[Kabar-Irian] (no subject)
Admin
admin at irja.org
Mon Jan 20 15:27:56 MST 2003
Contributed by:
Professor Peter KingFounding Convener, West Papua Projectp.king at econ.usyd.edu.au
Centre for Peace and Conflict StudiesThe University of Sydney
Mackie Building K01NSW 2006 Australia Dr. John Otto OndawameWest Papua
Projecthttp://www.arts.usyd.edu.au/cpacs Telephone: 61 2 9351
3971 61 2 9351 7686Fax : 61 2 9660
0862Email: cpacs at social.usyd.edu.au
The West Papua Project Position Paper No
4, January 2003Reconciliation and Consolidation Among Papuans: R e p
o r t on Workshop III , 2-3 September 2002 byStuart Rees and John O.
Ondawame with Peter KingContact:Professor Emeritus Stuart Rees Director of
CPACSTel.+ 61.2.9351 4763. Fax. +61.2.9660 0862E-mail:
stuart.rees at social.usyd.edu.auDr. John Otto OndawameCoordinator for West Papua
ProjectTel. + 61.2.9351 7686. Fax. + 61.2.9660 0862E-mail:
john.ondawame at social.usyd.edu.auProfessor Peter KingFounding Convener, West
Papua Projectp.king at econ.usyd.edu.auhttp://www.arts.usyd.edu.au/cpacs
1. Introduction
Problem and Meaning of Reconciliation
Reconciliation and consolidation among Papuans has been problematic. The
participants in the workshop agreed that this is caused by lack of capacity to
recognise the problem of reconciliation and lack of political will to promote
processes of reconciliation and peaceful dialogue on the part of many actors,
both within Papuan civil society and in State authorities. Many actors have
high expectations of an immediate outcome rather than seeing reconciliation as
an ongoing process. Reconciliation has sometimes been seen as a traditional way
of solving disputes without third party intervention. On the other hand, there
is general expectation that third party intervention in Papua’s conflicts would
assist people to resolve their differences. This view prevailed in the
workshop. Reconciliation among Papuans is a long process which could be much
more fruitful if a neutral third party were given the chance to attempt,
without seeking to impose his or her own terms, to enable the parties to
resolve their differences.
Democratic process in Indonesia since 1998 has opened new
opportunities, giving Papuan civil society a chance to express its political
aspirations. Peaceful dialogue between the government of Indonesia and the
people of West Papua has become a priority. To facilitate that objective, a
Forum for Reconciliation of the People of Irian Jaya was established in Port
Numbay (Jayapura) in July 1998. Its primary aim was to play a facilitating role
in any reconciliation process. However, the Forum failed to perform its tasks.
A lack of commitment to peace and confusion about the Forum’s role were major
reasons for this failure. The prospect of reconciliation then became somewhat
illusory.
A new forum has now been launched with the birth of a Peace Task
Force in July 2002 established by the Institute for Human Rights Studies and
Advocacy (ELSHAM), leading churches and the Papua Council Presidium (Presidium
Dewan Papua) in Port Numbay. It is headed by Dr. Benny Giay, with its primary
objective to pursue reconciliation among Papuans through peaceful dialogue.
The task force will collaborate with partners abroad, including the West Papua
Project in Sydney and the Papua Resource Centre in New York.
In a spirit of cooperation, the West Papua Project has tried to play a
constructive role in the processes of reconciliation and peaceful dialogue over
the last two years. We assume that without solving internal conflicts among
Papuans, peaceful dialogue with Indonesia would be difficult. Against this
background, the process of reconciliation and consolidation among Papuans has
been a major priority. The West Papua Project seeks to develop theoretical
knowledge and skills to promote reconciliation and peaceful dialogue: it also
networks, lobbies and organises workshops, seminars and mass media campaigns.
Since there has been a lack of culture of dialogue among Papuans and
Indonesian state authorities alike, achieving any form of peace talks will be
difficult. However, when the government of Indonesia through its former
Ambassador to Australia, Sudjadnan Parnohadiningrat, gave a green light to the
primary objective of the Project, a new step towards a constructive
engagement in the peace process seemed possible.
The West Papua Project’s third workshop on reconciliation, organised by the
Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies over the period 2nd to 3rd September
2002, was widely considered to be a significant step forward in the peace
process. In an opening speech, Senator Kerry Nettle, Green Party, compared
reconciliation processes in other parts of the world and Australia’s own
experience with Aborigines:
History shows that reconciliation must be driven from the grass roots. It is
only by individuals and community organisations healing the divisions of the
past that we can build a vision for the future.
Senator Nettle hoped that reconciliation amongst West Papuans would help to
build that vision and strengthen the voice of the Papuans in the international
community.
Key Participants
Representatives of diverse groups in civil society, both Papuans and
non-Papuans, took part in the one and a half day workshop. Eleven Papuan
representatives of various social, religious, political, and academic groups
were invited. The names of the persons and their organisations who played key
roles in reconciliation and peaceful dialogue in West Papuan can be found in
the Appendix.
Objectives
The workshop aimed to foster reconciliation among West Papuans and to examine
the means of building partnerships within Papuan civil society. A specific
objective was to reduce tensions and to establish new mechanisms for peace by
identifying a common stand on priorities for reconciliation.
2. Topics of Discussion
The workshop aimed to cover the following broad topics of discussion:
· The philosophy and practice of non-violence in a milieu of violent
oppression.
· Difficulties in achieving reconciliation in Papuan civil society.
· The absence of human rights as central to the undermining of any peace
process;
the role of the Indonesian military, and the rise of pro-Indonesian
Muslim militias.
· Questions of special autonomy, a referendum on independence, a review
of the Act of Free Choice of 1969, reconciliation with Indonesians, good
governance, Papuanisation and women’s place in Papuan society.
· Evaluation of the workshop and future Project directions.
The most pressing immediate need was to create an atmosphere of security for
each member of the Papuan delegation to enable them to express themselves
without fear of retribution. The workshop did not exist in isolation. Pending a
successful outcome, it was hoped that the momentum gathered in Sydney would
further propel the West Papuan issue onto the international stage. Success in
Sydney would be a touchstone for subsequent workshops in Indonesia and the
United States. In the spirit of international consolidation, it was the wish of
all concerned that West Papua should not be any longer an isolated society;
that, in the words of one of the speakers, “West Papuans are not facing their
obstacles alone”.
1). Philosophy and Practice of Non-violence
Polarised Views of Many Parties
A divergence in perceptions and expectations in the workshop between the
Australia participants and the Papuan delegation was quickly apparent. This
contrast affected deliberations: the gospel according to liberal democratic
Western values colliding with indigenous experience. But the workshop enabled
parties from different worlds to become familiar with each other’s concerns and
ways of expressing them.
Combined forces of tribal diversity and pressures brought to bear on
individuals by policies of divide and rule also made for substantial
polarisation of views. Building a common vision of a future Papua needs to
include respect for a cultural tradition rich in tribal custom and linguistic
variety.
Violence and Non-violence
An opportunity to be heard meant a lot to people who struggle to have a voice.
Diverse issues relating to the cause of Papuan self-determination emerged in
the workshop. Key points by various contributors included the following:
(i). Papuans must forge vigorous alliances with the outside world.
(ii). Isolation and underdevelopment are major obstacles to progress in
reconciliation.
(iii). Promoting peace is difficult in the face of ongoing military violence.
(iv). In the absence of democracy and its values, avenues for practising
non-violence principles are minimal.
What is meant by non-violence? Stuart Rees and John Rumbiak, who presented at
the first workshop session, interpreted the meaning of non-violence from
theoretical and practical perspectives. According to Stuart, to embrace the
Gandhian doctrine of non-violence would be to suppose that all parties are
familiar with Gandhi’s philosophy, language and skills. Dr. Meredith Burgmann
also emphasised the importance of familiarity with the philosophy and practice
of non-violence. The need for sensitivity to different cultural perspectives
and different interpretations of non-violence emerged from the session. The
following prerequisites for pursuing a non-violence approach were noted:
(i). A group of people prepared to listen to each other and engage in
conversation with others: not only partners and colleagues in civil society but
representatives of the military, Laskar Jihad and corporations involved in
Papua.
(ii). Creation of power within oneself and in one’s organisation—necessary
for strengthening unity and solidarity.
(iii). Developing communication skills: how to convince government
authorities, the military, corporations like BP and Freeport and one’s own
colleagues and community of the need for non-violence.
(iv). Developing inner-personal qualities needed to fight against inequality,
undemocratic systems and underdevelopment.
(v). Accumulating knowledge and skills for undertaking peaceful actions,
showing a co-operative attitude and behaviour and respect for the culture of
the Other.
According to John Rumbiak the path of non-violence for the Papuans should
include:
· Recognition of the fundamental rights and cultural values of
the people of West Papua.
· Tolerance of different ethnic groups including the ability to
listen and say “sorry” when needed.
· Upholding the democratic values which must underpin the
principles and practice of non-violence, and developing an ability to take part
in non-violent activities such as peaceful demonstrations, boycotts and
parliamentary motions.
2). Difficulties in Achieving Reconciliation within Papuan Civil Society
Horizontal conflict in West Papua occurs when the relationship between
communities breaks down and mistrust develops. This mistrust contributes to
national disunity. The participants from West Papua recognised the fact that
power and leadership struggle, regional sentiment, lack of shared perceptions
and strong local loyalties are major causes of national disunity.
Discussing these difficulties, Dr. Benny Giay, who chaired the workshop session
on reconciliation said:
We must be aware that conflict in West Papua among ourselves will continue
even if West Papua become a free state one day. It is long-term conflict that
requires a solution by ourselves. We must take actions now. I suggest we must
map the root causes of conflict. Identification of the needs and concerns of
the major actors is an important step in the peace process.
Dr. Greg Poulgrain, who has written on the history of West Papua, underlined
the root causes of internal conflict in West Papua from the perspective of
colonial history. He argued that the divide and rule policy that the Dutch
administration implanted during its 134 years of colonisation has been the
primary cause of disunity. This policy is also inherited by the new colonial
power, Indonesia.
Needs and Concerns
In the workshop, the following needs and concerns for reconciliation were
noted:
Needs:
· Map the root causes of the problems, find common ground, build a sense
of partnership and lay out sets of options and remedies.
· Promote reconciliation as a stepping stone for further peaceful
dialogue.
· Support the peace initiatives taken by both the OPM and Presidium.
· Support the call for “a peace zone” in West Papua.
· Build peace partnership between different peace advocates inside West
Papua, in Indonesia and abroad.
· Restore Papuan dignity and promote cultural identity.
· Confront racism.
· Promote national unity and higher levels of tolerance among Papuans and
non–Papuans by respecting diversity and building trust.
· Promote the principle of “inclusiveness”.
· Promote the participation of women in development and peace.
· Find general criteria to achieve consensus on a win-win basis;
acknowledge past mistakes and urge moral accountability and apology.
· Establish credibility of leadership in order to enter dialogue
effectively.
· Unify perceptions and terms of references to advance the peaceful
dialogue
· Review the functioning of the Special Autonomy laws.
· Review the Act of Free Choice of 1969.
· Fight against corruption, nepotism and collusion.
· Demilitarise West Papua.
· Promote education and training in conflict resolution.
· Demand independent investigation of the recent killings in the Freeport
mining area.
Concerns:
· Weakness of the local churches.
· Negative effects on Papuan culture subsequent to Indonesian
colonisation.
· The denial of Papuan rights during the Cold War period.
· The lack of mass media and international community attention to Papua.
· Ineffectiveness of the current educational system.
· The position of the West Papua Project in future debate in Australia.
· Inappropriate autonomy laws and their implications.
· The lack of good governance and the ongoing tradition of corruption,
collusion and nepotism.
· Militarisation and Laskar Jihad activities and their implications.
· Blaming the OPM as a terrorist organisation and its political
implications.
Some Important Reflections
Unity within Diversity
The participants viewed reconciliation as involving respect for and cooperation
across the existing ethnic boundaries in Papuan society. Each ethnic group and
other social and political groupings have their own unique styles and
perceptions; they are proud to be different within the multicultural society
of Papua.
Hidayat Alhamid said:
To belong to a Papuan Muslim minority, living with a Christian majority, is not
easy. We need to maintain our own uniqueness. I must also underline that in the
reconciliation processes, “uniformity” is not necessarily wrong. But we must
respect diversities and we should develop capacity that enables us to have a
better common understanding towards each another.
Adolfina Zonggonau Ondawame supported this claim and she called on all
factions within the Papuan liberation movement to unify perceptions and
national symbols. While each group carries around its own flag and promotes
only the name of the group this confuses the international community, she said.
Autonomy Power?
Special autonomy was seen by the Papuan participants as paying only lip-
service to Papuan rights and identity. It does not serve the interests of the
people in West Papua, they said. However, Corinus Berotabui, Secretary General
of the GKI (Gereja Kristen Injili) protestant church in Papua said the policy
has many benefits. According to him, the policy of regionalisation of the
administrative system gives more power to local people. He said: “what
reconciliation means to us is to support a program that empowers our local
people”.
Inclusiveness
Inclusiveness in reconciliation means the involvement of all the
different groups of people in civil society in order to build a strong base of
support, including academics, students, women, NGOs and other grass roots
organizations. For intra-group reconciliation, working together with Papuan
leaders and various religious and ethnic groups, governmental organizations
and corporations is vital.
The Role of Religious Organisations
The Christian churches and the Islamic religion in West Papua have been trusted
by the people. These religious groups already play important roles in the peace
process. Representatives of both religious “streams” have made clear their
commitment to peace and reconciliation. But the Indonesian military is now
trying to divide the two streams by encouraging sectarian violence.
Following the establishment of the Peace Task Force under Dr
Benny Giay in July 2002 ELSHAM reported that
The culmination of the first stage of the Zone of Peace process was a
conference on peace for Papua, co-sponsored by the governor, police chief and
the provincial parliament together with ELSHAM and other civil society groups
and held in Jayapura, October 15-16, 2002.
Major General Mahidi Simbolon, regional commander of the Indonesian military in
Papua, was the only official who refused to participate in the initiative. As
part of the Zone of Peace initiative, the Task Force [had] separately met with
Papua’s police chief, chairman of the provincial parliament, and governor as
well as all TPN/OPM leaders, including Nico Hipohauw, Hans R Yoweni, Melkianus
Awon, Tadius Yogi, and most importantly, on August 25, 2002, with Kelly Kwalik,
all with very successful responses. As a result of these discussions, Kwalik
called off attacks on Freeport and showed his commitment to creating and
maintaining a peaceful Papua.
Failure to make real progress now, according to workshop participants,
would be a result of the lack of unifying vision between the two major
independence movements-- the OPM and the Presidium, precisely what the Peace
Task force has been striving to overcome. The unhealthy relationship between
these groups in the past has hindered trust and prevented the development of
common strategies.
Agus Alua affirmed at the workshop that for its part “the Presidium have two
major strategies: promotion of national peaceful dialogue with the government
of Indonesia and internationalisation of the issue, calling for a review of
the Act of Free Choice of 1969”.
The "Absence" of Women in Reconciliation
The role of women in the reconciliation process was widely seen as
vital. But the constraints imposed upon them by traditional controls make this
difficult. Their rights are not recognised. Women become victims at home and in
public places. The lack of empowerment of women has also affected the peace
process. Women should be given an opportunity to play a key role in any peace
and reconciliation process.
The Indonesian military have used women as human shields and employed
rape and other abuses for ulterior military purposes. Many women live today
with trauma. At the workshop Paula Makabory presented the role of young Papuan
women in defending their rights while Rode Wanimbo concentrated on the role of
students. Each of them underlined that the condition of women in West Papua
has not changed much. The cases of Timika and Wamena over the last eight years
were briefly presented by both of them. Paula said:
Papuan women are still suffering from oppressions perpetuated by men and the
state. We do not have our rights.
Both speakers also underlined the important work of Mama Josepha Alomang,
chairperson of the Foundation for Human Rights Anti Violence (HAMAK) in Timika
and recipient of the Goldman Environmental Prize. Paula Makabory said: “We
should have more Mama Alomangs today in West Papua”.
Cultural Context and Isolation
Papuans have their own ways to solve problems. Reconciliation has often
been manifest on the basis of traditional values, customs and ways of life. The
importance of traditional values was underlined by Joseph Kilangin,
representative of the Amungme Traditional Council in Timika (LEMASA) and Harry
Worsoek, representative of the Peace and Justice Commission of the Catholic
Diocese of Merauke.
They both argued that conflict between customary and state laws has been
problematic in Papua. The case of the Kimam tribe in the Merauke region
illustrates the legal complications that can arise in the reconciliation
process. State law can not overrule customary law in practice. Consequently,
the inter-tribal conflict in the region is unlikely to be resolved soon. Harry
Worsoek said: “We faced tremendous difficulty in settling tribal disputes
within Kimam society”. The local church leaders in Merauke approached the OPM
leaders in the region and engaged in several rounds of peace talks, he said,
but the attempts failed because there was little local capacity to conduct
peace negotiations and raise group self-awareness.
Organisational Obstacles
Organisational obstacles remain severe. A robust administrative
infrastructure is crucial for the promotion of peaceful dialogue. There is
general expectation that autonomy will provide new opportunity for Papuans to
demonstrate efficiency in running their own affairs, but this remains to be
seen.
The workshop emphasised that the degree of fluency in the language of
negotiation and mutually constructive dialogue will set the tone for future
relations with Indonesia. Such capacity could be developed in an effective
organisation; however, under present political conditions, this will be
difficult.
The Papuan delegation displayed a self-deprecatory side to their character in
freely admitting that they had much to learn in combating disorganisation among
their own ranks. It became apparent during the workshop that lack of
organisation remains a serious impediment to the peace process, and raises
questions about future Papuan leadership. In a polarised Papuan civil society
where conflicting views on the reconciliation process persist, responsibilities
for peaceful dialogue remain problematic. Questions of leadership and its
social accountability must also be addressed in the reconciliation process.
3). Disrespect for Human Rights and Peace
The topics of disrespect for human rights and the undermining of the
peace process by military and militia violence were the subject of the next
workshop session. Participants agreed that an escalation of violence built on
fear has become a major stumbling block for reconciliation and peace. John
Rumbiak said:
If either the OPM or the Indonesian military use violence in pursuing their own
interests both parties must be held responsible for the escalation of human
rights abuses in West Papua today.
Dr. Anne Noonan, who chaired the session, said that the OPM has responded to
the situation in Papua with acts of “aggressive” violence as well as acts of
self-defence. In such circumstances, peace talk is unlikely. Nevertheless,
reconciliation talks between the OPM and the Indonesian military and between
Papuans and non-Papuans should be pursued, according to Ronald Tapilatu.
The participants recognised the fact that the cycle of violence has
recently intensified in West Papua. The killing of innocent people at Mile 63
of the Freeport mining concession area on 31 August 2002, just before the
opening of the workshop, and also previous killings in many parts of West
Papua, indicate the incompetence of the Indonesian military in dealing with
political and social issues in the territory.
There was fear that similar events will be repeated in many parts of
West Papua, targeting primarily foreign companies, but also Papuan Christians
and their churches. The Laskar Jihad militia remains active in Papua despite
its theoretical dissolution throughout Indonesia after the Bali bombing of
October 2002.
Human Rights and Peace are Interrelated
The relationship between human rights abuses and the call for peace has
become apparent. Peace demands are a response to violence. The two can not be
separated, according to Agus Alua:
When we talk about reconciliation and peaceful dialogue, the issue of human
rights must be addressed because they are intertwined: one becomes a reason to
give significance to the other.
The militarisation of West Papua has disrupted the possibility of a peace
process. The Indonesian military, pro-Indonesian nationalist militias and
Laskar Jihad promote violence. Maintaining the culture of militarism involves
provocation and divide and rule policy and deliberate heightening of religious
and social tension. Many Dani people have been converted to Islam. In Wamena
alone, 80 young Dani men, mostly those newly converted to Islam, were trained
by Laskar Jihad. Sofyan Yoman believes that new religious conflict may erupt
in the region in the future:
I fear that this type of conflict will invite more military into the
region. The Indonesian military is not familiar with human rights. They kill
children, women and elders, and destroy gardens and houses and steal property.
In our traditional law of war, we are not allowed to kill vulnerable people or
destroy their property.
Illegal economic and criminal activities such as prostitution, drug dealing,
extortion and orchestrated killings of civilians are other examples of the
culture of Indonesian militarism in practice.
The Continued Denial of Papuan rights
The right of the West Papuans to exercise self-determination has been
denied as a result of the Act of Free Choice of 1969. In the view of the
Papuan participants, this is the main root cause of the current political
problem in West Papua. To achieve a genuine reconciliation, the Act must be re-
examined.
John Scott Murphy, Caritas Australia, and John Barr, Uniting Church of
Australia in Sydney, who have monitored the situation in West Papua over the
last four years emphasized the need for human development as a vital step in
the reconciliation process. Local Papuans should be trained: the lack of
educated manpower is a major obstacle which churches in particular should seek
to overcome.
The Civilian Killings at Freeport
The escalation of human rights abuses has also impacted on the peace process.
Dr. Chris Ballard, who monitors human rights abuses and environmental
destruction in the Freeport mining area, said the killings on 31 August were a
part of ongoing military campaigns. Similar human rights abuses in this area
were also reported in the past by the Catholic Church and human rights
organisations in West Papua. Such killings undermine the idea of developing
common trust between the people of West Papua, the government of Indonesia and
Freeport. The elite Indonesian military unit Kopassus has been strongly
suspected of involvement in this type of crime. In a TV-video conference
organised by CNN-Hongkong during the workshop and also in a press release,
John Ondawame defended the OPM from the charge by the Papuan military
commander that it was responsible for the August killings:
The OPM condemned the killing and made clear its position that the OPM was not
responsible
The movement is not a terrorist organisation, but a nationalist
liberation movement that seeks genuine peace, democracy, justice and freedom.
The OPM has not had any policy to harm or kill civilians. We strongly suspect
that the Indonesian military, particularly Kopassus, was involved in this
killing. We call for an international independent investigation team to be
sent to investigate these murders.
John Rumbiak and Agus Alua also gave press interviews during the workshop,
analysing the role of the military at Freeport. In workshop discussion other
participants called for an independent investigation into the murders, for
demilitarisation of the region and for protection of human rights defenders
in West Papua.
The role of Laskar Jihad and pro-Indonesia Militias
Laskar Jihad and pro-Indonesia militias have been responsible for the
escalation of violence in West Papua. The Laskar Jihad is an extremist Islamic
group blamed for ethnic and religious violence in the Moluccas in 2000-2001.
The presence of 3,000 members of the Laskar Jihad in West Papua raises alarm
among Papuan Christians. John Rumbiak said:
Their activities are a real threat to stability and religious tolerance in West
Papua. We, the ELSHAM, confiscated a few items belonging to Laskar Jihad in
Sorong incuding a hand grenade, knives and a pistol. Recently, many Arabs have
arrived in West Papua. We do not know for what purpose these unfamiliar people
are there. This presence has already alarmed the Papuans. We fear that the
history of the Moluccas in 2000 will be repeated in West Papua.
Reflecting on the first day of workshop discussion, Dr. Jim Elmslie said that
the current events at Freeport may change the direction of the peace process
and that it is crucial to firmly uphold principles of inclusiveness: even
Laskar Jihad, as well as Muslim Papuans and non-Papuans, corporations and all
levels of government should be included in the reconciliation process together
with civil society.
4). Negotiation Strategies
The following strategic options were discussed:
(i). Reconciliation and peaceful dialogue
Promotion of reconciliation and peaceful dialogue is a vital step
towards peace in West Papua. The Papuans can learn from other similar cases.
Reconciliation is an ongoing process, which requires patience, trust,
tolerance and solidarity. It is also a foundation for the building of a
democratic West Papua.
Moses Havini, international spokesperson for the Bougainville People’s
Congress, impressed the participants by telling the success story of “his”
peace process, which led to an agreement with the PNG government for genuine
provincial autonomy and a referendum on independence within 10-15 years. He
underlined how the third party role of the government of New Zealand had
limited hostilities among factions within the Bougainville liberation movement
and thus contributed to a permanent peace. Moses pointed out six major
ingredients of the Bougainville success:
· Inclusiveness: all conflicting parties must be involved in the peace
process.
· Political will-power from within the liberation movement.
· Strong and largely unified leadership.
· A united views of reconciliation among various groups.
· Finding middle ground to achieve a compromise, win-win approach.
· Support for the reconciliation process from the whole civil society.
Reflecting on the East Timor experience of reconciliation, Julian King
commented that the Papuans can learn from the past mistakes of the East
Timorese, particularly in the 1999 post referendum period:
As a result of the lack of prior reconciliation among pro-independence and pro-
Indonesia militias, considerable numbers of civilians lost their lives. The
current relationship between President Xanana Gusmao’s government and Falintil
is breaking down. This happened because of lack of respect for and recognition
of the rights of those who took part in the liberation struggle.
Wilhelm Zonggonau, who sees the Presidium as the legitimate organisation in the
West Papuan liberation movement, defended its position:
We are looking for a moral, political and social base in West Papua. The
Presidium provides such a base. The will of the people is highest. The role
of the Presidium in peace initiatives must be respected. I am afraid this task
will be taken over by others. But we must surrender our selfish interests for
the sake of national unity and cooperation.
The Fourteen Star group is another faction in the liberation movement in West
Papua which does not recognize the Morning Star as the national flag. Their
flag of 14 stars was designed by the late Dr. Thomas Wainggai who declared the
independence of a West Melanesian State on 14 December 1988 in Jayapura. Jacob
Rumbiak, who represents the group, defended its position and then emphasized
the need to build solidarity networks, especially in Australia, Indonesia and
the Asia and Pacific region.
(ii). Review of the Act of Free Choice of 1969
The call for a review of the Act of Free Choice of 1969 has been one of
the political priorities of both the OPM and Presidium. These groups believe
that reviewing the Act would be a significant step towards peaceful dialogue.
In this Act, only 1026 of a total population of 1.5 million Papuans were
called on (forcibly) to confirm integration into the Republic of Indonesia by
means of a purely Indonesian style of voting system: Musyawarah
(consultation). This was a tragedy for the Papuans. Dr. Benny Giay said that
in straightening the history of West Papua, we must look into the past
mistakes as an important step towards reconciliation.
Politically, the issue of West Papua is very difficult to deal with.
But legally, there is still a possibility. However, a legal challenge to the
status quo would face many restrictions. Professor Sam Blay said:
The UN has already recognised West Papua as an integral part of the Republic
of Indonesia. Those regimes implicated in the case in the past would be
unhappy to undermine their own interests and embrace a reconsideration by the
UN. It is not easy for the UN to review the Act since the case also implicates
the UN itself”.
A legal option may be possible under the following conditions, he said:
· Documentation and information on the issues surrounding the Act,
including the reasons behind the politics of denial of Papuan rights during the
cold war.
· Regional support: a collective voice must come from a meeting of the
Pacific Islands Forum.
· Sponsorship: a member of the UN, such as Vanuatu or Nauru, must sponsor
the case in the General Assembly and elsewhere.
· Recognition of their past mistakes by those governments implicated in
the issue.
· A new legal body to represents the interests of the Papuans and seeks
financial resources to facilitate the legal processing of the case.
Rex Rumakiek commented:
For Indonesia, West Papua is not an issue. We must promote the issue by
lobbying governments within the Pacific Islands Forum and then internationalise
the issue by lobbying sympathetic countries around the world.
In 2002 support groups around the world submitted a petition to Dr.
Kofi Annan, Secretary General of the UN, and requested a review of the Act of
Free Choice. Rex Rumakiek emphasised that the Act of Free Choice was a shameful
act that must be corrected.
Referring to international campaigns, Joan Staples, Executive Director
of the Diplomacy Training Program (DTP) of the University of New South Wales,
said that the Papuans need more training in diplomacy, human rights, lobbying
techniques and mass media, and also more familiarity with the UN system. The
DTP may provide such a possibility, but the Papuans must find their own ways to
utilize this possibility.
(iii) Referendum
Most participants believed that a new referendum to decide the future status
of West Papua should be held. It should be conducted under the direct
supervision of the UN with a universal voting system, ie, one person, one
vote. The following issues must be considered, however:
· The special autonomy law does not provide a legal base for
implementing a new referendum in West Papua: this issue must be addressed in
the first place.
· There is fear of violence by the Indonesian military and pro-
Indonesian militias during a referendum, repeating the history of East Timor.
· There is also fear of an unfavourable result for the Papuans.
(iv) Papuanisation
Maintaining, restoring and developing Papuan identity, culture and ways
of life would protect indigenous values from foreign domination. Capacity
building within Papuan civil society could be promoted within a culture of
Papuan social development.
Workshop participants emphasised the need to develop cooperation
between academic institutions in Indonesia, West Papua and abroad, and to
introduce an educational system in Papua whose curriculum would include
promotion of local culture. Such a curriculum does not exist in the current
Indonesian educational system. Papuan speakers suggested that many Papuans have
been “contaminated” by Indonesian ways of thinking and living. Corruption is
one of them.
Benny Giay said:
We must oppose such conduct. Papuanisation may work well if the regional
government promotes local culture. In any case we must rewrite our history. In
this way, we can lay down a groundwork for further effective peaceful dialogue.
(v). Good governance
The term governance is generally used to encompass all aspects of the
way a country is governed, including its economic policies and regulatory
framework. Poor governance includes corruption and the abuse of public
authority or trust for private benefit. In contrast, good governance involves
transparency in government accounts, effective public resources management and
stability and transparency for private sector activity.
The Papuan participants made it clear that the Indonesian culture of
corruption has had serious negative impacts on Papuan culture. Corruption
is widespread and Papuans have certainly been contaminated. How can we change
this mentality? “Successful Papuanisation and education exchange programmes
would challenge the culture of corruption”, according to Benny Giay.
(vi) Special Autonomy
“Special autonomy” is viewed with suspicion by many Papuans. However,
the policy does potentially open new possibilities to encourage all aspects
of development, including capacity building within Papuan civil society.
Jakarta sees the political problem in West Papua as a social issue that should
be addressed in a social-economic context and so does not necessarily disagree
with this view.
In 2001 Jakarta offered special autonomy as a peace deal in conflict
resolution. In the 27 paragraphs of the autonomy law, howevere it becomes
apparent that Jakarta portrays the Papuan society as a creature that can be
pushed and pulled about in all directions without considering its real needs.
Behind this policy is the maintenance of control over the territory. For this
reason, probably at least two-thirds of the Papuan population has rejected the
prospect of autonomy.
Otto (John) Ondawame said:
The special autonomy offer is a part of the government’s policy of
development. The government does have an obligation to develop West Papua.
However, this new paradigm of conflict resolution has had very little effect on
social, political and economic development.
Wilhelm Zonngonau said:
The Papuans must find a new model of governance. The Indonesian model is
completely different from autonomy arrangements that we know in many other
parts of the world. An autonomy model like the Free Association which is today
applied in Nieue and Cook Islands may be appropriate in West Papua.
5). Evaluation
1. Achievements and Shortcomings of the Workshop
Despite time pressures, difficulties with visa arrangements,
immigration restrictions at the local level in Papua, uncooperative behaviour
of Freeport and local immigration authorities, and, most importantly, political
and financial restrictions, nevertheless eleven peace and human rights
advocates from diverse social, political and religious backgrounds made their
way to Sydney to share their experiences. The presence of these key players
provided accurate information about what is going on in the country and gave
us all not only new knowledge but new hope for the future and also a wider
audience to achieve increased public awareness around Papuan issues in general
and the killing of civilians on 31 August 2002 in the Tembagapura region in
particular.
2. Progress and Constraints in the Development of the West Papua Project, 2000-
2002
The West Papua Project was established in January 2000 and launched in
April 2000 with its principal aim to promote peaceful dialogue between the
people of West Papua and Indonesia. It was intended to be a collaboration
between academics, support groups, NGOs, politicians and West Papuans in exile.
The Project has made significant progress:
(i). A conference and three workshops held over an eighteen month period
have both demonstrated the importance of, and increased pressure for,
peaceful dialogue to resolve the West Papua issue.
(ii). In the process the Project has been also able to develop networks and
partnerships and raise public awareness about peace and reconciliation, with
the convener utilising media and attending many seminars, conferences and
workshops both in Australia and abroad. The West Papua Project website ( at
http://www.arts.usyd.edu.au/cpacs) has become an important source of
information on West Papuan issues.
(iii). During the course of 2001-2 considerable trust and understanding
was developed between the Project and key representatives of the Indonesian
government in Australia, namely the former Indonesian Ambassador in Canberra,
Sudjadnan Parnohadinigrat, and Consul General Gunawan, in Sydney. The promise
of this relationship for the future is that it will encourage active
participation by Indonesian civil society in peace and reconciliation work for
Papua.
(iv). The Project’s location within CPACS at the University of Sydney has
many advantages. The Project has gained respect and recognition among not
only academics, but NGOs and concerned people both in Australia and abroad,
opening broader opportunities for cooperation on issues of Papuan concern.
(v). At the personal level, convener John Ondawame believes he has not only
enriched his knowledge in peace and conflict resolution, but also his work
experience and office skills.
Despite these achievements, there were undoubtedly shortcomings:
(i). Operating in an academic social environment has not been easy.
(ii). A lack of administrative skills and full English language competence
on the part of the convener, and dependence on inexperienced voluntary
(intern) helpers and slender financial resources, has caused the West Papua
Project Steering Committee to lower expectations at times.
6. Future Plans
(1). Convergence of Values and Inclusiveness
Peace is a collective responsibility and 'convergence of values' can
arise from inclusiveness, defined as a willingness to invite to the
negotiation table interest groups from outside West Papua. At the workshop
closing session Dr.George Aditjondro said:
Developing cooperation among Papuans, non-Papuans and the academic community in
particular may bring even closer understanding and trust. The involvement of
Freeport, the Indonesian military and Laskar Jihad in the peace process, would
be an important step towards peaceful dialogue.
(2). Third Party Intervention
Third party intervention in a conflict situation such as that in West
Papua can be a crucial step towards peace. A “neutral” party or body can play
an important mediation role, like the Geneva-based Henry Dunant Center in the
Aceh conflict. Prior consultation with each of the conflicting parties and then
bringing them together to the negotiation table are primary tasks of the
mediator.
Who is eligible to play a mediator role? Principally; any organisation which
has a good reputation in peace making and peace building. Non-governmental
organisations (NGOs), corporations, governments and even individuals who have a
high reputation may play a mediator’s role. The request for a mediator must
come from both conflicting parties, together with a clear peace agenda.
However, such an important step for Papua has been overlooked. The
internal reconciliation process has produced divided views among Papuans. Most
of the Papuan participants at the workshop saw third party intervention as
direct interference by foreign forces in domestic affairs. They believe that
reconciliation among the groups which make up Papuan civilian society can be
overcome by themselves.
The following claim was heard: “There is no problem within West Papua among
us. We are united. Disunity is a problem among the people in exile”. Wilhelm
Zonggonau said that the Presidium did not need third party intervention for
internal reconciliation, but for national peaceful dialogue between Jakarta and
the Papuans it is welcome.
However, Otto (John) Ondawame, who upheld the potential importance of
third party intervention at all levels of the conflict, said that in a multi-
cultural civil society such as Papua today, the Papuans face complex issues
arising from internal disputes which they are unable to settle by themselves.
Their problems are deeply rooted; hence a need for third party intervention.
The Carter Center in the USA, the government of New Zealand and the
Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Sydney have all
expressed an interest in playing a mediator role in the Indonesia-West Papua
conflict. They all may be possible peace brokers. The Papuans should provide
information and consider cooperation with all of these actors.
(3). Building a Peace Zone
The militarisation of West Papua has caused an escalation of violence
with devastating effects. In order to build or restore justice, peace,
democracy, people’s welfare and social progress, demilitarisation of the
territory is essential. But first, the region must be declared as a Zone of
Peace. This initiative has been taken by West Papuan civil society in
collaboration with the OPM and the regional police force. The participants of
the workshop welcomed the initiative. International support for the
implementation of this peace project was considered extremely important.
(4). Partnership Building
Coalition building and cooperation among peace and human rights
advocates is a vital step towards peace and reconciliation. Workshop
participants called for effective cooperation among major peace advocates, and
there is in prospect a coalition of the Institute for Human Rights Studies and
Advocacy, the Peace Task Force and the Papua Council Presidium inside West
Papua with two major peace advocacy centres abroad, the West Papua Project
itself and the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies in Sydney and the Papua
Resource Centre in New York.
"The result of the September workshop will be used as guidance and
input for
a further conference on peace and reconciliation planned for New York and
coordinated as a founding activity of the Papua Resource Center, the new
US-based but broadly representative organization that aims to work in
partnership with the West Papua Project and ELSHAM. The chairman of the board
of advisors of the new Center is Professor Steven Feld of Columbia University
who is a founding member the West Papua Project as well as its American
representative. John Ondawame of the WPP and John Rumbiak of ELSHAM will
serve as members of this board.
(5). Education and Training
Workshop participants expressed their desire to see the West Papua
Project continue within CPACS and the University of Sydney. This Project is
apparently the first of its kind in the world and its base in the university
has already helped promote peace and reconciliation in Papua. A further
concrete contribution from academic groups would be towards education and
training for Papuan youth in conflict resolution and defence of human
rights.
(6). Women in the Peace Process
Steps to improve women’s conditions and promote women’s role in the
peace process include: providing equal opportunity and promoting the
participation of women in key development areas--education, politics and
government, the law, business and social welfare, and supporting women's
development agencies inside West Papua together with exchange programs between
Papuan women and women in foreign countries.
(7). International Workshop IV: Promoting a Culture of Dialogue
Developing a common understanding between the two conflicting parties
in West Papua, and between the people of West Papua and Indonesia is a key
issue in the efforts of the West Papua Project to help resolve the conflict
between them peacefully. Official Indonesian representatives with an interest
in the Project are concerned about the "lack of a culture of dialogue" in their
own history and experience. The West Papua Project has a commitment to
addressing this issue and to working together on a "peace plan" to improve
not only the situation in Papua but also Australia's regional relationships.
Against this background, there is an interest in organizing another workshop on
the culture of peace dialogue. This workshop may be held either in Indonesia or
in Australia later in the year 2003 in accordance with a suggestion made by the
former Indonesian Ambassador to Australia.
Appendix : Key Participants in the Workshop/West Papua Project Steering
Committee
Papuan Panelists
Dr. Benny Giay
Lecturer at the Walter Post Theological College and chairperson of the Peace
Task Force, Jayapura.
Mr. John Rumbiak
Supervisor of the Institute for Human Rights and Advocacy Studies (ELSHAM),
Jayapura.
Mr.Agus Alua
Rector of the Catholic College of Philosophy and Theology (Sekolah Tinggi
Filsafat
Teologi—STFT) and second secretary-general of the Presidium of the Papua
Council, Jayapura.
Mr.Harry Woersok
Secretary General of the Peace and Justice Commission of the Catholic
Diocese of Merauke, Papua.
Rev.Corinus Berotabui, M.Th.
Secretary General of the Papuan Evangelical Church /GKI, Jayapura
Ms.Rode Wanimbo
Representative of Papuan women and students, University of Cenderawasih,
Abepura.
Mr.Sofyan Yoman
General Secretary of the Baptist Churches of Papua and Member of the Panel of
the Papua Council, Jayapura.
Mr.Ronald Tapilatu
Member of the Peace Task Force, ELSHAM office, Abepura.
Ms. Paula Makabory
Representative of ELSHAM and Member of the Peace Task Force, Timika.
Mr.Joseph Kilangin.
Member of the Peace Task Force and of the Amungme Traditional Council
(LEMASA), Timika.
Mr.WilhelmM. Zonggonau,
Member of the Presidium of the Papua Council, Port Moresby.
Dr. John Otto Ondawame
Coordinator of the West Papua Project, international representative of the OPM
Presidium and member of the Australia West Papua Association (AWPA), Sydney.
Mr.Rex Rumakiek
International representative of the OPM, UN Lobbyist for the Presidium of the
Papua Council and member of the Australia West Papua Association (AWPA, Sydney.
Non-Papuan Participants and Panelists
Professor Emeritus Stuart Rees
Director of the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies, University of Sydney.
Senator Kerry Nettle
Green Party, Canberra and Sydney
The Hon.Dr. Meredith Burgmann
President of the Legislative Council of New South Wales and convener of the
NSW Parliament’s Friendship Group for West Papua; founding member and patron
of the West Papua Project.
Dr. Anne Noonan
Psychoanalyst; member of AWPA (Sydney) and founding member of the West Papua
Project.
Dr. Jim Elsmlie
Founding member and Secretary of the West Papua Project.
Professor Sam Blay
Director of Paostgraduate Programs, Faculty of Law, University of Technology,
Sydney.
Mr.John Scott Murphy
CARITAS Australia, Sydney.
Mr.John Barr
Uniting Church of Australia, Sydney.
Dr. George Aditjondro
Lecturer in Anthropology, University of Newcastle.
Dr. Chris Ballard
Department of Pacific and Asian History, Australian National University..
Ms.Joan Staples
Executive Director, Diplomacy Training Program, Faculty of Law, University of
New South Wales.
Dr. Greg Poulgrain
Research Fellow, School of Humanities, Queensland University of Technology;
Chairman of AWPA (Brisbane).
Mr. Moses Havini
International spokesperson for the Bougainville People’s Congress.
Other Papuan Participants
Mr.Hydayad Alhamid PhD Candidate,
Australia National University.
Mr. Jacob Rumbiak
Senior Research Associate, Globalism Institute, Royal Melbourne Institute of
Technology University; member of AWPA (Melbourne).
Ms. Adolfina M.S. Zonggonau Ondawame
Member of Papuan Women Abroad and AWPA ( Canberra).
West Papua Project and
September 2002 Workshop Steering Committee:
John Ondawame (coordinator), Stuart Rees, Lynda Blanchard, Peter King, Jim
Elmslie, Paul Clark, Andrew Plunkett, Julian McKinlay King, Scott Shanley
(administrative assistant).
More information about the Kabar-Irian
mailing list