The Australian, March 28, 2006
Richard Chauvel: Papua crucial to Indonesia
Why Jakarta is so sensitive about independence movements
INDONESIA'S extreme sensitivity and depth of feeling about Papua is reflected in its
decision to recall its ambassador.
Papua's economic importance to Indonesia is symbolised by the controversial
Freeport gold and copper mine, which is Indonesia's largest corporate taxpayer, worth!
$US1.2 billion ($1.7 billion) last year.
Indonesian president Sukarno's statement in 1963 that his country was not complete
without Papua conveys something of Papua's importance in Indonesian nationalist
thinking. Sukarno successfully used the incorporation of Papua as a focus in the
struggle for national unity. It remains thus.
There are no significant (non-Papuan) Indonesian leaders or parties that support
Papuan independence and there are many who have grave reservations about any
form of autonomy.
The Indonesian parliamentarians' protests and criticism of the granting of visas for 42
Papuans have come from across the political spectrum, not just from the outspoken
nationalists.
One of the reasons for Indonesia's sensitivity about Papua is the confusion
surrounding Jakarta's policies in Papua. President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has
made numerous statements about his Government's commitment to find a political
solu! tion to the Papua conflict on the basis of the 2001 special autonomy law. The
successful negotiations about Aceh have given the commitment to resolve Papua
credibility and momentum.
He received strong support in Papua in the 2004 elections. His election generated
considerable optimism among Papuans.
However, Yudhoyono has done little to clarify the confusion, contradictions and
divisiveness in the Papua policy he inherited from Megawati Sukarnoputri.
Is his Government committed to the implementation of special autonomy or will it
continue
Megawati's policy to create two or more provinces in Papua?
Megawati's decision to partition Papua was motivated by a fear that if the special
autonomy law was implemented, it would empower a Papuan elite in Jayapura that
would use it as a basis for a further step towards independence.
The Yudhoyono Government's policy decisions of the past cou! ple of months have
made a political resolution more difficult. The decision to hold elections for governor in
the newly created province of West Papua indicates that the Government is
determined to pursue the partition of Papua.
This decision undermines and marginalises the Papuan People's Assembly, the
institutional centrepiece of special autonomy, which the Government established as
the representative forum for Papuans. The decision disregarded the assembly's
recommendation in March this year that the election for governor not proceed as the
assembly had found there was little Papuan support for the new province. The
assembly appealed to the Government for a comprehensive and open dialogue to
resolve Papua's problems. Senior government officials from Jakarta, including the
Security Minister Widodo, who visited Jayapura the day after the Abepura riots
(March15-16), refused to hold substantive discussions with members of the provincial
parliament and Papuan relig! ious leaders.
This supports the argument in last week's briefing update from the International Crisis
Group that the Government is shutting down dialogue with Papuans.
Relations between the Papuan elite and the Jakarta Government have never been
easy, but Papuan trust in Jakarta is at a low point. The brutal killing of five members
of the security forces in the Abepura riots reflects something of the depth of feeling
among Papuans, their desperation and the degree of alienation from Indonesia.
Canberra's decision to grant Papuan asylum-seekers visas has exacerbated the
Indonesian Government's anxieties about Papua and heightened suspicions about
Australian interests and intentions. Jakarta's statement notes that: "The [visa]
decision justifies speculations that there are elements in Australia that support
separatist movement in Papua and in this regard the Government of Australia has not
done anything to them."
The head of the National Intelligence Agency, Syamsir Siregar, alleged that
non-governmental organisations involved in the riots in Abepura earlier this month had
links in Australia.
It is not only the alleged activities of Australian NGOs that are suspected by
Indonesian officials. The head of the armed forces, Djoko Suyanto, suggested that the
asylum-seekers could not have reached Australia without the assistance of Australian
patrols and that asylum-seekers from the Middle East are treated differently.
These Indonesian suspicions relate directly to Australia's role in the 1999 international
intervention in East Timor. Many Indonesians, inside and outside the Government and
the military, believe, mistakenly, that an independent East Timor was the preferred
strategic outcome for Australia. They suspect that Australia has the same objective
with respect to Papua. Frequent and definitive Australian government statements of
support f! or Indonesian sovereignty in Papua evoke the Indonesian response: "That's
what you said about East Timor."
Australia has a vital interest in Indonesia peacefully resolving the conflict in Papua.
Indonesians and Papuans need international support to help reduce Indonesia's
dependence on violence in its governance in Papua and to accommodate Papuans,
their interests and values in the government of the province. The agreement on Aceh
is a model of what is politically possible.
Richard Chauvel, a senior lecturer at the school of social sciences at Victoria
University, is author of Constructing Papuan Nationalism: History, Ethnicity and
Adaptation. www.eastwestcenterwashington.org
© The Australian
|
