Why autonomy is not well received by Papuans

Why autonomy is not well received by Papuans

Neles Kebadabi Tebay, The Jakarta Post, Pontifical Urbaniana
University, Rome, Italy

Following the death of Theys H. Eluay, a key Papuan
independence leader, it remains doubtful whether Papuans will be
willing to accept the bill on special autonomy for the province
of Irian Jaya (often referred to locally as Papua). When
legislators traveled to the regencies of Mimika, Biak and
Jayawijaya to promote the bill, local Papuans made their
opposition to it abundantly clear.

As many in Papua have said, the main reason for rejecting the
bill has been the absence of a genuine dialog between the central
government and Papuans.

Since the fall of president Soeharto, an atmosphere of greater
openness has prevailed in Indonesia. Papuans have used this
atmosphere to press their demands for independence, which they
have done through peaceful demonstrations, including by raising
the West Papuan flag known as the 'Morning Star'.

In all their demonstrations, the Papuans have demanded and
urged the central government to hold a genuine dialog with them.
The dialog would be aimed at clarifying the problems and
grievances that have been faced by Papuans since the integration
of the province with the Republic of Indonesia, establishing the
root cause of these problems and determining together how they
might be resolved, in a peaceful, democratic and dignified
manner.

This demand for a dialog was also put forward during the
Second Papua Congress held in Jayapura in May/June 2000.

However, the Papuans' demands have been ignored by the central
government, and Jakarta has refused to engage in a genuine
dialog.

Instead, the House of Representatives (DPR) has decided to
implement what it calls "special autonomy". Rather than inviting
the Papuans to discuss the matter peacefully, the government
chose to send thousands of members of the elite mobile brigade
and Army special forces to various parts of the province, to
crack down on the "separatist movement".

Unwilling to determine the root cause of the province's
problems, the armed forces have instead chosen to focus on the
raising of the Morning Star flag as the province's key security
issue. The military and police conducted "clearing operations"
throughout Papua, forcibly removing the flag. This continued the
tradition of killing, intimidation, torture and terror committed
by security personnel against many Papuans under former president
Soeharto.

In the absence of dialog prior to the implementation of
special autonomy, and in the context of ongoing security
operations, many Papuans do not even want to hear the term
"autonomy".

If the central government can be likened to a doctor, and
Papuans to patients, then Jakarta has made its own decision about
the best medicine to 'cure' the Papuans -- special autonomy --
without properly diagnosing the root cause of the illness.

Thus, the problem is not whether to accept or reject the bill
on special autonomy. Rather, the fundamental question becomes: Is
special autonomy a solution based on a genuine dialog?

The search for any solution needs to be founded on dialog. If
special autonomy results from a genuine dialog, then Papuans will
welcome the bill by performing their traditional dance.

The second reason for rejecting special autonomy is that many
ordinary Papuans have not yet seen the form of the bill or its
content.

Papuans will say, "Show us the contents of the bill first".
They are afraid of being deceived once again by Jakarta's empty
promises following decades of experience. They want to make sure
that the bill addresses their suffering and hopes.

Jakartan people have always said, "We will draw our
conclusions later"; "We will accommodate your considerations as
part of the process"; "We will convey your opinion to the person
responsible". But the final decisions have always overlooked the
Papuans' aspirations. Jakarta's will has been imposed on the
Papuans for years and they have become victims of the central
government's policies.

The campaign in support of the bill could even be interpreted
as a trick by the legislators in Jakarta. It is like the story of
a father who lies to his son: the father decides to buy a goat at
the market to celebrate his only son's birthday. But he tells his
son that he is going buy a special animal for the celebration,
and asks his son what sort of animal he would like.

The son says he wants a sheep. The father agrees. The father
asks his son to list some special characteristics that he wants
the sheep to have. Having "accommodated the aspirations" of his
son, he goes to the market. When the father returns, his son sees
that he has bought a goat. The son says, "Father, you agreed to
buy a sheep for my birthday. Why did you buy a goat instead?"

The father replies, "I am sorry, my son. First, there were no
sheep being sold at the market. Second, your father only had
enough money for a goat. So, don't complain. Let's celebrate your
birthday by enjoying goat meat". Thus, the son was intentionally
deceived by his own father.

The Papuans have now realized that they have been deceived by
Jakarta for many years.

Many of them therefore reject the bill, not because Papuans
are uneducated, not because they want to destroy the territorial
integrity of Indonesia, and not necessarily because they don't
like the autonomy being offered. Rather, it is because the
solution of special autonomy has not resulted from a genuine
dialog between the central government and the Papuans, and
because they have yet to see the contents of the bill.

So, are they wrong to reject it? Does their rejection of the
bill necessarily make them separatists? If the Papuans reject the
bill, who should be blamed?