The Jakarta Post, August 10, 2004
West Papua 35 years on: Time to hear the truth
John Saltford, London
In his July 30th article in this newspaper, Foreign Affairs official Andri Hadi argues
against any discussion of the 1969 Indonesian-organized act of self determination in
West Papua known as the "Act of Free Choice".
The Papuans it seems should accept what happened to them and be grateful for
anything that Jakarta cares to offer, whether it is the, still unimplemented, Special
Autonomy law or the threatened division of their country into three. But nowhere does
he make any mention of what the Papuans themselves actually want, then or now.
Instead he argues that West Papua was always an integral part of the Netherlands
East Indies with no right to its own self-determination. There are of course arguments
for and against this position. Jakarta's official line suggests that the West Papuans'
culture, ethnicity and history are bound up with that of Java and other parts of
Indonesia. Others would point out that an artificial border created by Europeans in the
19th century cannot alter the fact that the people on the divided island of New Guinea
have far more in common with each other than they have ever had with the neighboring
populations of South East Asia.
But I would argue that this debate lost its relevance in 1962 when the West Papuans
were guaranteed their right to full self-determination in the UN-brokered New York
Agreement signed by Indonesia and the Netherlands. Since then the key historical
issue has been whether or not this agreement was properly implemented, and if not,
what now needs to be done to rectify the past.
Despite Hadi's protests, it is perfectly possible, with or without a "present lens", to
make a relevant judgment on what happened 35 years ago during the "Act of Free
Choice". In particular one can examine whether it was, as required by the agreement,
an act of self-determination involving all adult Papuans "in accordance with
international practice".
The facts are this. In total 1,022 Papuans out of a population of nearly 800,000 were
selected by Jakarta to publicly participate in the "Act of Free Choice" in front of a
selection of UN and Indonesian officials, Ambassadors and the military.
At each of the eight "voting ceremonies" all the representatives would stand up on
command to indicate their unanimous support for annexation by Indonesia and
rejection of independence.
Hadi would perhaps argue that "international practice" is a vague term that does not
specify any particular method. However to understand what was meant by it at the
time you need only look at the 1960 UN General Assembly Resolution 1541.
This stated that the integration of a non-self governing territory (as West Papua
officially was then) with an independent state should be "the result of the freely
expressed wishes of the territory's peoples...their wishes having been expressed
through informed and democratic processes, impartially conducted and based upon
universal suffrage."
Whatever Jakarta might argue, the "Act of Free Choice" bore no relation to this.
Government officials today like Hadi must privately regret that Soeharto's soldiers did
not permit some dissenting voices to be heard to allow a more realistic outcome.
Instead he is left to try and make us believe that a 100 percent result was anything
more than a ridiculous and crudely orchestrated denial of Papuan rights.
Hadi is correct that the New York Agreement came about as a compromise by the
Dutch who had originally intended to grant West Papua independence by 1970.
In the face of military threats from President Sukarno, and pressure from the U.S. who
wished to appease Jakarta in the face of Soviet competition, they agreed to sign and
hand West Papua over to a temporary UN administration. But this was only on
condition that political and human rights were guaranteed and an act of self
determination involving all adult Papuans would be permitted "in accordance with
international practice".
In the event, the UN pulled out seven months later and transferred the territory to
Jakarta, without any consultation with the population. A senior UN official commented
privately at the time: "I have yet to meet any thinking, sober, generally responsible
Papuan who sees any good with the coming link with Indonesia."
In 1968, a small UN team returned to West Papua to help Indonesia prepare for the
"Act of Free Choice". But by this time the Papuans had already experienced five
years of Jakarta's rule and, as a visiting U.S. diplomat remarked, "The Indonesians
have tried everything from bombing them with B-26's, to shelling and mortaring them,
but a continuous state of semi-rebellion persists".
Aware of their deep unpopularity, Soeharto's men devised the "Act of Free Choice" to
avoid a referendum on the grounds that the Papuans were "too primitive" to be able to
vote directly -something that they had already done under the Dutch and would do
again in the 1971 Indonesian general elections.
But rather than protest, the UN chose to collaborate and privately urged Indonesia to
gain assurances from the Dutch that they would not question the inevitable result.
Despite the obvious vote-rigging by Jakarta, there was little international interest.
Explaining this, one British official commented: "I cannot imagine the U.S., Japanese,
Dutch, or Australian governments putting at risk their economic and political relations
with Indonesia on a matter of principle involving a relatively small number of very
primitive peoples."
Another diplomat added: "the [UN] Secretariat, whose influence could be important,
appear only too anxious to get shot of the problem as quickly and smoothly as
possible."
In the end, despite protests from some African states, the UN General Assembly
simply voted in November 1969 to "take note" of the Papuan "vote" and with that the
UN washed its hands of the whole business.
This is the unpleasant reality of what happened to the Papuans, and rather than try
and bury the past as Mr. Hadi suggests, I would argue that a proper
acknowledgement of the truth by Indonesia, its allies and importantly the UN, would at
least go some way towards beginning the process of finding a just and lasting solution
to the tragedy of West Papua.
The writer (johnsaltford@hotmail.com) is author of The United Nations and the
Indonesian Takeover of West Papua 1962.
All contents copyright © of The Jakarta Post.
|
