|
by Neles Tebay
West Papua conflict and its effects
West Papua (known also as Papua or Irian Jaya) is the western part of the Island of New Guinea, sharing a land border with Papua New Guinea and a sea border with Australia. It has been a land of conflict under Indonesian rule for more than four decades. When Indonesia declared its independence in 1945, West Papua was not part of Indonesian territory, for it remained as a province of the Kingdom of the Netherlands. In the wider context of the Cold War the United States (US) pressured the Dutch to let Indonesia take over the territory. Indonesia began its occupation in 1963, and formalized it through a widely criticized ‘Act of Free Choice’ (AFC) in 1969.
The Papuans’ demand for direct voting by every eligible Papuan was raised before the AFC but was rejected by the Indonesian government with the support of the Dutch, the US, and the UN. Instead, Indonesia applied its method of musyawarah (reaching a consensus) where the AFC would be exercised through some representatives. Indonesian troops immediately took control of the territory, selected 1,025 representatives out of 800,000 Papuans, without the presence of the UN team, intimidated the hand-picked representatives, and threatened them into joining Indonesia. These representatives were not even given freedom of choice through the international practice of voting. In a coercive situation only 175 people out of 1,025 representatives were permitted to make an oral declaration. They were ‘instructed’ in this by the Indonesian authority as the coordinator of the AFC. Not too surprisingly they unanimously voted to join Indonesia. The result of this fraudulent AFC was only ‘noted’ by the UN, leaving doubt as to its legality in international law. So the Dutch, the US, the UN, and the Indonesian government were collaborative in denying systematically the fundamental right to self-determination of the Indigenous Papuans.
The Papuans considered the AFC was simply a sham, a whitewash and little more than a farce. Therefore they have always demanded a genuine exercise of the right to self-determination. However the Indonesian government continues to claim that the AFC was conducted in a democratic and transparent way. Since the UN approved the result of the AFC they claim that West Papua is an integral part of Indonesia’s territory. The Papuans’ demand for the right to self-determination is then mistakenly interpreted as separatist by the government. To eradicate the Papuan separatists the government has been conducting military operations. Between 1967 and 1985 the government conducted a series of massive military operations, including Operasi Sadar (Operation Consciousness,1965-1967), and Operasi Tumpas (Operation Annihilation, 1983-1984). Their names give some indication as to their deadly intent. Beginning in August 2004 a fresh military operation has been conducted in the Puncak Jaya district. At least some 6,000 Papuans from 27 villages have taken refuge, and been starving, in the jungle; 15 people including 13 children died in a refuge camp. The whole region is closed off. Humanitarian workers are not allowed to visit the region.
Although no independent investigation has yet been conducted, some local and international human rights groups estimate that at least a hundred thousand Papuans have been killed by Indonesian security forces. Many other Papuans have been victims of torture, intimidation, and arbitrary detentions. Many Papuan women have been victims of sexual abuse. In every military operation, food gardens are also destroyed; domesticated pigs are killed; people’s houses and church buildings are burnt down; and Papuan men, women and children are massacred.
Having conducted research on human rights violations in West Papua, the American Yale Law School confirms that the historical and contemporary evidence strongly suggest that the Indonesian government has committed proscribed acts with the intent to destroy the Papuans. The Military have engaged in widespread violence and extra-judicial killings and subjected Papuan men and women to acts of torture, disappearance, rape and sexual violence, thus causing serious bodily and mental harm. Many of these acts, individually and collectively, clearly constitute crimes against humanity under international law.
The Papuans are now being marginalized demographically, owing to the influx of Indonesian migrants, who belong to the Malay race and are mainly Muslims. In 1969, the population of 800,000 was predominantly Papuan. In 2001, of the 2.2 million people in West Papua, there were approximately 800,000 migrants and 1.4 million indigenous Papuans. The number of migrants has increased by the government-sponsored programme of transmigration, which is partly funded by the World Bank. From 1964 to 1999 nearly 250,000 households – or over 500,000 Indonesian migrants – have been settled in Papua, living in more than 200 settlements or villages built by the government. Other newcomers have been ‘spontaneous migrants’ who have flooded into West Papua trying to escape poverty and hoping for a better existence than that on offer in overcrowded western Indonesia. They have settled in all of West Papua’s major towns. Two-thirds of the population in the major towns are now Indonesian migrants, whose number goes on increasing. If this trend continues, within a few years the Papuans, who are a tiny minority in Indonesia, will also be a minority in their own land.
Until 1999 at least, the migrants dominated government offices and political and social organizations. Almost all the economic activities were monopolized by the migrants. The migrants excel in trade, services, construction and contracting in all the towns. Indonesia’s notorious capacity for corruption, collusion and nepotism, as well as the collaboration between the government officials and the migrants, strengthens the migrants’ economic position. The Papuans, who suffer from a severe lack of training and access to capital, are economically marginalized. They live a largely cashless existence of subsistence farming, gathering and hunting, and many are dependent on forest products for their livelihood. Despite the forest’s many profitable natural resources the Papuans remain very poor.
Papuans have also been victims of Indonesia’s cultural oppression: a cultural alienation manifested largely in the programme of ‘civilization’. Papuans suffer the denial of Papuan cultural identity, expression and traditional land rights, and suffer from a psychological repression resulting from ‘the presumption of incompetence’ and generally being looked down on by the migrants. In addition, and critical to their traditional culture and sustainable life style, their forest is being destroyed by the Indonesia’s legal and illegal logging industries, supported or protected by Indonesian security forces.
The various forms of Indonesia’s oppression against the Papuans have generated suspicions, divisions, and conflicts between the Papuans and the government, between Papuan tribes, between religions (Christian-Muslim), and between races (Papuan Melanesian - Indonesian Malay) in West Papua. As of today, Indonesian military operations continue to be conducted. The perpetrators of human rights violations are not only protected by impunity to any legal sanction but are even considered as national heroes. The Papuans, by comparison, are not even considered as human beings but as ‘separatists’ who should be eradicated. Consequently many more Papuans will become victims of human rights abuses.
In such a context, Restorative Justice is deeply needed. This may offer a way to mend the broken relationships, restore the damage, heal the wounds, and prevent further crimes in West Papua.
Conflict Resolution through Restorative Justice
The first and determining step towards a peaceful settlement in West Papua, through the process of Restorative Justice, is that the Indigenous Papuans and Indonesian government must both commit themselves to being constructive.
Second, the stakeholders of the West Papua conflict are the Papuans as victims, the Indonesian government and military as offenders, and various institutions of civil society, amongst them being church, indigenous peoples councils, NGOs both local and international. Each of them has a significant role in the process of restoration through Restorative Justice.
Third, the Papuans should be empowered to describe how they experienced the crimes against them and what needs to be done for them to feel that their wounds are healed; and they further need to be engaged as participants in a ‘problem-solving’ process. They could be accompanied and supported in this by various institutions of civil society, such as the local and national NGOs, international aid agencies and other INGOs, religious institutions and the Papuan tribal chiefs’ council.
Fourth, the Indonesian Government and its military need to be encouraged to describe the whole truth about the crimes committed, to comprehend its consequences, and then make things right as far as this is possible, and particularly to participate in repairing the harm to the victims. The inter-governmental organizations, such as the European Union, the Pacific Island Forum (PIF), the ASEAN, and the UN, could play their role in encouraging the government to reveal, acknowledge, and address the harms and causes of the crimes perpetrated by its forcible annexation and occupation of West Papua. The establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Commission could be helpful in achieving these ends.
Fifth, representing the international community, the UN, or a UN-appointed state or institution, could facilitate meetings between the various parties. These could be localized ‘peace talks’, whose aim is to prevent any continuation of the immediate crimes perpetrated during military operations, or a full, all-inclusive dialogue between the Papuan people’s representatives and the Indonesian government, to discuss how the past and current injustices could be acknowledged, equity restored and a future conflict-prevention policy agreed and implemented. The UN would then play a vital role in ensuring that both parties keep their agreement.
Sixth, applying Restorative Justice principles, those parties involved in the 1969 AFC should reveal the truth about their conduct. The Papuan representatives, who were selected by the Indonesian authorities, should be given the opportunity to reveal their experience of ‘participating’ in the AFC. The Indonesian government should give an honest account of how the AFC was held, and the Dutch, the US, and the UN should review their respective conduct in relation to the AFC. An international institute, or an independent state acceptable to all parties, could facilitate a reconciliation meeting to reveal the whole truth of the AFC and then to seek a democratic and peaceful settlement.
Unless a peaceful settlement is reached, through a process of Restorative Justice, the West Papua conflict will remain unsettled and consequently many more Papuans will become victims, not only to Indonesian military operations but also to the many other oppressions of occupation. A Restorative Justice approach is urgently needed in order to ensure the survival of the 1.4 million Papuans, now under the threat of ethnic extinction among 220 million Indonesians.
About the author
Fr. Neles Tebay is a priest of the diocese of Jayapura, West Papua. From 1998 to 2000 he was a journalist working for The Jakarta Post. He also taught at the Catholic Institute for Theology and Philosophy in Jayapura. Since 2003 he has been undertaking a PhD programme in missiology at the Pontifical Urban University in Rome. His email address is nelestebay@hotmail.com
|
|