Awakening Papua’s Hope

KOMPAS/NIKSON SINAGA

Members of the North Sumatra Papuan Student Association stage a rally in Medan on Saturday (31/8/2019). They carried Morning Star flags and called for a referendum on Papuan independence.

Talking about Papua means speaking about gaping wounds. Its treatment must be highly effective: the state must affirm through positive political decisions that the governors of Papua and West Papua are indigenous Papuans. They should also have a few specializations, such as in social welfare, politics, lawmaking, jurisprudence, law and security, cultural and customary preservation and regional finance. All this basically means that indigenous Papuans receive "special" treatment.

This political decision is the result of a very fierce debate between the "NKRI" (Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia) and "Free Papua" groups. In the state’s view, this compromise was driven by its awareness and strong determination to pay off its historical debts to indigenous Papuans (OAP), as the state has been neglecting development in Papua and permitting the violation of the rights of Papuans.

This narrative is clearly outlined in the stipulations of Law No. 21/2001 on Special Autonomy for Papua Province (later referred to as the Otsus Law).

Meanwhile, from the Papuans’ perspective, this special authority can be used as provisions for developing Papuan land in keeping with the Papuan perspective.

Unfortunately, the regulations that could give rise to a Papua that is free of poverty and illiteracy, and which celebrates OAP, have disappeared mid-stride. The main cause is the jungle of state regulations, from central to regional and to sectoral.

For example, regulations on the use of the special autonomy fund only set the budgets for OAP education and health. The budgets have reached tens of trillions of rupiah, but their results have hardly left an impression, though this is not to say that they have failed.

KOMPAS/FRANSISKUS PATI HERIN

Police officers talk with demonstrators in Manokwari, West Papua, on Tuesday (3/9/2019). The police detected that certain groups still planned to carry out demonstrations.

The reason is the squabble of overlapping regulations that govern regional administration, special autonomy and state finance. The government’s distribution scheme for regional funding has resulted in local developments that are out of alignment line with central policies. Sectoral regulations have frequently overruled the special authority of the Papuan administration. An even more damaging consequence is that if these regulations are not addressed, the fertile lands of Papua will become overgrown with corruption.

Another pertinent issue in Papua is security and safety in upholding their cultures and traditions. Demonstrations and riots across several cities in the two provinces are a sign that the state has not provided effective protection for OAP cultures and traditions. The brutal actions carrying racial narratives ignited anger among Papuans in Mimika and Jayapura in Papua and in Fakfak, Manokwari and Sorong in West Papua to trigger several days of heated protests; protests that have been deemed strange and unauthentic, especially in West Papua where social integration been well established for decades.

Several groups believe that the central issue is not racism, but the massive influx of external traditions, customs, exclusivity and values alongside the establishment of hegemonic symbols that pose a growing threat the existence and survival of the values of OAP cultures and traditions.

Therefore, the special autonomy policy for Papua must also take into account that the Papuan people still need time before they can accommodate cultural penetration. The migration of people to Papua must be done in stages in line with the Papuan people’s acceptance and understanding of collectively building a life of diversity. Therefore, it is expected that migrants adjust and refrain from being too ambitious in establishing potentially disruptive symbols that could deepen the Papuan people’s internal wounds.

Papua Governor Lukas Enembe appears to have recognized the need for such alignment. He has emphasized that in expressing their views, the public must coordinate with the security forces to prevent certain people who intended to piggyback on the protests to cause anarchy and undermine peace in Papua. This statement anticipates the spread of conservative ideologies to Papua, and in particular, an awareness of the clandestine cells of organizations that have been dissolved by the state since anti-Pancasila movements began operating in Papua.

KOMPAS/TOTOK WIJAYANTO

J. Kristiadi

The threat has only grown stronger as the small, but militant, conservative groups have become intertwined with elements that have long been promoting a "Free Papua". The Indonesian Military (TNI) and the National Police (Polri) also seem to have caught scent of these symptoms. Armed with professional cohesiveness, the two institutions tasked with maintaining order and security are working together intensively to bring an end to the riots, and expect to guarantee more permanent security.

The agenda of utmost urgency is to finalize the Special Autonomy Law, which ends in November 2021. Many circles have evaluated its implementation. Included among the important issues are local political parties, recruiting the Papua People\'s Assembly (MRP), and establishing a Justice and Reconciliation Commission. These improvements must involve constructive dialogue within the framework of Papua as an inseparable part of the NKRI.

In the long term, serious dialogue is needed on understanding the history of Papua’s integration as a territory of the NKRI. The background of the Papuan People\'s Free Choice (Pepera) presents the historical fact that the United Nations formally recognized West Irian as a territory of the Republic of Indonesia. Complete documentation is certain to be found at the Foreign Ministry. Finally, the development of Papuan lands must be principled on what the Papuan people want and what they want do.

J. Kristiadi, Senior Researcher, Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS)