 |
| West Papuan activists protesting at the Hague for independence from Indonesia. Photograph by Apdency/Wikimedia Commons |
Allegations that Australia is funding death squads in West Papua have brought the troubled province back to Australian attention.
Blanket denials by both Indonesian and Australian governments –
standard policy for such reports in the past, no longer cut the mustard.
The players respond
The killing
of Papuan activist Mako Tabuni by Indonesian police was for Jakarta a
legitimate operation against a violent criminal shot while evading
arrest. That Tabuni bled to death from his untreated wounds while in
police custody did not rate a mention.
The Australian response was more measured. Foreign Minister Bob Carr
took the allegation that Tabuni had been assassinated seriously because
the partially Australian funded and trained elite anti-terrorist
organisation, Densus 88, was accused of playing a role in the killing.
For once there was a direct Australian connection to the human rights
abuses that have been happening in West Papua for decades. Australian
taxpayers may indeed be helping to fund Indonesian death squads. Carr
called on the Indonesians to make a full enquiry into the affair.
The Indonesian response was to appoint Brigadier General Tito Karnavian as Papua’s new Police Chief.
This sends the clearest possible message that Jakarta intends to deal
with the Papuan separatists’ insurgency with lethal force, rather than
diplomacy and negotiation.
Many activists have been arrested and a concerted effort is underway
to break the back of the urban based, non-violent Papuan rights
organisations, such as Tabuni’s KNPB (Komite Nasional Papua Barat).
Independence
Most Papuans would favour independence over Indonesian occupation.
This is a recipe for ongoing military operations, repression and human
rights abuse as the Indonesian military and police hunt down
“separatists”.
This seems to suit most players. West Papua is the Indonesian
military’s last zone of exclusive control after the loss of Aceh and
East Timor. It’s a fabulous prize to control as extensive (legal and
illegal) logging, huge mining projects and massive development funds
provide rich pickings for those in control, while incoming migrants are
drawn in by economic opportunities unavailable elsewhere. It is really
only the Papuans who are suffering in this massive free-for-all.
The plight of the Papuans is slowly but surely seeping into the
global consciousness. While modern technology allows West Papua’s riches
to now be exploited, it also allows the stories and images of Papuan
suffering to emerge. Increased Indonesian militarisation and repression
only exacerbate this trend.
A new East Timor?
This is the same trajectory that East Timor’s long struggle for
freedom followed: an overwhelmingly dominant military on the ground but a
growing sense of outrage within the international community, especially
in the Western nations. This led Indonesia to be treated almost as a
pariah nation and underpinned East Timor’s rapid shift to independence
in the wake of Suharto’s fall.
While no other nation supports West Papuan independence, except
Vanuatu sporadically, and the rule of the Indonesian state appears
unassailable, a dangerous dynamic is developing.
As the situation in West Papua deteriorates, human rights abuses will
continue, with the very real prospect of a dramatic increase in
violence to genocidal levels.
The ingredients are there: stark racial, religious and ideological
differences coalescing around a desire for Papuan resources and Papuans’
land, on one hand, and independence on the other. Indeed many
Indonesians, as well as the Indonesian state, already view Papuan
separatists as traitors.
This should rightly concern Australians: we are in a quasi-military alliance with Indonesia through the 2006 Lombok Treaty.
We are a player, albeit minor, in these events. When there is a divide
in the opinion of the political, military and bureaucratic elite, and
that of the wider population, as occurred in Australia over Indonesia’s
occupation of East Timor, the majority view tends to eventually prevail.
And the majority view, formed by such programmes as the ABC 7.30
report, is moving to one of sympathy for the Papuans and antipathy
towards Indonesia for what many see as a re-run of East Timor’s
disastrous occupation. This does not bode well for relations between the
two countries.
Words or bullets?
Indonesia runs the risk of having its widely heralded democratisation
process stained by the Papuan conflict. There is also the fact that
while West Papua remains a military zone the Indonesian army will
continue to be unaccountable and largely outside of civilian control,
stymieing anti-corruption efforts not just in Papua but through out the
country. The consequences for the Papuans are abundantly clear: no basic
rights and a life lived in fear.
While there are no quick or easy solutions to this conundrum, one
choice is manifestly clear: does the answer lie in more words or more
bullets?
Jakarta has so far rejected meaningful dialogue in favour of a beefed
up security approach. Australia, and Australians, should forcefully
criticise this as being against our own, and Indonesia’s (let alone the
Papuans’) long-term interests.
If the West Papuan conflict continues to follow the East Timor
trajectory this problem will continue to grow, relations will become
strained and tensions rise. It’s worth remembering that Australia and
Indonesia very nearly came to blows over East Timor. Let’s learn from
the past and encourage, and promote, meaningful dialogue between all
parties.
By Jim Elmslie, University of Sydney
Jim Elmslie does not work for, consult to, own shares in or receive
funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this
article, and has no relevant affiliations.
http://descrier.co.uk/news/world/west-papua-the-next-east-timor/
