialog.

Fourth, the government considers special autonomy as the
final solution for Papua. Therefore, the special autonomy law for
Papua was passed in October 2001. The Papua government has
accepted the special autonomy law, despite the opposition of
Papuans.

The international community has supported the special autonomy
law. Its full and effective implementation would be a win-win
situation according to the New York-based Council on Foreign
Relations (CFR, The Jakarta Post, May 20).

The European Union has even committed to provide some
financial assistance to make the implementation of the law
successful.

However, the special autonomy law has not been put into force.
As The Economist magazine reported last month, "the government is
undermining the special form of autonomy it granted to Papua".
The law cannot be implemented in Papua as the central government
has been delaying issuing the government regulation for the
establishment of the Papuan People's Assembly (MRP).

Fifth, President Megawati has issued a presidential
instruction on the acceleration of the division of Papua into
three smaller provinces. One of the reasons for this was to
weaken the separatist movement in Papua.

The instruction has not only brought about confusion and
tension in Papua, but also leads to the question: Is the
government really supporting the implementation of the special
autonomy law for Papua?

Some parties in Indonesia have raised their objections to the
presidential instruction. The CFR has suggested Jakarta postpone
its plan to divide Papua into three provinces.

In response Jakarta has promised to synchronize the special
autonomy law and the instruction on dividing the province so that
both can be implemented at the same time in Papua -- though there
has hardly been any explanation of the matter.

Judging the government's responses mentioned above in the
light of the martial law being applied in Aceh, one could get a
different message.

First, the OPM has supported peaceful dialog. But for the
government the presence of the OPM could be justification to
declare martial law in Papua.

Second, it seems easier to declare martial law than to declare
Papua a peace zone, given the reluctance of the government so far
to declare Papua a peace zone.

Third, the unwillingness of the central government to engage
in a genuine dialog with the Papuans could be interpreted as an
indication that Papua is the next target of martial law.

Fourth, the delay of the implementation of the special
autonomy law could be taken as meaning that Jakarta has another
solution for the Papua case, possibly an "integrated" operation
such as in Aceh.

Fifth, the presidential instruction to divide Papua into three
provinces undermines special autonomy for Papua and,
consequently, the international community's support regarding
this special autonomy.

Sixth, any move for the deployment of combat troops to Papua
would be interpreted as preparation for martial law.

Thus the reluctance to declare Papua a peace zone, the
unwillingness to engage in genuine dialog, the delay of the full
and effective implementation of the special autonomy law and the
division of the province, could be interpreted as meaning that
Papua will be "the next Aceh". It is up to the central government
to decide.