Abstract
In indonesia, a person found guilty of separatist activities can be put to death. Late last year, five pro-independence West Papuans were arrested and jailed under exactly that charge, taken into custody just days before the thirty-ninth anniversary of West Papua's declaration of independence from Indonesia—a declaration that was never recognized.
The dissidents are part of a strengthening movement in the province of West Papua (also known as Irian Jaya) that is pushing for a break from Indonesia—a goal that East Timor achieved in 1999 after bloody fighting and international intervention. Now, perhaps emboldened by the success of the East Timorese, the decades-old West Papuan movement toward self-determination is not only growing, it is also gaining international attention.
Colonialism to capitalism
Indonesia is the stunted giant of southeast Asia, a string of more than 17,000 islands spread over a distance of 3,500 miles—about the distance from New York to London. West Papua, Indonesia's largest and easternmost province, occupies the western side of the island of New Guinea and has had a separatist faction ever since it was integrated into Indonesia in 1969.
West Papuans and Indonesians do not share common ethnic backgrounds, language, or religion. The indigenous West Papuans, who are of Melanesian descent, are mostly subsistence farmers, have retained many ancient ways of life, and are scattered throughout the province in small clans isolated by terrain and traditions. Most Indonesians are Muslim, but the population of West Papua is predominantly Christian or animist.
The culture and history (not to mention geography) that separate West Papua from the rest of Indonesia were of little regard to the Dutch, who put colonial pen to paper in 1848 and declared it a part of their empire.
On August 17, 1945, Indonesian nationalists declared their independence from the Dutch, who initially refused to recognize the claim and made a brutal, futile effort to maintain control. But on December 27, 1949, the Netherlands surrendered sovereignty to the newly formed Republic of Indonesia—all except for the province of West Papua. The future of that resource-rich land was to be decided at a later date through international negotiations.
By 1962, the mood of the international community was running against Dutch imperialism. The province was handed over to the United Nations to administer an “act of free choice”—an exercise in which West Papuans were to determine their own future through a vote. West Papua's own declaration of sovereignty, made on December 1, 1961, was ignored.
In 1969, more than 1,000 West Papuan tribal leaders voted on the future of their land. The result was a unanimous decision to merge with Indonesia, which had been gunning hard for West Papua's integration after the Dutch stepped aside.
But the vote is widely regarded as having been rigged, for several reasons. The voters were a tiny, hand-picked portion of West Papua's then-population of 800,000 native people, and none of the representatives were women. During the voting process, U.N. monitors reportedly witnessed only a small fraction of the actual votes. Allegations that some voters were coerced to vote for Indonesian rule are widespread, and the “act of free choice” is commonly referred to by West Papuans as the “act of no choice.”
Indonesia kept West Papua isolated from international contact, and “Western nations turned a seemingly blind eye to the questionable transfer of territory. It was the ease with which Indonesia took over the 1969 process that misled Jakarta into thinking that it could also manipulate the East Timor “act of free choice” in 1999.
A new era
As the 1999 East Timor vote showed, the international community's attitude has shifted. Human rights considerations are overcoming—or at least eroding—shabby political deals. The Pinochet case in Chile, the ad hoc war crimes trials over Yugoslavia and Rwanda, and the first steps toward an international criminal court are all events that would have been inconceivable a decade ago. Some international human rights groups, like the International Commission of Jurists, are pressing for a re-examination of the 1969 “act of free choice.”
There is, however, a major difference between West Papua and East Timor. Unlike the 1969 Indonesian takeover of West Papua, which U.N. members accepted, the Indonesian invasion of East Timor in 1975 was criticized from the outset. As a result, very few countries ever gave full legal recognition to Indonesian control in East Timor. So although some governments may doubt the justice of the 1969 takeover, to support West Papuan independence would mean reversing their earlier position.
Jakarta, October 12, 2000: A West Papuan separatist confronts police in front of the Indonesian presidential palace.
For its part, Jakarta is loathe to give up its claim to West Papua— understandably so. With a treasure trove of minerals, timber, and fossil fuels, West Papua is an Indonesian cash cow. In its Grasberg mountains, “West Papua has one of the world's richest gold mines, operated by the controversial U.S.-based Freeport-McMoRan, which is not only Indonesia's largest taxpayer but also West Papua's largest private employer. Jakarta also has a West Papuan stake in the logging industry: West Papua's forests are a quarter of Indonesia's total forested area. Profits from these enterprises go to the companies and to Jakarta, but not to West Papuans. Meanwhile, the indigenous peoples have resented Jakarta's occupation and have fought against it. They have had little success so far.
Theys H. Eluay, one of the pro-independence leaders who was arrested last year for subversion, is also one of the West Papuan leaders who “voted” for Indonesian rule in the 1969 referendum, claiming that he was intimidated into doing so. Pro-independence organizations like the Papua Presidium Council, of which Eluay is now a leader, argue that West Papuans never had the act of free choice they were promised and deserve at the very least a review of Indonesia's takeover.
At the international level, the West Papuan cause remains comparatively neglected as a human rights issue, but there are signs that it is now attracting more attention. Ireland, for example, was urged in February to pressure the United Nations for a reaction to recent human rights abuses in West Papua. The request came from a journalist who had witnessed the beating death of a pro-independence activist in a West Papuan jail. And Phil Goff, foreign minister of New Zealand, called in December for a peace accord, urging Jakarta to consider a new referendum.
Violence in West Papua continues. Already since late last year, at least 50 people have been killed in clashes between separatists and police.
The United Nations will be lobbied by international human rights groups to re-open the case of West Papuan self-determination. In 1969 the United States supported Jakarta's takeover—the question now is whether it will join in the re-examination of that “act of free choice.”