An Unnoticed War

The West Papuan Struggle for Independence

“They told me I should confess. They put a gun to my mouth to force me to give them information, but I couldn’t understand them. Then they put a rope around my neck and tried to hang me, but I didn’t say anything. So they got a piece of tire and hit me on the back of the neck… I fell unconscious.” Testimony of Mrs Josepha Alomang

Incidents such as the one described above have been far too frequently reported within West Papua over the last 38 years. After Indonesia obtained independence from Dutch colonial rule in 1949, there continued to be dispute over whether the territory of West New Guinea (now West Papua) would be part of this new nation. Since the annexation of the territory by Indonesia, the governance of the province been characterized by violent conflict between the people of West Papua and the Indonesian army. The indigenous people of West Papua have been waging a battle for freedom and independence since 1963, a struggle little known to the general public in Australia and rarely reported in the wider international community until relatively recent times. Human rights groups estimate that the numbers of people killed in the course of this running war between the Free Papua Movement, Organisasi Papua Merdeka (OPM) and the Indonesian government are as high as 100,000.

THE HISTORICAL ROOTS OF WEST PAPUA MOVEMENT FOR INDEPENDENCE

Though the Dutch colonized the island of New Guinea, there was initially little impact on the inhabitants. Their claim to the western half of the island, in 1883, was the result of a move to protect the rest of the Dutch East Indies from encroaching British and German colonizers. The eastern half of the island was divided into German New Guinea and British Papua. The Dutch kept West Papua as a giant buffer zone, but made little attempt to rule it.

Eventually, in 1898, The Netherlands established an administrative post on West Papua and maintained their presence on the island until the Japanese invasion in 1942. With the end of World War II, Indonesia declared independence from The Netherlands and claimed the territories of West Timor, Sarawak, Brunei and North Borneo as part of its nation, while also asserting claim on West Papua. The Dutch clung on to West Papua, wanting to maintain a base in the region. Previously the territory had been a neglected backwater lacking industry, basic infrastructure or services. Large parts of the highlands had had little or no European contact and lacked roads or economic development.

A colonial presence was retained with The Netherlands gradually preparing to bring about West Papuan independence with the participation of the indigenous people. The Dutch rapidly increased expenditure in the colony, and began developing an indigenous elite with whom they could preserve economic and political ties if and when independence was obtained.

Indonesia continued to demand West Papua be handed over and tensions came to a head in 1961, as the Dutch sought to establish the institutions for independent rule. In April of that year a Papuan National Congress or Peoples Council was founded to initiate a timetable for self-government. For the first time the traditional morning star symbol was chosen as an emblem of the new nation, a national anthem composed, a flag designed and 1970 set as the date for Papuan independence.
On 1s December 1961, a group of tribal chiefs with the tacit agreement of the Dutch, raised the Morning Star flag for the first time and proclaimed a new nation in Jayapura.

In the same month, President Soekarno issued a public statement calling for the liberation of West Papua from Dutch control and began moving troops towards the area. War between Indonesia and The Netherlands seemed inevitable.

It was at the point the U.S. Kennedy administration intervened because of fears concerning the Soviet bloc gaining influence with the Indonesian government. In 1962 the West Papuans were excluded from secret negotiations, which brokered a deal to hand over the West Papuan territory to Indonesia. The proviso was the ‘Act of Free Choice’ clause in the New York Agreement to be administered by the United Nations, at which time the West Papuans could decide their right to self-determination. West Papua ultimately, became a Cold War sacrifice in order for the U.S. and its supporters to have the emerging, powerful nation of Indonesia as their ally in the region.
On May 1, 1963 Indonesia became the new colonial power in West Papua. The elected West Papuan Council was disbanded, West Papuan flags were banned, and burned, the founding of any new political parties was prohibited. Tensions between the Dutch educated Papuan elite and Indonesian authorities rapidly emerged after the Indonesian takeover.

The new administration res-tricted movement between towns, banned political meetings and jailed those who opposed the lack of democratic rights and spoke up against the deteriorating social conditions. The resulting revolts by West Papuans were met by Indonesian military force and suppression. Several resistance movements, including Organisasi Papua Merdeka (OPM, or the Free Papua Movement), emerged and continued to resist the Indonesian takeover. However, the rise to power of General Suharto (soon to be President of Indonesia) effectively put an end to any international support for West Papuan separatism.

The ‘Act of Free Choice” clause in the New York Agreement had promised an act of self-determination for the West Papuans by the end of 1969. President Soeharto set out to comply with the promised act of self-determination, wanting to be seen to fulfill his obligations under the Agreement.

Although billed as an ‘Act of Free Choice’, observed by the UN, the plebiscite held was a farce. Indonesia refused to hold a referendum and instead, out of a population of 700,000 West Papuans, 1,025 were handpicked by the Indonesian government before UN officials arrived. There were only 16 UN observers in the vast territory of West Papua in 1969, compared with approximately 1,000 observers in small island of East Timor during the referendum of 1999. The handpicked delegates who were coerced into voting as Indonesian wished, voted unanimously to remain with Indonesia.
UN mission chief Fernando Ortiz Sanz criticized the process involved, stating in his report: “I regret to have to express my reservation regarding the implementation of Article XXII of the (1962) Agreement, relating to the rights, including to the rights of free speech, freedom of movement and of assembly, of the inhabitants of the area. In spite of my constant efforts, this important provision was not fully implemented and the administration exercised at all times, tight political control over the population.”

Nevertheless the General Assembly of the UN ratified the result in November 1969, with 30 abstentions, mainly from African states. West Papua was now fully Indonesian under international law.

WEST PAPUA UNDER INDONESIAN RULE

In 1950, President Soekarno had said that migration to the other islands was ‘a matter of life and death for the Indonesian nation’. The Soeharto regime continued the colonial transmigration policy, the goal of which was cultural assimilation. Transmigration, the resettlement of people loyal to the Indonesian government was used as a main tactic for the occupational control of dissident territories such as West Papua. The Jakarta government cited goals such as national unity, assistance to farmers and improvement of the condition of the local people, to justify the cost of this mass migration, much of which was covered through aid from international development agencies. Population density in West Papua was 4 people per square kilometer; Suharto said the ideal was 400 per square kilometer - a level that would have swamped the local peoples.

“In the end”, said the Minister for Transmigration, “the different ethnic groups will in the long run disappear because of integration…and there will be one kind of man…Indonesian man”.

What transmigration in effect accomplished was the spread of poverty, and forced displacement of indigenous peoples from their homes, their communities and their lands. Transmigrants received government built houses and financial assistance, locals found food sources contaminated and ancestral lands sold off. The development-oriented ideology of the education system resulted in illiteracy nearly twice the national average as local Papuans were taught in Bahasa Indonesia rather than in indigenous languages. Little value was given to indigenous culture.

Destruction of the local system of administration and the traditional means of sustainable resource use resulted in deforestation and soil damage to the land. Widespread use of military force to pacify and break local resistance occurred, as people who were forcibly displaced to make room for the transmigrants were not compensated for the loss of their land.

Traditional Papuans believe that they are owners of the forest, which has economic and religious significance for them. The forest was a source of food, of shelter in times of tribal conflict, as well as a place to communicate with ancestral spirits. Despite local objections, mining began in the southern highlands near Timika in 1967, with the establishment of the world’s largest open-pit gold mine, operated and owned by the U.S. multinational, Freeport McMoRan Copper and Gold Inc. Much of this land consists of vast tracts of rainforest where land was taken away from the local tribal owners; trees were cut down without any compensation from the government. There also was the creation of plantations, fisheries and the increase of retail trade - the overwhelming majority of owners of these new operations were transmigrants and foreign owners. Hence the benefits - monetary, social and political- that is, financial profits, social power and prestige, too, went to non-Papuans.

According to John Rumbiak, head of a West Papuan human rights organisation, “Natural resources have a religious value…Indonesian law considers the deep jungle to be empty, to have no owners. This is a very wrong perception…in Irian, there is not a single piece of empty land. Every tree has an owner.”

West Papuans continue to insist that these government policies have made them second-class citizens in their homeland by destroying traditional livelihood and culture. They also report widespread ethnic and racial discrimination, being looked down upon as ‘primitive’ by non-Papuan employers.

HUMAN RIGHTS ABUSES

In 1969, West Papua was declared a ‘military operations area’ (Indonesian acronym - DOM); this status remained in effect until October 1998, five months after the exit of Soeharto. The function of the DOM status was to maintain internal security and stability and limit access by outsiders. A travel permit was needed to travel in the area and visitors had to report to military checkpoints in villages they visit. The primary reason for military presence were the government resources in area, including Freeport mine, declared in 1973, by President Soeharto, to be one of Indonesia’s ten national assets.
Since the annexation of West Papua in 1963, the indigenous Papuans have been treated as second-class citizens within their homeland and subject to serious human rights violations at the hands of the Indonesian military forces. Government counter-insurgency operations targeted not only the freedom fighting guerillas, but also the civilian population. As the independence movement was driven underground local tribal populations reported that retaliatory actions, human rights abuses, and atrocities against civilians were pervasive. Fear was strong.

Local churches and human rights organisations have documented human rights abuses (during the military control of the DOM), including cases of rape and violence against women in the villages of the Central Highland region. These abuses include killings, arbitrary detention, intimidation and other forms of injustice. It is difficult to obtain accurate figures of how many Papuans have been detained, tortured or killed as little investigation has been carried out, but estimates range in the thousands. Civilians who demonstrated their dissatisfaction with Indonesian governance through peaceful public gatherings and flag raising were brutally repressed by the Indonesian army and police. EL-SHAM (the Abepura-based Institute for Human Rights Study and Advocacy) told the Indonesian press that between 1965 and 1999 there was evidence of at lease 926 deaths resulting from military operations. Most Papuans believe that the actual number of casualties is much greater.

In a 1998 report, the UN Special Rapparteur on Violence Against Women, Radika Coomearaswamy, in an 1998 report to the UN, concluded that” before 1998 Indonesian security forces used rape as an instrument of torture and intimidation in Irian Jaya (West Papua)”, and recommended a thorough investigation as imperative. Human Rights Watch reports that the number of civilian casualties in the three decades of the conflict is not known and that no comprehensive investigation has ever been attempted.

CURRENT SITUATION

After the demise of the Soeharto regime, there was hope for an ‘era of reformasi’ within Indonesia. There was no immediate change in the Habibie Government’s attitude towards West Papua, but for the first time in their history, Papuans as Indonesian citizens, were able to voice publicly their sentiments regarding independence. Since that time, a broad-based civilian independence movement has emerged, committed to achieving their goal of an independent state through peaceful means. In 1998, a new organisation called the Forum for Reconciliation for the Irian Jaya Society (FORERI) was formed and called for a referendum to determine Papuan opinion on self-governance and independence. In line with this, they held meetings with the Indonesian government in order to negotiate holding a “national dialogue” on the future of West Papua. A group of 100 delegates, known as ‘Team 100’ met in Jakarta with President Habibie and other parliamentarians on 26 February 1999. After initial discussions, the delegates were dismissed with the words “the aspirations you have expressed are important, but founding a country isn’t easy; let’s contemplate these aspirations again. Go home and take my greetings to the Papuan people.” Clearly displeased with the direction the National Dialogue was taking, the Habibie government withdrew its support for the process. However, opposition voices continued, despite a renewed military crackdown, and Papuan leaders persevered in their demands to be heard on the issue of independence.

After the election of President Abdurrahman Wahid, there was revived hope. On 1 January 2000, in an important gesture of reconciliation, President Wahid ended decades of taboo by restoring the name Papua to the province, as an embodiment of aspirations for self-governance and independence. Initially, significant reforms occurred in the face of widespread demands for autonomy, and expressions of peaceful pro-independence sentiment were no longer punished as per government policy. At the same time Wahid has stated categorically that the Indonesian government was not prepared to give in to demands for independence.

The National Papuan congresses that have been held in the post-Soeharto milieu have brought together for the first time a truly representative sample of West Papuans from all regional areas to discuss the issue of ‘merdeka’ or freedom. As a result of the second national congress, held in June 2000, a new popular body, the Papua Presidium Council was formed and called to represent the people’s aspirations to the Indonesian government. But there have been differences in dialogue regarding the independence issue.

Some Papuans, led by Governor Jacobus Solossa of the West Papuan State government, do seem open to different compromises and have come up with a “Draft law on Special Autonomy for West Papua”. However, there has been a rejection of this proposal from the student movement, OPM, and most importantly from the respected leaders of the Papuan Presidium who have stated that they are asking for a return of their independence, not autonomy. “Forget autonomy,” writes Moses Weror, chairman of former Revolutionary Military Council of the OPM, “because freedom is a fixed price.”

With respect to human rights abuses, the government’s actions have not been consistent, and Human Rights Watch reports that abuses have continued. Recent reports indicate that since October 2000 the Indonesian government has more than doubled security forces in the province to an estimated 30,000 soldiers and police. A top commander of the elite Kopassus counter-insurgency unit, Major-General Simbolen (previously in East Timor), has been assigned command in Jayapura. Human rights organisations suggest that militia presence (similar to East Timor) too, has increased in the province. ELS-HAM, an Indonesian human rights organisation has reported that between 1998 and 2000 there have been gross and systematic human rights violations including 80 summary executions and 500 cases of arbitrary detention and torture, some resulting in custodial death. Most alarmingly, in December 2000, five key pro-independence leaders, members of the Papuan Presidium, were arrested and await trial. It seems that the political process and dialogue for reconciliation and understanding has reached a stalemate. By refusing to address the mounting concerns of the majority of West Papuans in their desire for independence, the government of Indonesia is doing little to stem this cycle of violence. Little support for West Papuan rights is provided by the international community, which continues to be reluctant to condemn Indonesia’s human rights violations, instead taking the stance of supporting President Wahid’s attempts to maintain unity within the diverse nation.

Postscript: As this article goes to press President Wahid has been replaced by Megawati Sukarnoputri (daughter of Indonesia’s first President, Soekarno). Reports indicate that Megawati and Indonesia’s military leaders believe that Wahid has been too soft in his responses to the independence movements within Indonesia in West Papua and Aceh. It is likely that stronger military approach will be favoured.