The Jakarta Post, April 13, 2006
Papua and structural violence
Max Lane, Sydney
The arrival of 43 Papuan refugees in Australia followed soon after by the violent
dispersal of otherwise peaceful student demonstrations in Papua has resulted in two
weeks of sustained media coverage of the situation in Papua and its implications for
Australia.
The demonstrations in Papua were organized by a coalition of student and activists
groups, the most significant of which are the Parliament of the Streets of West Papua
(Parjal, the Papuan Students Association (AMP) and the Papuan National Students
Front (FMNP).
The demonstrations were demanding the closure of Freeport and a full audit of the
ecological and human rights impact of the huge foreign owned mine as well as an
assessment of its actual contribution to economic welfare in Papua. After a peaceful
day of demonstrations outside the University of Cendrawasih on March 15 and a
peaceful morning of demonstrating on March 16, the police, and then later reinforced
my army units, attacked the students.
There was fighting on the campus and 5 police were killed and almost 30 students
wounded, including some shot. Another demonstration took place in the town of
Timika with more injuries. Since then there has been a police hunt for student
activists. Many are still in hiding.
During these demonstrations and in many statements since then, several very clear
demands have emerged from these student and community groups.
First, there is the demand for the closure and full audit of Freeport.
Second, there is a demand for all Indonesian Armed Forces to withdraw from Papua.
Third, there is a demand for a democratic, free and open national and international
dialog, involving Papuans, the Indonesians and the "international community". The
Papuan groups calling for this dialog are asking for an international presence pointing
to the big role foreign interests already play in Papua, through the Freeport mine.
The call for a democratic national and international dialog to discuss how to resolve
the Papuan issue represents also a call for the end of repression of Papuans, or
anybody else in Papua or Indonesia, who do call for secession. There can be no
democratic dialog without the full range of opinion being able to participate, including
from the 35-45 percent of the people in Papua who are not indigenous Papuans.
Clearly this democracy will be impossible while the army remains a significant
presence in Papua, with its own agenda. Since it has been forced into the
background, first in Indonesia as a whole after the fall of Soeharto, and then more
recently in Aceh, Papua remains its last remaining "sphere of influence".
This demand for a free, open dialog should be supported even though it goes further
than some of the calls from more moderate sections of Papuan society who are
concentrating on trying to get a renegotiation with Jakarta on the Special Autonomy
Law, an end to Jakarta's efforts to divide Papua into three provinces and more
economic benefits for Papua.
A democratic atmosphere free of all repression will be the best way to allow Papuans
to debate out and form a clear vision of what they want and is a fundamental
necessity for the conduct of the kind of dialog that they are demanding.
In relation to this, some recent announcements by the Australian government are
totally counter-productive. The majority of Indonesian and Papuan opinion has
consistently identified the enemy of democracy in Papua and as the "security
approach".
This is the attempt to try to control and resolve political issues through the use of the
security apparatus - the police and army. Australian Minister of Defense, Brendon
Nelson's suggestion of joint naval patrols and PM John Howard's suggestion that
refugee visa processes be revised for Papuan refugees both reinforce this "security
approach" strengthening military and bureaucratic control rather than democratic
political struggle.
If Papuans try to come to Australia by boat, it will be above all a political statement
they are making about the lack of freedom in Papua. Capturing them with naval patrol
boats when they are simply using their right to leave their country just compounds
this lack of freedom.
Of course, nobody can predict absolutely what the outcome of dialog between
Papuans, Indonesians and international representatives will be if carried out in genuine
free and democratic atmosphere. Whatever path it leads to: An autonomous province,
self-government within Indonesia, some other similar formula, or a referendum and
independence, the fundamentally decisive factor will be the opinions of the people for
whom Papua is home.
The writer is lecturer in Indonesian Studies, University of Sydney.
All contents copyright © of The Jakarta Post.
|
