The Jakarta Post, January 05, 2006
Opinion
Conflict resolution in Papua
Jaap Timmer, Jakarta
As an anthropologist dedicating much research to Papua, I follow developments in the
region closely. Encounters with critically informed people and careful reading of public
sources highlight to me an ongoing paradox in the way Papua and Jakarta approach
each other. Both sides often fall back upon long-standing, more often than! not
stereotypical assumptions. In light of the progressive democratization in Indonesia, I
would like to share my ideas about ways to overcome this paradox with the
policy-makers responsible, in Jakarta as well as in Papua.
Over the last few years, Papua has experienced the often-unsettling effects of
inconsistent policies. Attracting greatest criticism on these lines are the conflicting
laws for special autonomy for Papua as a whole, on the one hand, and a policy of
pemekaran (administrative subdivision) allegedly designed to divide the people of
Papua on the other.
Policy-makers at all levels, both in Papua and in Jakarta, find themselves caught
between protest and support for the new province of West Irian Jaya. At the same
time, special autonomy did not get off the ground properly because of a four-year
delay in the establishment of the Papuan People's Assembly (MRP) due to political
scheming in Jakarta. On top of that, ther! e is lack of capacity in the formal sector in
Papua to implement special autonomy properly and to control mounting corruption.
It was feared that the MRP would become a "superbody" for Papuan separatists, as if
such sentiments cannot be accommodated in a country that is fostering democracy
with rapid strides. For the lack of control over corruption in Papua no excuse has been
given, which is curious at a time when the nation's leader are intent precisely on
curbing corruption.
At the same time, we see that demonstrations, statements to the news or efforts at
pressing Jakarta to enter into dialog with Papua are often perceived as a threat to the
unitary state of the Republic of Indonesia. The unity of Indonesia is also supposedly
threatened by non-governmental organizations, activists and government forces in the
outside world.
Papua is Indonesia's problem. What the people of Papua need from Jakarta is a
sustained engageme! nt with the myriad problems they face. These problems range
from extreme poverty, unsustainable extraction of resources to lack of capacity in
implementing proper models of governance.
Poverty levels in the highlands are the highest in Indonesia and economic disparities
lead to regional tensions. Poor governance is widening the gap between local people
and the government. On top of that, decades of poorly controlled military action have
generated a widespread collective memory of violence and humiliation. These
accumulated factors conjure up the demon of independence that so easily mobilizes
Papuans and paralyses Jakarta.
There are two reasons for both sides to refrain from frenetic reactions.
First, local demands for independence vary immensely and are generally not about an
independent state. Instead, they signal the widespread demand for full political
participation, respect for people's dignity, and equal sharing of the benefits of resource
development projects.
Second, policy paralysis reflects the fact that Jakarta knows very little about Papua.
What to do? What has often been suggested but never actually pursued
constructively is a frank dialog between leading people from all political and social
movements in Papua. This would involve representatives of the DPR Papua (Papuan
Legislative Council, Dewan Adat Papua (Papuan Traditional Council), Presidium
Dewan Papua (Papuan Presidium Council), non-governmental organizations and all
religious organizations searching together for policy strategies for development of the
region.
Instead of Jakarta reacting to demands from Papua, the President should proactively
initiate such a dialog with a precise plan. This plan should focus on interests of the
most vulnerable people (women and children) and the poorest regions, and on
ameliorating the social and economic disparities between Papuans ! and
non-Papuans. Obviously, positive results will not occur if the skills and workforce are
inadequate.
The plan must include a comprehensive capacity-building program for the government
in Papua, beginning at the lowest levels. This capacity-building component should
above all tackle the incompatibility between models of governance structured upon
institutional principles of modern statehood and a variety of everyday social realities.
Local ways of organizing communities and their ways of managing resources should
form the backbone of development efforts. This is a formidable challenge, currently
beyond most administrator's imagination, and not anticipated in by the legislative or
executive bodies. Special autonomy regulations provided for this, but these were not
implemented due to lack of capacity, and distraction by other concerns, such as
meeting the inconsistent policies from Jakarta.
People's protest agains! t the special autonomy and the Papua's Legislative Council
and the MRP's current involvement in the forthcoming gubernatorial elections indicate
that there is strong involvement in politics at most levels of society. Last year, the
high turnout of voters and the generally smooth implementation of the national
elections in Papua clearly demonstrated the will to support civilian-led government and
the rule of democracy in Indonesia.
Jakarta should capitalize on these positive developments and assist those in Papua
who are keen to foster democratization. In so doing, Jakarta should refrain from the
current inclination to intervene in Papua's internal politics. Those most appalled by
Jakarta's interference are those provincial leaders whose political agendas show
sincere commitment to the region and its people. In fact, Jakarta should engage these
leaders in a genuine partnership with the central government.
As a response to the Papuan gambit of "independence" Jakarta should not back off
but stress to all stakeholders that it knows how to channel into non-dependency
within the republic. The suffering of Papuans at the hands of the state also informs
that with people's distrust of Jakarta, reconciliation needs to take place.
It is time to reflect on what has gone wrong over the last few decades and formulate
adjustments. When the formal sector in Papua functions properly, the judicial system
serves local communities, development materializes for all the people of Papua and
the presence of the military no longer leads to violations of human rights, then the
demands for secession will become groundless.
The final chapter of full integration of Papua into the Republic of Indonesia is around
the corner; it is now the President's turn to address the root causes of growing local
dissatisfaction by delivering the long-promised reform.
Dr. Jaap Timmer! is a research fellow at the Centre for Pacific and Asian Studies at
Radboud University Nijmegen, the Netherlands. He is conducting research on the
culture and history of Indonesian Papua, Solomon Islands and Papua New Guinea.
He can be reached at jaap.timmer@chello.nl.
All contents copyright © of The Jakarta Post.
|
