W. Papua: A self-fulfilling prophecy

W. Papua: A self-fulfilling prophecy

By Arian Ardie

JAKARTA (JP): The tragic events that have occurred in Wamena,
West Papua (Irian Jaya) over the past few weeks should have come
as a surprise to no one. What is perhaps surprising is that they
have not occurred sooner.

The central government, in its zeal to maintain territorial
integrity, has only focused on the eradication of the symbols of
discontent rather than the root causes.

The issues raised by the West Papuan people, respect for their
basic human rights and the ability to have a voice in determining
their own future, are basic human aspirations shared by all.

However, the government has not addressed the basic grievances
of the West Papuans. These include human rights abuses, a
consistent policy of under-development by a central government
that has profited from resource exploitation but done little in
terms of reinvestment in the province, and an inability to treat
the West Papuans as equals under the law.

What West Papuans are demanding is the opportunity to engage
in a comprehensive dialog to address these issues. They have
pledged to pursue their aspirations in a non-violent manner
without the repressive tactics to which they have been subjected
under the Soeharto regime.

Admittedly, there have been calls for independence, but these
have been couched in the context of free and open dialog, which
is an integral part of a true democracy to which Indonesia as a
nation now aspires.

If the government were to engage in a meaningful dialog with
the West Papuans it would find that the calls for independence
are more a call for emancipation rather than a call for
separation.

These aspirations and their true meaning cannot be understood
unless a dialog is undertaken. They cannot be understood if the
starting premise of the government is the vilification of those
leaders who are calling for just treatment of their people and a
more equitable share of the profits from the land on which they
live.

If the central government truly wants to keep West Papua as
part of the Republic of Indonesia it may wish to consider the
manner in which it represents itself in the province.

The government should project its presence not through
representatives of the security forces, but rather through
teachers, nurses, doctors and community development workers --
people who, through their work, can demonstrate the benefits of
being part of the greater Indonesian nation.

Solving the conflict in West Papua will be a true test of
Indonesia as a democratic nation. The ability to integrate West
Papua into the patchwork quilt of the diverse races and cultures
that make up this great country will test its commitment to
democracy, freedom of speech and human rights.

Indonesia has the moral and intellectual foundation to do so.
Its national motto, Unity in Diversity, and the tenants of
Pancasila provide that foundation if diligently applied. The
concept of musyawarah mufakat, which translates into a
comprehensive dialog based upon mutual respect, deliberation and
consensus, is one that the West Papuans dearly desire.

These are the concepts of nationalism that will keep West
Papua part of Indonesia, not force applied through the barrel of
a gun.

The central government still has the opportunity to use these
concepts in a constructive manner for the benefit of the country
as well as the West Papuans. Failure to do so will only result in
another self-fulfilling tragedy.

In its desire to help the government move forward, the Papuan
Presidium is proposing a three-point plan, which it wishes to
incorporate into a memorandum of understanding with the
government.

The first point declares West Papua a zone of peace where
neither government troops nor West Papuans carry weapons. This
does not preclude the presence of the security forces, but does
require that they are unarmed, as would be the West Papuans.

The second point calls for an open and comprehensive dialog in
which the issues would be discussed. If the dialog is
comprehensive it should also include the issues of central
government, namely the desire to maintain territorial integrity,
as well as the issues dear to the West Papuans.

The third point calls for the continued development of West
Papua, something to which the Indonesian government is already
committed.

These three points ultimately represent a vision of how the
West Papuan conflict could be resolved. They also mirror
statements that the President himself has made in the past, both
in public and in private. As such, they should not be
antithetical to the government's point of view or objectives.

However, despite this conscientious attempt to avoid
confrontation, the recent aggressive tactics employed by the
police's elite Mobile Brigade indicate that there has been a
major shift in policy at the highest levels of government on how
to handle the problems in West Papua.

The indications are that the government is now unwilling to
engage in dialog, and would rather use aggression to enforce its
will. This course of action seems to be more in line with the
excesses of the Soeharto regime than the reforms of the
democratically elected government of Abdurrahman Wahid and
Megawati Soekarnoputri.

The proposals put forth by the Papuan Presidium may not
necessarily be the right answers, but at least they attempt to
find answers. The plan presents a vision for the future that will
result in a more democratic nation. This option is certainly
better than trying to maintain Indonesian integrity by force,
which has not worked in the past.

It will only be a self-fulfilling prophecy for disaster.

The writer has made frequent visits to West Papua and attended
the Papuan National Congress as an observer. He is a senior
consultant at Van Zorge, Heffernan and Associates, a Jakarta-
based political risk consultancy.