Since August 2011, two peaceful protests have taken place in the West Papua province of Indonesia.
At the pro-independence rallies near Jayapura attended by around 20,000 people, a total of 5 people have been shot dead by police aggressively seen dispersing the crowd. It has been reported by West Papua Media that around 800 people were arrested in the raids, with a further 1000 in hiding. The Indonesian government are reporting only 300 people were detained.
Similarly, at a month-long strike at the Grasberg mine complex – jointly owned and operated by Anglo-Australian Rio Tinto and the American miners Freeport – a total of 7 people have been killed by Indonesian security forces. It is estimated around 12,000 workers are presently on strike at the mine.
In total, 12 people have lost their lives in the past two weeks in peaceful protest.
Last night the AFP reported that an Indonesian police chief was shot dead:
Mulia city police chief Dominggus Awes was at the local airport, southwest of the provincial capital Jayapura, when two men began beating him, grabbed his gun and shot him with it, Papua police spokesman Wachyono told AFP.
“They punched him, took his pistol and shot him in the neck and face, hitting his nose. He was taken to a hospital and later died from his injuries,” he said.
According to a report filed with West Papua Media, the Indonesian government are satisifed with the use of force at the protests:
Djoko Suyanto, the coordinating minister for political, legal and security affairs, also defended the government’s tactics, according to Antara.
“The police raided the rally because it was considered as a coup d’etat,” Djoko said. “They declared a state within a state and did not recognize the president of Indonesia.”
Australia has a long history with the people of West Papua, culminating in a decision by the John Gorton government on May 29, 1969. As I argue below, Australia betrayed the people of Papua at that time, and now Prime Minister Julia Gillard must seriously consider issuing a formal apology to its indigenous people.
How Australia neglected the Papuans
New Guinea, geographically as well as historically, is Australia’s closest relative. Separated from the mainland during the last glacial period, the waters filled in what now separates them: about 152km of the Torres Strait.
While Australia and New Guinea both have enviable mineral stores, economic and political exploitation has left the latter as home to many of the poorest people on Earth. New Guinea is also an island of two histories.
The eastern half forms the independent state of Papua New Guinea – a status it has enjoyed since breaking from Australia in 1975. With its natural resources of oil and industrial metals, Papua New Guinea has long been exploited for its minerals by Australian firms at places like Ok Tedi and Bougainville.
The western half of New Guinea has had a lesser-known but equally tragic history centred around the Jayawijaya Mountain, home to the Amungme, and farther downstream, the Kamoro people. As with much of East Asia, the indigenes were under Dutch rule when a geological expedition in 1936 located a significant ertsberg (ore mountain) deep in the southwestern highlands. World War II intervened, and the Japanese claimed Indonesia and some of the western parts of New Guinea.
Following defeat in the war, the Japanese were marshalled back to their home territory, and Dutch colonialism resumed. Importantly, when Indonesian independence was obtained from the Dutch in 1949, few knew of the ertsberg (mineral ore) hidden deep in West Papua’s wilderness.
The Dutch began a ten-year Papuanisation programme in 1957 that would see West Papua handed back to the indigenes, and would create the independent state of West Papua around 1972.
Despite multiple territorial claims, the ore mountain lay dormant for over 20 years.
On March 6, 1959, the New York Times reported the presence of alluvial gold in the Arafura Sea just off the coast of West Papua. Reminded of their earlier discovery, Dutch geologists were said to be returning to the ore mountain, now simply known as Ertsberg.
Independence denied
The indigenes, meanwhile, as part of their programme toward independence, established a Papuan National Council and provisional government as well as their own military, police force, currency, national anthem, and flag. At the time, West Papua’s independence was due before the United Nations Decolonisation Commission, and representatives took part in various cultural and political activities throughout the region. By December 1, 1961, the West Papuan “Morning Star” flag had been raised alongside the Dutch for the first time. Many assumed that independence was imminent.
Unbeknown to both the indigenes and the Dutch, US mining company Freeport-McMoRan Copper and Gold was negotiating directly with Suharto – at the time an Indonesian army general – for a small group of its experts to prospect this ore mountain. The path into West Papua through Suharto promised to be fruitful for Freeport, since its board was stacked with the Rockefeller’s Indonesian oil interests who already were versed in the general’s way of doing business. An exploration agreement was reached, and soon after a geologist from Freeport was forging his way through the wilderness toward Ertsberg.
West Papua was about to change hands again.
Armed with Chinese and Soviet weapons, as well as an increasingly public friendship with the communists, Indonesia declared war on the Netherlands. To protect Western interests from the threat of communism, on August 15, 1962, the United Nations and the United States orchestrated a meeting between Dutch and Indonesian officials during which interim control of West Papua was signed over to Indonesia.
Six years of UN interregnum followed, after which a plebiscite would decide whether to form a separate nation or integrate into Indonesia. All 815,000 West Papuans were to vote in an Act of Free Choice.
To ensure a favourable outcome, the Indonesians worked to suppress Papuan identity. Raising the West Papuan flag and singing of the national anthem were banned, and all political activities were deemed subversive. Indonesia ruled through force, for self-interest. Alarmed by ongoing media reports, on April 5, 1967, in the British House of Lords, Lord Ogmore called for a UN investigation. By early 1968, with Suharto having assumed the presidency of Indonesia, a US consular visit almost unanimously agreed that “Indonesia could not win an open election” in West Papua.
West Papua still wanted its independence.
In a desperate attempt to secure West Papua’s right to self-determination, two junior politicians crossed the border into Australian-administered Papua and New Guinea on May 29, 1969. They carried damning evidence of Indonesian repression; the hopes of a yet-unformed nation rested on the politicians reaching the UN. As Australia and its allies were amenable to Indonesian control of West Papua, the two were imprisoned upon crossing the border until after the referendum.
Their brave plea silenced.
Between July and August 1969, less than a quarter of one per cent of the population – some 1,026 West Papuans – signed the country’s freedom over to Indonesia. The election, held under the aegis of the UN, was far from an act of free choice. The following day West Papua was declared a military operation zone, the local people’s movement was restricted, and expression of their national identity banned under Indonesian law.
Poor, neglected West Papua.
Who gained from Australia’s betrayal of the Papuan people?
Today the social and economic condition of the indigenous Amungme and Kamoro poses fundamental human rights concerns. Although Freeport-Indonesia directly or indirectly employs a large number of West Papuans and is regularly Indonesia’s biggest taxpayer, in 2005, the World Bank found that Papua remained the poorest province in Indonesia. With a marked rise in military personnel and foreign staff has come a number of social issues, including alcohol abuse and prostitution such that Papua now has the highest rate of HIV/AIDS in Indonesia.
Indonesian control of West Papua has been characterised by the ongoing and disproportionate repression of largely peaceful opposition. Few sustained violent interactions have occurred; however, in one major conflict in 1977, more than 1,000 civilian men, women, and children were killed by the Indonesian military in Operasi Tumpas (“Operation Annihilation”) after a slurry pipe was severed and partially closed the Ertsberg mine.
While the level of violence is difficult to establish, academics at the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies at the University of Sydney maintain that at least 100,000 people have been killed under Indonesian rule.
Many West Papuan leaders call what’s happening to West Papua “slow-motion genocide”. However, their claims have not been heard by the internationally community. More recent reports from the University of Sydney’s West Papua project remain inconclusive.
What can Australians do now?
Australians must pressure their local MPs to call for an international inquiry into the killing of 12 Papuan civilians and the serious injury to numerous others during peaceful protests since August 2011, as well as discussing the prospect of Australia issuing a formal government apology to the Papuan people for putting an end to their legitimate claim to sovereignty in 1969.
For further information, see my series of four essays on West Papua, published on Al Jazeera over the past month. Or check West Papua Media.
Follow NAJ Taylor on Twitter: @najtaylor
20 Comments
I had a read of the paper in the link. U of Syd doesn’t call it “slow motion genocide”, they a quoting a guy in west papua. No reference to 500,000 West Papuans being killed either (even the paper says that with the following
“Many West Papuan leaders think that they are suffering genocide under Indonesian rule. On the face of it, looking at the figures analysed in this paper, that would not appear to be the case. The Papuan population is still growing, albeit at a much slower rate that the non-Papuan population. There are not mass killings taking place at the moment, or in recent years, only ongoing systematic human rights abuses, up to and including murder.”)
Also West Papua is part of indonesia (confirmed by the UN) so isn’t this the equivalent of saying Queensland is being swamped by Victorians?
Thanks Scott, I’ve clarified the statements you have identified to make it more clear. As to the claim of up to 500,000 deaths under Indonesian rule, I have pulled the statement until I find the correct source.
Previously, as on Al Jazeera and in a forthcoming book, I have only cited a figure from the University of Sydney of 100,000 – this revised figure was provided to me by an in-country expert via email.
NAJ Taylor – here’s a source from the University of Texas.
http://www.cs.utexas.edu/~cline/papua/rights.htm
“It is difficult to put an exact figure on the number of West Papuans killed since Indonesia took , control in 1963, but estimates vary from between 70,000 to 200,000.”
Also if all of 1,000 local leaders were bribed to vote for an Indonesian takeover out of close to 1,000,000 Melanesians – how does that make it part of Indonesia, ethnically, legally or morally? Even Indonesian historians recognise the injustice of this.
And because the UN at the time were bullied by US interest into accepting it as a fait accompli doesn’t make it right either. If UN resolutions count for so much, how about Israel and the Palestinians?
I highly recommend Charlie Hill-Smith’s film Strange Birds in Paradise to get a view from the West Papuan people.
More scholarly background here from The Asia-Pacific Journal –
http://japanfocus.org/-David_Adam-Stott/3499
Note the figures for Javanese immigration into West Papua since the ’60s. Now close to 50% of the population. Just like the USSR did to the Baltic States after the war. But we eventually recognised their right to self determination.
And don’t ask a Latvian whether they regard Russian colonisation by immigration as equivalent to Victorians moving to Queensland. You’d probably start a fight.
One more relevant fact – Ban Ki-Moon recently said to a reporter from PNG that the issue of West Papuan self-determination should be referred to the UN Committee on Decolonisation.
Source – http://westpapuamedia.info/2011/09/07/un-secretary-general-ban-ki-moon-calls-for-papuan-human-rights-to-be-respected/
This was not reported in the Australian media.
On Strange Birds in Paradise – the soundtrack is by David Bridie and Arnold Ap and has also been released as a CD.
You can help show support for West Papuan freedom by buying a copy – you won’t be disappointed.
It’s worth mentioning David Bridie as a strong and consistent supporter of West Papuan rights and his promotion of this through music.
I believe he’s from Mexico.
While this is an interesting historical account in substance (I note with the much needed factual corrections) the premise of this is that our PM should say sorry.
This completely ignores the geopolitical reality and serious diplomatic sensitivites that exist with Indo and Aus.
It is just NEVER going to happen.
Liz – you may be right. But we have said sorry to people who have suffered less.
Please document the ‘factual corrections’ for our benefit.
The Indonesians took over a completely independent and separate country, fu**ed the local people and proceeded to kill those who opposed this act of murderous tyranny.
And we Aussies stood by and let it happen, and saw thousands of people slaughtered because we were beholden to Uncle Sam (who didn’t like commies).
And then refused to allow comment.
What is there to correct?
Is this true or not?
The Indonesians have been the worst colonial bastards in the history of West Papua.
Affirmed by all.
So what is there to correct in the historical record?
We managed to make things somewhat better in East Timor (after a few thousand people had been killed).
What’s the difference?
@ Angra “NAJ Taylor – here’s a source from the University of Texas.”
You’re kidding right? That link isn’t quite a peer reviewed scholarly paper. It’s an information document (unreferenced) produced by the Australian West Papua Association Sydney.
Dear Scott, you have injected fiction into the discussion. “Confirmed by the UN”? When, where? No. Certainly not resolution 2504, read what it does not say.
Our governments are responsible for the deaths & other denial of human rights in West Papua ever since we voted “yes” in support of the US deal in 1962 for selling the people of West Papua against their wishes from Dutch to Indonesian colonial rule. No member of the UN had any right to vote yes to UN General Assembly resolution 1752 (XVII); it was an immoral, evil, and illegal UN resolution.
As a colony West Papua is not legally subject to Indonesian rule. Just as East Timor was still a Portuguese colony until it’s people were allowed to vote on their sovereignty, so too West Papua is a Dutch colony until it is allowed the act of “self-determination” as required by UN General Assembly resolution 1514 and described in resolution 1541 (XV). Indonesian citizens are not part of any self-determination, only the indigenous population are; same as in East Timor.
FYI on 18 Sept 1961 UN Sec. Gen. Dag Hammarskjold was killed when his plan flew into the side of a mountain, FBI chief Hoover personally flew to Africa to get the altimeter and said it was in perfect working condition. On 18 Oct 1961 the elected members of the New Guinea Council received word that the US was now asking the UN to concede to a deal to trade West Papua as a colony from Dutch to Indonesian rule; that night the Council held an emergency session where they wrote their manifesto (see http://wpik.org/Src/manifesto.html ) and motto, and designed various symbols includinf the Morning Star flag which they presented to the Dutch governor on 30 Oct 1961; he in turn arranged for the Morning Star to be raised next to the Dutch flag on 1 Dec 1961.
The US promoted deal was not legal, there is no ‘right’ to sell or trade human beings or their sovereignty between colonial masters…
Scott has actually sort to debate this issue on its facts, not ‘injected fiction into the discussion’ even the author has agreed with incorrect points he raised. Take him on if you like, but I don’t reccommend it.
This is a blogg and on bloggs you debate issues not just discuss with others who agree with every word you say.
The only valid reason the Aus gov got involved with East Timor is the Sunrise oil and gas fields. If you think we went into ET because of human rights you need to do some OBJECTIVE research.
Australia has a long history of nessesary and sensible appeasement with Indo and that will never change.
So you can draw on any past historical stuff you like; it is all accademic.
The reality in 2011 is that we work very closely with the Indo army in joint training and with the Indo Gov. This will not and should not change.
Thanks Lisa for the feedback. I was not saying Scott’s argument was fiction, but that he had worked from a mistaken assumption. To be precise it was Reuters who in 1969 fabricated the claim that the UN had endorsed the Indonesian claim of sovereignty of West Papua.
To explain the background, back in September 1961 when the UN Sec. General was killed the acting Sec. General had to deal with a shortage of UN funding. Well he asked the US for help with a $200m bond scheme; and the Americans asking the UN to cooperate with a deal to trade the sovereignty of a colony between two of the UN members.
I understand around 89 voted “yes” and 14 abstained from UN General Assembly resolution 1752 (XVII),but I would greatly appreciate if anyone can dig up the actual voting record of who voted what & who abstained. Purportedly an African group were objecting, yet neither they nor the Soviets or China opposed the vote; I would love to know why. And why did nobody ask for the ICJ for a legal opinion on the deal? Then seven years later, why did nobody ask the ICJ to give it’s opinion on the “Act of Free Choice” etc?
Regarding East Timor, Australia had nothing to do with it’s “independence”.
The effect of the 1975 invasion was to move the mining license from Portugal Oil to Conoco Phillips; the effect of the self-determination vote was to protect the Conoco Phillips license from nationalization which the Fretilin movement was wanting. It was NOT Australia or “good will” which caused the UN Decolonization committee to admit East Timor was a colony; it was Norway.
The problem was that Conoco Phillips lost control of media reporting of East Timor when the Norwegians awarded the Nobel peace prize to Horta & Belo in ’96. After that the corporation began inviting every potential leader to secret meetings; nobody knows what deals have been made with whom. The corporation does not care who the ‘government’ is, they only care that they have a favourable mining license with whoever is holding office.
East Timor is a mess, but at least it’s their own mess without a foreign military enforcing ethnic replacement policies.
It’s funny how everyone can have an opinion as to why nation states act the way they do.
Most commonly, it is believed the New York Agreement happened because Indonesia and the Netherlands were shaping up for war over West Papua and the UN believed it was better for them to get involved and facilitate an orderly transfer than let Indonesia take West Papua by force. You could argue that the negotiated agreement saved lives that would have been lost in a full on conflict, but it’s all hypothetical now.
As for recognition of the deal by the UN (and yes, I am using 2504 to argue recognition as it did endorse the arrangement), it really doesn’t get any better than that from a international law perspective. You can argue the motives of the particpants and use the international law rulings of today (like Kosovo) applied to the past, but really, the result of the deal was because Indonesia was in a strong position. It negotiated from strength, and was able to decide just everything about the “act of free choice”; the date, the method, the way the question was worded even the eligibility of the people to vote on it. It’s no surprise it came out in Indonesia’s favour. But that said, it wouldn’t be the first time in the history of the world that a select group of community leaders decided on a plan of action.
As for the countries that abstained from the vote on 1752, I found this reference
“Twelve African countries, together with Haiti and France, abstained in the UNGA vote approving the resolution of the
New York Agreement and the UN’s involvement in its implementation. Speaking for the abstainers, Dahomey
representative severely criticised the agreement’s weak provisions for consulting Papuans. “Not once” he emphasized
“do we find in the text any mention of a ‘referendum’, the most normal, the most usual and the most objective form of
public expression of opinion …. in other words, the actual public expression of opinion will be organised entirely by the
party which has the greatest interest in the yielding of results favourable to it” (Franck, Thomas M 1985:80 Nation
against Nation, What Happened to the U.N. Dream and What the U.S. Can Do About It? Oxford University Press).”
Sorry Scott, Indonesia had gone to the UN three times and failed three times to get any concession to West Papua, and they had been sending military missions to West Papua since the early 1950s which also all failed. Indonesia was impotent. It was McGeorge Bundy, a family friend & fellow Bonesman of Freeport director Robert Lovett who got West Papua colonized via UN General Assembly resolution 1752 (XVII).
The reason West Papua has been denied self-determination is because Indonesia is a member of the UN Special Coomittee on Decoloniztion; but if the ICJ gives it’s legal opinion about the legality of resolution 1752 and/or the “New York Agreement” the Deconization Committee will in effect be forced to admit West Papua is a colony and is therefore required to be allowed anact of self-determination as required by UN General Assembly resolution 1514 (XV) and described in resolution 1541 (XV).
I have just come across a story on the Jakarta Post web site “The week in review: Papua spring in the making?”
It combines two of recent themes – escalating violence in West Papua and some growing Indonesian concerns about this, and also the sale of Western arms to countries which use them against independence movements.
I noticed this section about halfway down.
“The government’s confidence in settling the Papua problems this time has received a boost from the United States. On Sunday, the visiting US Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta assured that the US supported Indonesia’s stance on Papua while praising Indonesia’s handling of the strike at US gold and copper giant Freeport. The US support for Indonesian handling of the Papua problems was, however, not a stand-alone commitment as lawmakers at the House of Representatives eventually approved on Tuesday the Defense Ministry’s request to take up the US offer of so-called “grants” of 24 second-hand F-16 jet fighters after almost a year of political bickering with the government.”
“We’ve agreed to approve the deal but with a set of conditions,” House legislator Yorrys Raweyai said. “All the planes have to be upgraded from Block 25 to Block 52; all components needed for the upgrade have to be produced here in Indonesia; and the upgrade must be procured through the foreign military sales scheme that prevents the role of brokers.”
“Block 52 is the highest upgrade level that enables the jet fighters to have bigger thrust and advanced avionic and electronic systems.”
http://www.thejakartapost.com/news/2011/10/30/the-week-review-papua-spring-making.html
Why does Indonesia need 24 upgraded F16s? and why was the US so keen to sell the planes to them?
Very well spotted, Angra.
I’m in no position to assess why Indonesia “need” the upgraded F-16 fighters. But one only assumes the US are primarily driven by the economic gains of the sale, which is, as ever, second generation technology.
For me, a more fundamental question might be: under what circumstances will US legislation or Presidential directives not sell arms to states where there remain human rights concerns?
Also today, the Jakarta Globe has an article about Police in West Papua having a conflict of interest by accepting payments from mining companies and also claims that the miners unions have been intimidated and even received death threats from Police -
_____________________
The Commission for Missing Persons and Victims of Violence (Kontras) said it found that senior police had threatened a labor organizer from the All-Indonesian Workers Trade Union (SPSI).
It said Sudiro, SPSI’s chief workplace organizer for Freeport’s Grasberg mine, had reported that Timika Police Chief Denny Siregar called him and made a death threat. Sudiro also said Papua Police chief Bikman L. Tobing had harassed him with insulting language.
According to Kontras, such aggressive language and threats constituted violence against the unionist.
“From the testimonies collected by Kontras [in Timika] on the sidelines of negotiations between workers and Freeport, the police chief pressured the SPSI leader to comply with the company’s wishes so that he did not become ‘tiresome’ to police,” Kontras investigator Haris Azhar said on Friday.
Police, according to Haris, had also leveled accusations of treason at striking workers and their union organizers.
“All they did was make demands for their improved welfare. How can the police accuse them of being separatists? It makes no sense,” Haris said.
http://www.thejakartaglobe.com/news/kontras-accuses-police-of-conflict-of-interest-in-papua/474888
More here in the NZ Herald –
“It was not in the headlines, but our neighbourhood has had its own ‘Arab Spring’. The Melanesian people of Indonesian-controlled West Papua, have shown the same determination to pursue non-violent struggle as their counterparts in Egypt and Syria.
A 5000 strong Papua National Congress took place over three days in a Jayapura field ringed with menacing armoured riot control vehicles and heavily armed police and soldiers. It was led by Forkorus Yaboisembut, the Chair of the Papuan Customary Council, who is highlighted on the Indonesian military’s leaked watch list of dangerous ‘separatists’. As the Congress came to an end on October 19, Forkorus read a Declaration of Independence first penned in 1961, prior to the Indonesian take-over of the territory. He then announced that he had been elected to be the “President” of the “Democratic Republic of West Papua”.
As the gathering began to disperse, the military began firing from their assault weapons and launched themselves on the crowd, arresting and beating some 300 people. Forkorus was forcibly arrested along with his “Prime Minister” Edison Waromi and they and three others now face charges of treason. Dozens were injured, many with gunshot wounds, and up to six people were killed. The first death to be confirmed was that of a law student Daniel Kadepa who was shot in the head as he tried to flee.”
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/opinion/news/article.cfm?c_id=466&objectid=10762938
Seems this news about deaths in West Papua is far less important than a naughty boy from the NSW Central Coast who was stupid enough to be caught with a few grams of maryjane at Kuta.
Can you find much coverage of this in the Australian media?