The Jakarta Post, July 30, 2004
Papuans need democracy not separatism
Opinion
Andri Hadi, Jakarta
Efforts by certain quarters, within and outside Indonesia, to question the
decolonization process in Papua gain a momentum by the declassification of
restricted documents in the U.S. recently.
The documents portray the 1969 "Act of Free Choice" (AFC) as a sham, among
others because it excluded most Papuans (The Jakarta Post, July 16, 2004).
Arguably, this development may provide ammunition to the hands of people pursuing
the separatist aspiration in Papua, thus endangering Indonesia's territorial integrity
and its democracy.
Questioning the decolonization process serves no purpose at all. The main pretext
used by certain quarters to meddle in Papua is about upholding and promoting human
rights, justice and welfare for the Papuans. Admittedly, these are all important issues
that have to be pursued honestly of which the present-day democratic Indonesia
serves as the best framework. Hence, justifying separatism is wrong and will lead
nowhere in terms of redressing those important grievances.
Law No 21/2001 issued by the Government of Indonesia on Nov. 21, 2001 grants
Special Autonomy Status to Papua and represents an honest attempt to give an
opportunity for the Papuans to manage their own household. The Law also contains a
generous scheme for revenue sharing in which Papua will receive around 80 percent of
the money derived from forestry, fishery, taxation, as well as gas, oil and other mining
explorations.
For the Indonesians the reintegration of Papua to the fold of the motherland, long
denied by the Dutch, has exacted a lot of costs in terms of blood and tears. The
Indonesians would therefore consider the duty to defend the Province as an article of
faith. The status of the Province of Papua as part of Indonesia is final and was
endorsed in 1970 by General Assembly Resolution 2504.
Let us put the record straight: Papua was an integral part of the Netherlands East
Indies (NEI). From administrative point of view, the Dutch colonial government
administered from Batavia (presently Jakarta) the whole territory of NEI. From
territorial point of view, the indivisibility of Papua as part of NEI was recognized in the
London Agreement of 1824 between Great Britain and the Netherlands as well as
reflected in the 1825 Map of the NEI which places Papua as its easternmost
boundary.
When declaring independence, Indonesia's founding fathers refer to the whole territory
of NEI as the legitimate territory of Indonesia. This is in line with the principle of "Usi
Posidentis" in which the successor state would inherit the whole territorial boundary of
a colony. As far as Indonesians are concerned, the 1945 proclamation of
independence was in itself an act of self-determination, covering the whole territory of
Indonesia from Sabang to Merauke.
Self-determination is a one-off event and in the case of Indonesia, took place in 1945
in terms of Proclamation of Independence by Sukarno and Hatta. As such, all ethnic
groups in Indonesia were automatically subsumed into the Republic of Indonesia
without even being asked by way of "act of free choice". In this context, the Papuans
are "more fortunate" than other ethnic groups in Indonesia simply because they were
given the chance to express their choice in 1969.
Furthermore, Indonesia's nationalism is not based on certain ethnicity but possesses
the nature of all-inclusiveness. This is the very reason why the concept of "indigenous
people" with its possible implication that each group has its own right of
self-determination is not applicable in Indonesia's context.
Indonesia embraces a long standing stance that decolonization process should be
implemented once and for all for the whole territory of NEI, in the sense that no part of
the former colony (i.e. Papua) should be treated differently. This stance -justified as it
is in international law - represents one of the roots of Indonesias irredentist claim over
Papua.
It is also to be borne in mind that UN General Assembly Resolution 1514 (1960)
concerning the right of decolonization did not mandate the application of the "one man
one vote" system as the only way for decolonization process. Most importantly, the
resolution underlined that self determination shall not result in a partial or total
destruction of sovereignty and territorial integrity of the successor states.
It is important to note that following the adoption of Resolution 1514 (1960), many new
states in Africa came into being in the 1960s without resorting to a plebiscite or "one
man one vote system". In our immediate region, Sabah and Sarawak were also
incorporated into Malaysia in 1963 without direct "one man one vote" plebiscite but by
certification of a visiting UN mission that the people in these two regions seemingly
did wish to joint the newly established Federation of Malaysia.
The legacy of colonialism has also compounded the application of "one man one vote"
system. As we know, colonialism brings about a condition in which many countries in
the Third World consist of many different ethnicities which are often crisscrossing and
straddling states borders in a complex pattern. Henceforth, the rigid application of
"one man one vote" system would be detrimental to the existing state borders and
may provoke unnecessary conflicts.
In its attempt to reintegrate Papua, Indonesia used a range of methods, including
coercive diplomacy. After it was clear that international situation (due to the height of
the Cold War) militated against the Dutch continuing its retention of Papua, an
opportunity was therefore ripe for the conclusion of the New York Agreement in 1962,
which was basically a face saving formula for the Dutch. The final outcome of the
Agreement was considered as granted, namely the ultimate reintegration of Papua
into Indonesia.
As a matter of fact, the 1962 Agreement never defines the method with which the AFC
should be conducted in Papua. Therefore, there is no obligation for Indonesia to
employ "one man one vote" system for the AFC, especially in the light of difficult
circumstances in Papua at that time, both relating to the human and social conditions
as well as to the geographical situation and its inherent technical problems.
In this regard, one could not but observe with regret the tendency to use "present
lens" to interpret past event taking place in Papua. Interpretation of such a mode will
obviously be misleading as well as out of context.
In conclusion, the AFC in Papua should be seen within the context of bilateral
agreement between Indonesia and the Netherlands as well as the overall
circumstances in Papua in the late 1960s of which employing the "one man one vote"
system was not possible nor practical.
From the Indonesian perspective, Papua is first and foremost an irredentist claim due
to the Dutch recalcitrance to return it to the fold of Motherland and the General
Assembly resolution 2504 (1970) has sealed its final status within Indonesia.
The unified and democratic Indonesia is the best framework to correct the perceived
injustice in Papua. In this regard, the international community should support
Indonesia's attempt to consolidate its democracy. Indeed, fanning separatist
sentiment, including questioning the AFC under the pretext of reestablishing history,
would only weaken Indonesia's efforts to strengthen the democratic process.
Needless to say, separatism is a solution in search of problem and best to be
avoided.
The writer is the Director for Public Diplomacy and Head of the Working Group on
Papua at the Department of Foreign Affairs, Republic of Indonesia.
All contents copyright © of The Jakarta Post.
|
