Tampilkan postingan dengan label Media Barat Utk Papua. Tampilkan semua postingan
Indonesia's 1969 Takeover of West Papua Not by "Free Choice"
Document Release Marks 35th Anniversary
of Controversial Vote and Annexation
Secret Files Show U.S. Support for Indonesia,
Human Rights Abuses by Indonesian Military
Edited by Brad Simpson
simpbrad@isu.edu / 208-282-3870
Posted July 9, 2004
Washington, D.C. - July 8, 2004 - "You should tell [Suharto] that we understand the problems they face in West Irian," national security adviser Henry Kissinger wrote President Nixon on the eve of Nixon's July 1969 visit to Indonesia. On the 35th anniversary of West Papua's so-called "Act of Free Choice" and Indonesia's first direct presidential elections, the National Security Archive posted recently declassified documents on U.S. policy deliberations leading to Indonesia's controversial 1969 annexation of the territory. The documents detail United States support for Indonesia's heavy-handed takeover of West Papua despite overwhelming Papuan opposition and United Nations requirements for genuine self-determination.
Background
When Indonesia gained its independence from the Netherlands in 1949, the Dutch government retained control over the territory of West New Guinea. From 1949 until 1961 the Indonesian government sought to "recover" West New Guinea (later known as West Irian or West Papua), arguing that the territory, a part of the former Netherlands East Indies, rightfully belonged with Indonesia.
In late 1961, after repeated and unsuccessful attempts to secure its goals through the United Nations, Indonesia's President Sukarno declared a military mobilization and threatened to invade West New Guinea and annex it by force. The Kennedy administration, fearing that U.S. opposition to Indonesian demands might push the country toward Communism, sponsored talks between the Netherlands and Indonesia in the spring of 1962. Negotiations took place under the shadow of ongoing Indonesian military incursions into West New Guinea and the threat of an Indonesian invasion.
The U.S.-sponsored talks led to the August 1962 New York Agreement, which awarded Indonesia control of West New Guinea (which it promptly renamed West Irian) after a brief transitional period overseen by the UN. (Note 1) The agreement obligated Jakarta to conduct an election on self-determination with UN assistance no later than 1969. Once in control, however, Indonesia quickly moved to repress political dissent by groups demanding outright independence for the territory.
U.S. officials understood at the outset that Indonesia would never allow West Irian to become independent and that it was unlikely to ever allow a meaningful act of self-determination to take place. The Johnson and Nixon administrations were equally reluctant to challenge Indonesian control over West Irian, especially after the conservative anti-Communist regime of General Suharto took over in 1966 following an abortive coup attempt which led to the slaughter of an estimated 500,000 alleged Communists. Suharto quickly moved to liberalize the Indonesian economy and open it to the West, passing a new foreign investment law in late 1967. The first company to take advantage of the law was the American mining company Freeport Sulphur, which gained concessions to vast tracts of land in West Irian containing gold and copper reserves. (Note 2)
Over six weeks from July to August 1969, U.N. officials conducted the so-called "Act of Free Choice." Under the articles of the New York Agreement (Article 18) all adult Papuans had the right to participate in an act of self-determination to be carried out in accordance with international practice. Instead, Indonesian authorities selected 1022 West Papuans to vote publicly and unanimously in favor of integration with Indonesia.
Despite significant evidence that Indonesia had failed to meet its international obligations, in November 1969 the United Nations "took note" of the "Act of Free Choice" and its results, thereby lending support of the world body to Indonesia's annexation.
Thirty-five years later, as Indonesia holds its first-ever direct Presidential elections, the international community has come to question the validity of Jakarta's takeover of West Papua and the ongoing human rights abuses there. In March, 88 members of the Irish Parliament urged United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan to review the United Nations' role in the 1969 Act of Free Choice, joining South African Archibishop Desmond Tutu and scores of non-governmental organizations and European Parliamentarians. On June 28, 2004, nineteen U.S. Senators sent a letter to Annan urging the appointment of a Special Representative to Indonesia to monitor the human rights situation in West Papua and the territory of Aceh.
The Documents
The Archive's postings include a confidential February 1968 cable from U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia Marshall Green. Following a conversation with Indonesian Foreign Minister Adam Malik about the situation in West Irian, Green concluded that conditions in the territory are "far from satisfactory and deteriorating." A subsequent cable reported that Indonesia is "belatedly and almost desperately seeking to develop support among the peoples of West Irian" for the "Act of Free Choice."
A consular trip to West Irian in early 1968 observed that "the Indonesian government directs its main efforts" in the territory to "maintaining existing political facilities and suppressing political dissent." Because of neglect, corruption and repression at the hands of Indonesian authorities, Western observers agreed almost unanimously that "Indonesia could not win an open election" and that the vast majority of West Irian's inhabitants favored independence.
In July of 1968 the UN-appointed Ambassador Fernando Ortiz Sanz arrived in Jakarta as the Secretary General's Special Representative for assisting Indonesia with the West Irian plebiscite, as called for by the 1962 New York Agreement.
A confidential cable from the U.S. Embassy to the State Department outlined the stakes in the upcoming "Act of Free Choice." While cautioning that the U.S. government "should not become directly involved in this issue," Ambassador Green worried that Ortiz Sanz or other UN members might "hold out for free and direct elections" in West Irian, frustrating Indonesia's intention to retain the territory at all costs. Consequently, U.S. and other Western officials worried about the need to meet with Ortiz Sanz to "make him aware of political realities." In a confidential October 1968 Airgram the U.S. Embassy reported with relief that Ortiz now "concedes that it would be inconceivable from the point of view of the interest of the U.N., as well as the GOI, that a result other than the continuance of West Irian within Indonesian sovereignty should emerge."
The Indonesian government firmly rejected the possibility of a one-person, one-vote plebiscite in West Irian, insisting instead on a series of local 'consultations' with just over 1,000 hand selected tribal leaders (out of an estimated population of 800,000), conducted in July 1969 with between 6,000-10,000 Indonesian troops spread throughout the territory. As the U.S. Embassy put it in a July 1969 telegram:
The Act of Free Choice (AFC) in West Irian is unfolding like a Greek tragedy, the conclusion preordained. The main protagonist, the GOI, cannot and will not permit any resolution other than the continued inclusion of West Irian in Indonesia. Dissident activity is likely to increase but the Indonesian armed forces will be able to contain and, if necessary, suppress it.
Ambassador Frank Galbraith noted on July 9, 1969 that past abuses had stimulated intense anti-Indonesian and pro-independence sentiment at all levels of Irian society, suggesting that "possibly 85 to 90%" of the population "are in sympathy with the Free Papua cause." Moreover, Galbraith observed, recent Indonesian military operations, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds, possibly thousands of civilians, "had stimulated fears and rumours of intended genocide among the Irianese."
President Nixon and national security adviser Henry Kissinger visited Jakarta in July 1969 while the "Act of Free Choice" was underway. Improving relations with Indonesia's authoritarian regime was clearly uppermost in the mind of Kissinger, who characterized Suharto as a "moderate military man … committed to progress and reform." In Nixon's secret briefing papers (Document 9 and Document 10) for the visit Kissinger flatly told the President "you should not raise this issue" of West Irian and argued "we should avoid any U.S. identification with that act." The White House generally held to this position throughout the period preceding and following the "Act of Free Choice."
Although they recognized the deep flaws in the Act and in Indonesia's intentions, U.S. officials were not interested in creating any problems for a Suharto regime they saw as nonaligned but pro-Washington. While the U.S. was unwilling to actively intervene on Indonesia's behalf (an action they thought unnecessary and counterproductive) at the UN to insure quick General Assembly acceptance of Indonesia's formal takeover of West Papua, the U.S. quietly signaled that it was uninterested in a lengthy debate over an issue it viewed as a foregone conclusion and marginal to U.S. interests. In a secret briefing memo for a meeting with Indonesia's Ambassador to the United States Soedjakmoto, a State Department official expressed confidence that international criticism of the "Act of Free Choice" would quickly fade, allowing the Nixon Administration to move forward with its plans for forging closer military and economic ties with the authoritarian regime in Jakarta.
Documents
NOTE: The documents featured below were selected for inclusion in this Electronic Briefing Book. Click here to download the complete set of documents on this issue (PDF - 7.6 MB).
Document 1
February 29, 1968
Subject: West Irian
U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Confidential Telegram
The U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia, Marshall Green reports on a conversation with Indonesian Foreign Minister Adam Malik on West Irian. Malik suggests the possibility of reducing the more than 10,000 Indonesian troops serving in Irian. He also hints Indonesia will insist on indirect means for ascertaining the wishes of the inhabitants of the territory in 1969, perhaps relying on tribal leaders who can be induced with "favors for them and their tribes." Green expresses concern about the "deteriorating" situation.
Document 2
May 2, 1968
Subject: West Irian
U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Confidential Telegram
U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia Marshall Green, reports on a conversation with Indonesian Foreign Minister Adam Malik in which Malik outlines some of the measures Jakarta is undertaking in an attempt to build support among the people of West Irian for merger with Indonesia.
Document 3
May 10, 1968
Subject: Consular Trip to West Irian
U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Confidential Airgram
In January, 1968 Embassy Political Consul Thomas Reynders visits West Irian for one month. Reynders observes the relatively low level of economic development in the territory since Indonesia assumed control in 1962, noting that "The Indonesian government's presence in West Irian is expressed primarily in the form of the Army." Reynders concludes, as have nearly all Western observers, that "Indonesia will not accept Independence for West Irian and will not permit a plebiscite that would reach such an outcome" and notes the "antipathy or outright hatred believed to be harbored toward Indonesia and Indonesians by West Irians in the relatively developed and sophisticated areas."
Document 4
August 20, 1968
Subject: The Stakes in West Irian's "Act of Free Choice"
U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Confidential Telegram
US Ambassador Marshall Green suggests "Act of Free Choice" in West Irian "May well be the most important political issue in Indonesia during the coming year." Notes Indonesian "dilemma" in seeking "to devise some meaningful way to conduct ascertainment which will not involve real risks of loss of West Irian." Green reminds the State Department, in urging a hands-off approach by the U.S., that "we are dealing here essentially with stone age, illiterate tribal groups" and that "free elections among groups such as this would be more of a farce than any rigged mechanism Indonesia could devise."
Document 5
August 4, 1968
Subject: "Act of Free Choice" in West Irian
U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Confidential Telegram
Marshall Green writes to Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific G. McMurtry Godley expressing concern over the views of U.N. Special Representative for West Irian Ortiz Sanz. Green recommends that "in view of high stakes … we should do anything we can indirectly to make him aware of political realities" regarding Indonesian intentions toward West Irian.
Document 6
October 4, 1968
Subject: West Irian
U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Confidential Airgram
Embassy Political Consul Jack Lydman describes the results of Ortiz Sanz's recent orientation visit to West Irian and asserts that Sanz is now "attempting to devise a formula for an "act of free choice" in West Irian which will result in an affirmation of Indonesian sovereignty" yet "stand the test of international opinion."
Document 7
June 9, 1969
Subject: Assessment of Irian situation
U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Confidential Telegram
On the eve of the "Act of Free Choice," the U.S. embassy offers a highly critical appraisal of Indonesia's determination to insure West Irian's integration, concluding that from Jakarta's standpoint "separation is unthinkable." After detailing Indonesian efforts to repress "increasingly desperate" supporters of independence for West Irian, Embassy concludes with concern for "future Indonesian relations with Irianese," many of whom display a "festering antagonism and distrust of Indonesians."
Document 8
June 9, 1969
Subject: West Irian: The Nature of the Opposition
U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Confidential Airgram
Galbraith offers a detailed assessment of the views of various Irian groups opposed to integration with Indonesia and advocating independence, including the Free Papua Movement (OPM). He observes that "opposition to the GOI stems from economic deprivation over the years, military repression and capriciousness, and maladministration," and suggests that anti-Indonesian groups will be unable to alter the final outcome of the "Act of Free Choice."
Documents 9 and 10
June 10 and July 18, 1969
Subject: Djakarta Visit: Your Meetings with President Suharto
Henry Kissinger, Memorandum for the President
National security adviser Henry Kissinger briefs President Nixon on his visit to Indonesia and likely conversations with Indonesian President Suharto. Kissinger argues that there is no U.S. interest in getting involved in the issue of West Irian and that it is certain its people will choose integration with Indonesia. In Nixon's talking points, Kissinger urges that the President refrain from raising the issue except to note U.S. sympathy with Indonesia's concerns.
Document 11
August 25, 1969
Subject: Call by Indonesian Ambassador Soedjakmoto
U.S. State Department, Secret Memorandum
Paul Gardner briefs Assistant Secretary of State Marshall Green on his visit with Indonesian Ambassador to the U.S. Soedjakmoto, who is expected to ask for help from the U.S. in "preparing smooth U.N. handling" of the "Act of Free Choice" in the General Assembly.
Notes
1. For an excellent overview of the events leading up to the New York Agreement, see Jones, Matthew. Conflict and Confrontation in Southeast Asia, 1961-1965: Britain, the United States, Indonesia and the Creation of Malaysia (Cambridge: Cambridge Press, 2002): 31-62; C.L.M. Penders. The West New Guinea Debacle: Dutch Colonization and Indonesia, 1945-1962 (Hawaii, 2002); John Saltford. The United Nations and the Indonesian Takeover of West Papua, 1962-1969 (Routledge, 2003).
2. Denise Leith. The Politics of Power: Freeport in Suharto's Indonesia (Hawaii, 2003).
of Controversial Vote and Annexation
Secret Files Show U.S. Support for Indonesia,
Human Rights Abuses by Indonesian Military
Edited by Brad Simpson
simpbrad@isu.edu / 208-282-3870
Posted July 9, 2004
Washington, D.C. - July 8, 2004 - "You should tell [Suharto] that we understand the problems they face in West Irian," national security adviser Henry Kissinger wrote President Nixon on the eve of Nixon's July 1969 visit to Indonesia. On the 35th anniversary of West Papua's so-called "Act of Free Choice" and Indonesia's first direct presidential elections, the National Security Archive posted recently declassified documents on U.S. policy deliberations leading to Indonesia's controversial 1969 annexation of the territory. The documents detail United States support for Indonesia's heavy-handed takeover of West Papua despite overwhelming Papuan opposition and United Nations requirements for genuine self-determination.
Background
When Indonesia gained its independence from the Netherlands in 1949, the Dutch government retained control over the territory of West New Guinea. From 1949 until 1961 the Indonesian government sought to "recover" West New Guinea (later known as West Irian or West Papua), arguing that the territory, a part of the former Netherlands East Indies, rightfully belonged with Indonesia.
In late 1961, after repeated and unsuccessful attempts to secure its goals through the United Nations, Indonesia's President Sukarno declared a military mobilization and threatened to invade West New Guinea and annex it by force. The Kennedy administration, fearing that U.S. opposition to Indonesian demands might push the country toward Communism, sponsored talks between the Netherlands and Indonesia in the spring of 1962. Negotiations took place under the shadow of ongoing Indonesian military incursions into West New Guinea and the threat of an Indonesian invasion.
The U.S.-sponsored talks led to the August 1962 New York Agreement, which awarded Indonesia control of West New Guinea (which it promptly renamed West Irian) after a brief transitional period overseen by the UN. (Note 1) The agreement obligated Jakarta to conduct an election on self-determination with UN assistance no later than 1969. Once in control, however, Indonesia quickly moved to repress political dissent by groups demanding outright independence for the territory.
U.S. officials understood at the outset that Indonesia would never allow West Irian to become independent and that it was unlikely to ever allow a meaningful act of self-determination to take place. The Johnson and Nixon administrations were equally reluctant to challenge Indonesian control over West Irian, especially after the conservative anti-Communist regime of General Suharto took over in 1966 following an abortive coup attempt which led to the slaughter of an estimated 500,000 alleged Communists. Suharto quickly moved to liberalize the Indonesian economy and open it to the West, passing a new foreign investment law in late 1967. The first company to take advantage of the law was the American mining company Freeport Sulphur, which gained concessions to vast tracts of land in West Irian containing gold and copper reserves. (Note 2)
Over six weeks from July to August 1969, U.N. officials conducted the so-called "Act of Free Choice." Under the articles of the New York Agreement (Article 18) all adult Papuans had the right to participate in an act of self-determination to be carried out in accordance with international practice. Instead, Indonesian authorities selected 1022 West Papuans to vote publicly and unanimously in favor of integration with Indonesia.
Despite significant evidence that Indonesia had failed to meet its international obligations, in November 1969 the United Nations "took note" of the "Act of Free Choice" and its results, thereby lending support of the world body to Indonesia's annexation.
Thirty-five years later, as Indonesia holds its first-ever direct Presidential elections, the international community has come to question the validity of Jakarta's takeover of West Papua and the ongoing human rights abuses there. In March, 88 members of the Irish Parliament urged United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan to review the United Nations' role in the 1969 Act of Free Choice, joining South African Archibishop Desmond Tutu and scores of non-governmental organizations and European Parliamentarians. On June 28, 2004, nineteen U.S. Senators sent a letter to Annan urging the appointment of a Special Representative to Indonesia to monitor the human rights situation in West Papua and the territory of Aceh.
The Documents
The Archive's postings include a confidential February 1968 cable from U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia Marshall Green. Following a conversation with Indonesian Foreign Minister Adam Malik about the situation in West Irian, Green concluded that conditions in the territory are "far from satisfactory and deteriorating." A subsequent cable reported that Indonesia is "belatedly and almost desperately seeking to develop support among the peoples of West Irian" for the "Act of Free Choice."
A consular trip to West Irian in early 1968 observed that "the Indonesian government directs its main efforts" in the territory to "maintaining existing political facilities and suppressing political dissent." Because of neglect, corruption and repression at the hands of Indonesian authorities, Western observers agreed almost unanimously that "Indonesia could not win an open election" and that the vast majority of West Irian's inhabitants favored independence.
In July of 1968 the UN-appointed Ambassador Fernando Ortiz Sanz arrived in Jakarta as the Secretary General's Special Representative for assisting Indonesia with the West Irian plebiscite, as called for by the 1962 New York Agreement.
A confidential cable from the U.S. Embassy to the State Department outlined the stakes in the upcoming "Act of Free Choice." While cautioning that the U.S. government "should not become directly involved in this issue," Ambassador Green worried that Ortiz Sanz or other UN members might "hold out for free and direct elections" in West Irian, frustrating Indonesia's intention to retain the territory at all costs. Consequently, U.S. and other Western officials worried about the need to meet with Ortiz Sanz to "make him aware of political realities." In a confidential October 1968 Airgram the U.S. Embassy reported with relief that Ortiz now "concedes that it would be inconceivable from the point of view of the interest of the U.N., as well as the GOI, that a result other than the continuance of West Irian within Indonesian sovereignty should emerge."
The Indonesian government firmly rejected the possibility of a one-person, one-vote plebiscite in West Irian, insisting instead on a series of local 'consultations' with just over 1,000 hand selected tribal leaders (out of an estimated population of 800,000), conducted in July 1969 with between 6,000-10,000 Indonesian troops spread throughout the territory. As the U.S. Embassy put it in a July 1969 telegram:
The Act of Free Choice (AFC) in West Irian is unfolding like a Greek tragedy, the conclusion preordained. The main protagonist, the GOI, cannot and will not permit any resolution other than the continued inclusion of West Irian in Indonesia. Dissident activity is likely to increase but the Indonesian armed forces will be able to contain and, if necessary, suppress it.
Ambassador Frank Galbraith noted on July 9, 1969 that past abuses had stimulated intense anti-Indonesian and pro-independence sentiment at all levels of Irian society, suggesting that "possibly 85 to 90%" of the population "are in sympathy with the Free Papua cause." Moreover, Galbraith observed, recent Indonesian military operations, which resulted in the deaths of hundreds, possibly thousands of civilians, "had stimulated fears and rumours of intended genocide among the Irianese."
President Nixon and national security adviser Henry Kissinger visited Jakarta in July 1969 while the "Act of Free Choice" was underway. Improving relations with Indonesia's authoritarian regime was clearly uppermost in the mind of Kissinger, who characterized Suharto as a "moderate military man … committed to progress and reform." In Nixon's secret briefing papers (Document 9 and Document 10) for the visit Kissinger flatly told the President "you should not raise this issue" of West Irian and argued "we should avoid any U.S. identification with that act." The White House generally held to this position throughout the period preceding and following the "Act of Free Choice."
Although they recognized the deep flaws in the Act and in Indonesia's intentions, U.S. officials were not interested in creating any problems for a Suharto regime they saw as nonaligned but pro-Washington. While the U.S. was unwilling to actively intervene on Indonesia's behalf (an action they thought unnecessary and counterproductive) at the UN to insure quick General Assembly acceptance of Indonesia's formal takeover of West Papua, the U.S. quietly signaled that it was uninterested in a lengthy debate over an issue it viewed as a foregone conclusion and marginal to U.S. interests. In a secret briefing memo for a meeting with Indonesia's Ambassador to the United States Soedjakmoto, a State Department official expressed confidence that international criticism of the "Act of Free Choice" would quickly fade, allowing the Nixon Administration to move forward with its plans for forging closer military and economic ties with the authoritarian regime in Jakarta.
Documents
NOTE: The documents featured below were selected for inclusion in this Electronic Briefing Book. Click here to download the complete set of documents on this issue (PDF - 7.6 MB).
Document 1
February 29, 1968
Subject: West Irian
U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Confidential Telegram
The U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia, Marshall Green reports on a conversation with Indonesian Foreign Minister Adam Malik on West Irian. Malik suggests the possibility of reducing the more than 10,000 Indonesian troops serving in Irian. He also hints Indonesia will insist on indirect means for ascertaining the wishes of the inhabitants of the territory in 1969, perhaps relying on tribal leaders who can be induced with "favors for them and their tribes." Green expresses concern about the "deteriorating" situation.
Document 2
May 2, 1968
Subject: West Irian
U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Confidential Telegram
U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia Marshall Green, reports on a conversation with Indonesian Foreign Minister Adam Malik in which Malik outlines some of the measures Jakarta is undertaking in an attempt to build support among the people of West Irian for merger with Indonesia.
Document 3
May 10, 1968
Subject: Consular Trip to West Irian
U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Confidential Airgram
In January, 1968 Embassy Political Consul Thomas Reynders visits West Irian for one month. Reynders observes the relatively low level of economic development in the territory since Indonesia assumed control in 1962, noting that "The Indonesian government's presence in West Irian is expressed primarily in the form of the Army." Reynders concludes, as have nearly all Western observers, that "Indonesia will not accept Independence for West Irian and will not permit a plebiscite that would reach such an outcome" and notes the "antipathy or outright hatred believed to be harbored toward Indonesia and Indonesians by West Irians in the relatively developed and sophisticated areas."
Document 4
August 20, 1968
Subject: The Stakes in West Irian's "Act of Free Choice"
U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Confidential Telegram
US Ambassador Marshall Green suggests "Act of Free Choice" in West Irian "May well be the most important political issue in Indonesia during the coming year." Notes Indonesian "dilemma" in seeking "to devise some meaningful way to conduct ascertainment which will not involve real risks of loss of West Irian." Green reminds the State Department, in urging a hands-off approach by the U.S., that "we are dealing here essentially with stone age, illiterate tribal groups" and that "free elections among groups such as this would be more of a farce than any rigged mechanism Indonesia could devise."
Document 5
August 4, 1968
Subject: "Act of Free Choice" in West Irian
U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Confidential Telegram
Marshall Green writes to Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for East Asian and Pacific G. McMurtry Godley expressing concern over the views of U.N. Special Representative for West Irian Ortiz Sanz. Green recommends that "in view of high stakes … we should do anything we can indirectly to make him aware of political realities" regarding Indonesian intentions toward West Irian.
Document 6
October 4, 1968
Subject: West Irian
U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Confidential Airgram
Embassy Political Consul Jack Lydman describes the results of Ortiz Sanz's recent orientation visit to West Irian and asserts that Sanz is now "attempting to devise a formula for an "act of free choice" in West Irian which will result in an affirmation of Indonesian sovereignty" yet "stand the test of international opinion."
Document 7
June 9, 1969
Subject: Assessment of Irian situation
U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Confidential Telegram
On the eve of the "Act of Free Choice," the U.S. embassy offers a highly critical appraisal of Indonesia's determination to insure West Irian's integration, concluding that from Jakarta's standpoint "separation is unthinkable." After detailing Indonesian efforts to repress "increasingly desperate" supporters of independence for West Irian, Embassy concludes with concern for "future Indonesian relations with Irianese," many of whom display a "festering antagonism and distrust of Indonesians."
Document 8
June 9, 1969
Subject: West Irian: The Nature of the Opposition
U.S. Embassy in Jakarta, Confidential Airgram
Galbraith offers a detailed assessment of the views of various Irian groups opposed to integration with Indonesia and advocating independence, including the Free Papua Movement (OPM). He observes that "opposition to the GOI stems from economic deprivation over the years, military repression and capriciousness, and maladministration," and suggests that anti-Indonesian groups will be unable to alter the final outcome of the "Act of Free Choice."
Documents 9 and 10
June 10 and July 18, 1969
Subject: Djakarta Visit: Your Meetings with President Suharto
Henry Kissinger, Memorandum for the President
National security adviser Henry Kissinger briefs President Nixon on his visit to Indonesia and likely conversations with Indonesian President Suharto. Kissinger argues that there is no U.S. interest in getting involved in the issue of West Irian and that it is certain its people will choose integration with Indonesia. In Nixon's talking points, Kissinger urges that the President refrain from raising the issue except to note U.S. sympathy with Indonesia's concerns.
Document 11
August 25, 1969
Subject: Call by Indonesian Ambassador Soedjakmoto
U.S. State Department, Secret Memorandum
Paul Gardner briefs Assistant Secretary of State Marshall Green on his visit with Indonesian Ambassador to the U.S. Soedjakmoto, who is expected to ask for help from the U.S. in "preparing smooth U.N. handling" of the "Act of Free Choice" in the General Assembly.
Notes
1. For an excellent overview of the events leading up to the New York Agreement, see Jones, Matthew. Conflict and Confrontation in Southeast Asia, 1961-1965: Britain, the United States, Indonesia and the Creation of Malaysia (Cambridge: Cambridge Press, 2002): 31-62; C.L.M. Penders. The West New Guinea Debacle: Dutch Colonization and Indonesia, 1945-1962 (Hawaii, 2002); John Saltford. The United Nations and the Indonesian Takeover of West Papua, 1962-1969 (Routledge, 2003).
2. Denise Leith. The Politics of Power: Freeport in Suharto's Indonesia (Hawaii, 2003).
Tags:
Media Barat Utk Papua
Parliamant UK : West Papua by
West Papua
8.27 pm
Lord Harries of Pentregarth rose to ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they are making to further the independence of West Papua.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for allowing time for this short debate and, in particular, to the speakers who put their names down. We all feel some sympathy and admiration for the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, who has had to battle in such an indomitable way for so many hours already, and must now face a fresh subject.
West Papua may seem far away and its problems small compared with the very grave situation in the Middle East. To its people those problems are immediate and painful, and the principles at stake are fundamental to civilised life in the modern world. The issue at the heart of this question, as in the conflict in West Papua itself, is whether a people have the right to self-determination and, if so, how we ensure that they can freely choose to exercise that right. The West Papuans are a people—the same people as those of Papua New Guinea on the east of the island— who obtained their independence from Britain over 30 years ago. They have no desire to be ruled from Jakarta. As a Foreign and Commonwealth Office briefing in 1969, now publicly available, put it:
8 Jan 2007 : Column 91
“Privately, however, we recognise that the people of West Irian (West Papua) have no desire to be ruled by the Indonesians who are of an alien (Javanese) race”.
It went on to say that,
“the process of consultation did not allow a genuinely free choice to be made”.
That is putting it very mildly. The so-called Act of Free Choice consisted of 1,026 people being forced at gunpoint to vote for integration with Suharto’s Indonesia, and this being taken as the voice of the people.
That this is the case is now publicly recognised by the British Government. In a historic statement to this House in answer to a Starred Question in my name, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, who was then the Minister, acknowledged that,
“there were 1,000 handpicked representatives and that they were largely coerced into declaring for inclusion in Indonesia”.—[Official Report, 13/12/04; col. 1084.]
The question now is: what can be done to rectify this historical wrong and what is the next step? In particular, what steps are the Government taking? The policy of the Indonesian Government is to divide the country into three provinces, two of which have come into being with, in theory, a limited degree of local autonomy in each one. It has to be said plainly that this policy is not working and will not work. It is leading to increasing unrest, human rights abuses and the build-up of military forces in each of the three areas. I am afraid that it is the age-old policy of divide and rule—a policy that has a particular economic dimension in West Papua, when one province has the liquid gas. It will not satisfy the West Papuan people who wish for self-determination as a people, not rule from Java through a well-funded elite and a strong military presence. Where do we go from here? I have three questions for the Government. I leave the important question of arms sales, particularly arms that can be used for internal repression, to others.
First, will the Government take the lead in bringing this issue to the United Nations? I do not underestimate the difficulties. A number of powerful countries have strong economic ties to Indonesia, not least in the arms trade, and will be only too anxious not to make a fuss about this matter, as they were anxious not to make a fuss about it at the time of the so-called “Act of Free Choice” in 1969. We are, of course, one of those countries. But this Government, through the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, had the honesty to admit that what happened in 1969 was a total travesty. The Government can only enhance their reputation by carrying this issue forwards with—and these are the key words—a steady and consistent policy.
The public recognition in this House in December 2004 was only a first step. To mean anything, it must be pursued. In particular, will the Government make a public commitment to support a UN-sponsored rerun of the flawed in 1969 “Act of Free Choice”, this time as a genuine, one-person-one-vote referendum, internationally monitored and giving the tribal peoples of West Papua the chance to choose freely between independence, free association or continued integration with Indonesia.
8 Jan 2007 : Column 92
Secondly, will the Government make more specific representations about the human rights abuses taking place, documented by Amnesty International? It has been estimated that, since 1969, more than 100,000 West Papuans have been killed and there are now some 9,000 refugees in Papua New Guinea. The Catholic Church's Papuan Peace and Justice Secretariat reported in June last year that students who had been arrested after a peaceful demonstration and been interviewed by their investigators had been denied access to legal representation and had suffered physical and mental torture. At present, there are more than 100 political prisoners in West Papua of whom I mention only two this evening, Filep Karma and Yusak Pakage, who were jailed for 15 and 10 years respectively for raising the West Papuan national flag—the morning star—on 1 December 2004, and who have been recognised by Amnesty International as political prisoners. The date of 1 December is significant because that was the day in 1961 that the Dutch granted West Papua independence, an independence which was quickly and sadly lost when Indonesia invaded the island in 1962, claiming it for themselves.
I understand that the Government are generally monitoring the situation of political prisoners through their embassy in Jakarta, but will they specifically raise the issue of these two prisoners of conscience, Filep Karma and Yusak Pakage, with the Indonesian Government and make it clear to them that not only must they be treated humanely, but that the basis of their charge and imprisonment is totally unacceptable in any society that claims to be democratic?
Then, thirdly, arising from this there is the whole question of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to form political parties, freedom of access for journalists and NGOs and the importance of achieving a genuine dialogue between the Indonesian Government and the people in West Papua who wish to raise the issue of self-determination.
At the moment the Indonesian Government lay down a pre-condition that this subject cannot even be raised in discussions. Yet that is the issue at the heart of this conflict. The West Papuans are a peace-loving people and they want to talk about what matters to them. At the moment, this is prevented by the heavy military presence and the refusal of the Indonesian authorities even to allow certain questions to be raised. Linked to this is their refusal to allow access to outsiders who raise these questions. In May of last year the UNHCR’s regional representative said in evidence to an Australian Senate inquiry,
“I can confirm that, despite repeated requests, the UNHCR has not been given permission by the Government in Jakarta to have access to West Papua”.
Other aid agencies and nearly all foreign journalists, as well as Amnesty International’s fact-finding mission, have also been refused permission to visit.
After its historic recognition in December 2004, I hope that the Government will pursue this matter with a steady and consistent policy in three ways: first, with a view to achieving a genuinely free vote about self-determination; secondly, by raising the
8 Jan 2007 : Column 93
matter of serious human rights’ abuses, particularly in relation to Filep Karma and Yusak Pakage; and, thirdly, by urging the basic freedoms of speech, assembly and access, which are absolutely fundamental to any country that regards itself as democratic.
8.36 pm
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, is to be congratulated on bringing this matter to our attention. He has long championed the human rights of the people of West Papua, keeping their plight before the House and the British public for a number of years. He is to be thanked for doing so again this evening, and the least that we can do for him in this short debate is to press my noble friend the Minister to inject some urgency into efforts to address the flagrant denial of justice to the people of West Papua. The noble Lord has put forward an admirable programme and some practical suggestions. If every speaker simply does that, it might give the weight of the whole House this evening to some practical outcomes.
As the noble Lord said, when my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean admitted in an answer to a previous debate that the 1969 Act of Free Choice was a flawed exercise, she went on to ask a simple question: “What should happen now?”. She gave the beginnings of an answer to her own question by suggesting that, as 35 years had passed since the flawed referendum of 1969, it would be better to look to new proposals then being put forward than to continue to harp on about ancient events. Special autonomy legislation only recently passed by the Indonesian Government would, she said, grant,
“70 per cent of oil and gas royalties originating in Papua—as well as 80 per cent of forestry, fishery and mining royalties—to the people of Papua”.—[Official Report, 13/12/04; cols. 1084-85.]
A truth and reconciliation committee had been set up to look into a number of the offences that people were complaining about. It would be best, said the noble Baroness, to see how the measures were embedding before we mapped a way forward.
What she did not say was that, between 1969 and 2004, the same 35 years that were considered to have consigned the referendum to ancient history, there had been a massive transmigration programme that brought 1.2 million people into West Papua of Javanese and Sumatran origin, nearly all of them Muslims. That changed the nature of Papuan society and culture radically. The Indonesian Government implemented the same policies at roughly the same time in East Timor and with the same objective—to change the nature and allegiances of a people who were being obstreperous and seeking their rights of self-determination. Incidentally, in Eritrea, Ethiopia attempted the same business of changing the nature of the population to achieve its ultimate goals.
The benefits of the new legislation—the special autonomy legislation—would accrue not to a Papuan population at all but to one so radically different that fewer than 50 per cent of the population were the original indigenous Papuans in the first place. The
8 Jan 2007 : Column 94
noble Lord, Lord Harries, mentioned the large number—more than 100,000 at the lowest estimates—of people of Papuan origin who had been killed in the same period.
We have seen in the way in which Eritrea was abandoned by its United Nations overseers in the post-war period to the whims of Ethiopia a similar case of injustice. It was a United Nations set-up body that in New York allowed Indonesia to annex West Papua to itself. The Eritrean People’s Liberation Army fought a long war of attrition to attain its rightful status, and I was present on the day of the referendum in 1993 when, with great jubilation, at last the Eritrean people felt that they had gained their objective despite the opposition of the international community; so, too, the Free Papua Movement may be counted on to maintain its opposition to the present arrangements and to seek the support of the world community in achieving its legitimate objectives.
The 1969 Act of Free Choice was both cynical and wrong. It involved about 1,000 hand-picked people; a significant number of them were tribal leaders who were rounded up a month before the referendum and indoctrinated so that they would vote as they were obliged to, at gunpoint, on the day of the referendum. The voting exercise was overseen by, of all people, the Indonesian army, mainly. There were a couple of objective overseas observers, but they left before the vote was completed. All responsible commentators agree with that analysis. No amount of truth and reconciliation will hide or play down that basic fact.
Indonesia has been seen by all the major players in the West as an important bastion against communism. The United States has played a significant part in seeing the outcomes that we are discussing this evening come to pass, but our own country is associated with it and so is Australia. Even the Vatican, because of the significant number of powerful Roman Catholics in the Indonesian republic, has preferred to turn a blind eye to some of these questions on the margin of its consideration.
In view of that, we must ask ourselves how we implement an ethical foreign policy towards this small region. The question will not go away; it did not do so in Eritrea or East Timor, nor will it in West Papua. I hope that my noble friend will help her colleagues in government to show a preferential option to those suffering injustice, as this is a case clamouring for appropriate attention.
8.43 pm
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, together with my noble friend Lord Griffiths, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Harries on again drawing attention to a subject that for too long has represented a dereliction of responsibility by the international community. Any unlawful usurpation should evoke condemnation if international law is not to be brought into disrepute, but here there has been persecution, murder, evictions and burning of the villages of innocent human beings, while the world has looked on. Surely that will reflect opprobrium on our generation from those who come after us.
8 Jan 2007 : Column 95
We could debate at length the precise criteria for the right of a people to self-determination. Those debates go back to the League of Nations, but today we are spared legal hair splitting. Here, there is a population of 800,000 people, racially differentiated from the population of Indonesia, with its own history, culture, and inhabiting a clearly defined territory, yet ruled by an alien administration which by a persistent policy of repression and terror has made itself hated and feared.
We have every criterion for the right to self-determination. The principle is declared in Article 1.2 of the United Nations charter and further enshrined in the two human rights covenants of 1966. There is clear consensus that two principles follow. First, the right includes the right of a people to decide how to exercise its choice. It is for the people to decide who their delegates are to be and what the decision-making process is to be. They are entitled to do that free from any pressures, internal or external, after such free discussions as their choice may require. Secondly, the right is continuing and not exhausted once it has been exercised, validly or otherwise. A right to choose entails a right to make continuing choices as circumstances change or simply if there is a change of mind. A third principle, while we are passing, is that the right includes a right to enjoy the natural resources of the area and to decide how they are to be developed and exploited. Article 1.2 of the international economic covenant reads:
“All peoples may, for their own end, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources”,
subject, of course, to existing obligations.
The situation has a shamefully long drawn-out history of which the international community has no reason to be proud. In 1949, the Netherlands Government conceded independence to Indonesia, but vast areas had been included in the territory purely for the purposes of administration and not by any stretch of the imagination because they were a natural part of Indonesia. The Indonesian Government said that the newly acquired statehood should extend throughout that territory. The Netherlands Government said that the peoples of West Irian were entitled to decide whether they should be included in the new state or whether they should have some other status.
Up to that point, the Papuan people had not been invited to participate in the discussions. The Netherlands said that the issue should be decided by the United Nations. Indonesia said that it was an internal matter, not the concern of the international community, and that it should be resolved by negotiations between Indonesia and the Netherlands, which clearly would never eventuate in an agreement. Nevertheless, the General Assembly discussed the question in 1954 and again in 1961 but was unable to agree on a resolution. It is worth pointing out that in those debates West Papua had no representation—it had no seat in the General Assembly.
On 31 December 1961, West Papua achieved a very short-lived independence. The Indonesian Government terminated it unilaterally by military
8 Jan 2007 : Column 96
force. In 1962, Indonesia and the Netherlands reached the New York agreement, which was designed to resolve the issue. The Netherlands would transfer administration of West Papua to a United Nations Temporary Executive Authority established by and answerable to the Secretary-General. It was said that arrangements would be put in place for the people of West Irian to choose in accordance with international practice and with the participation of all adults, male and female. That agreement was approved by the General Assembly, so it was accepted by all concerned that the population of West Papua was a separate and identifiable people entitled to self-determination. I hope that, in replying, my noble friend will clarify whether the Government accept that conclusion or, if not, why not.
The outcome of such a choice was predictable. We now know that John Kennedy’s ambassador reported 85 to 90 per cent of the population as being in sympathy with the Free Papua Movement. That outcome would have left Indonesia, as my noble friend Lord Griffiths said, blaming the West. The United States was concerned that if Indonesia turned to the communist bloc there would be an outpost of communism in east Asia. The Temporary Executive Authority proved to be very temporary. It was persuaded by the United States to acquiesce in the assumption of control by the Indonesian Government. That was fatal to any hope of a fair entitlement. It led to the infamous Act of Free Choice about which both noble Lords have already spoken, and I will not repeat that. It has been condemned by international lawyers and by other authorities again and again.
There the situation rests. The Indonesian Government introduced the special autonomy law in 2001, as my noble friend Lord Griffiths pointed out, but there has been no autonomy, and the atrocities go on. As all too often, the persecution, the murders and the incarcerations will continue for as long as the protest continues, and that will continue as long as the situation remains as it is. Any form of international action can take place only if it is initiated by a national Government. The United Kingdom Government still carry respect and influence in these matters. The question is whether they retain their dedication to an ethical foreign policy. I am sure that I know the answer that my noble friend would like to give; many of us are looking forward to hearing the answer that she is authorised to give.
8.51 pm
Lord Judd: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, on introducing this important debate tonight. There were many reasons for wanting to intervene; perhaps the whole issue of human rights, to which the noble Lord referred, would be sufficient in itself. We have a Government who claim that they want to see a world based on human rights, accountable government and democracy. They want to play a full part in working towards that world. It logically follows, therefore, that we have an interest in the injustice of the situation in West Papua.
8 Jan 2007 : Column 97
I am afraid that I see in the situation too many sinister and ominous parallels with East Timor. I have visited Indonesia on a number of occasions, and I visited East Timor in the final stage, just before the terrible conflict that led to independence. The people of that part of the world are wonderful; they deserve more than they are enjoying.
Sometimes in debates of this kind we become a bit theoretical and remote in our analysis, and I therefore am not ashamed to bring to the attention of the House a letter that was brought to my attention fairly recently. It is an open letter written by Benny Wenda, the chairman of the Koteka Tribal Assembly and the leader of the West Papua Independence Movement, to the Indonesian ambassador in Britain, who had apparently expressed surprise that West Papua was seeking independence. This letter, written with some passion, was to tell him why. In the letter, Benny Wenda referred first to what we have already heard about the invasion of their land. He then referred to the referendum that was offered as a so-called act of free choice, which in fact was in the context of the ruthless intimidation of those who were likely to vote for independence. Then there was the removal of people to make way for the exploitation of gold, copper, oil and timber reserves. Again, ruthless techniques were employed, such as bombing from helicopters. People were rendered homeless, raped and murdered; all this was part of what happened.
Perhaps I can quote directly from the letter, which is passionate and written with real feeling:
“Then you started to rip open and destroy our Land. We call our Land our Mother because she gives us everything we need to live. You sold our Mother to British, American & Australian companies like Rio Tinto & BP. You got rich whilst we West Papuans got poorer, not because we want your kind of riches, but because without our Mother we die”.
He concluded:
“Now you say that we are ‘free and equal citizens of the new Indonesian democracy’. But when we tell you we want to use this ‘new free democracy’ to campaign democratically and peacefully for independence and when we just want to see our own flag flying in our own Sky, you cover our Land with soldiers, you put us in prison, you torture us and you kill us”.
I have no first-hand experience by which I can assess these accusations, but I have the experience of visits to Indonesia and to East Timor and I am afraid that the accusations ring all too true to me.
Obviously, it is not convincing to contemplate a world in which every ethnic group has a national identity of its own. That would make neither political nor economic sense. But consent is essential if countries are to stand together in meaningful democracy and freedom, and consent depends on trust. Where trust is absent—and it seems to be totally absent in this case—consent can hardly be expected. The genie is out of the bottle.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldhansrd/text/70108-0013.htm#07010827000002
8.27 pm
Lord Harries of Pentregarth rose to ask Her Majesty’s Government what representations they are making to further the independence of West Papua.
The noble Lord said: My Lords, I am grateful to the Government for allowing time for this short debate and, in particular, to the speakers who put their names down. We all feel some sympathy and admiration for the noble Baroness, Lady Royall, who has had to battle in such an indomitable way for so many hours already, and must now face a fresh subject.
West Papua may seem far away and its problems small compared with the very grave situation in the Middle East. To its people those problems are immediate and painful, and the principles at stake are fundamental to civilised life in the modern world. The issue at the heart of this question, as in the conflict in West Papua itself, is whether a people have the right to self-determination and, if so, how we ensure that they can freely choose to exercise that right. The West Papuans are a people—the same people as those of Papua New Guinea on the east of the island— who obtained their independence from Britain over 30 years ago. They have no desire to be ruled from Jakarta. As a Foreign and Commonwealth Office briefing in 1969, now publicly available, put it:
8 Jan 2007 : Column 91
“Privately, however, we recognise that the people of West Irian (West Papua) have no desire to be ruled by the Indonesians who are of an alien (Javanese) race”.
It went on to say that,
“the process of consultation did not allow a genuinely free choice to be made”.
That is putting it very mildly. The so-called Act of Free Choice consisted of 1,026 people being forced at gunpoint to vote for integration with Suharto’s Indonesia, and this being taken as the voice of the people.
That this is the case is now publicly recognised by the British Government. In a historic statement to this House in answer to a Starred Question in my name, the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, who was then the Minister, acknowledged that,
“there were 1,000 handpicked representatives and that they were largely coerced into declaring for inclusion in Indonesia”.—[Official Report, 13/12/04; col. 1084.]
The question now is: what can be done to rectify this historical wrong and what is the next step? In particular, what steps are the Government taking? The policy of the Indonesian Government is to divide the country into three provinces, two of which have come into being with, in theory, a limited degree of local autonomy in each one. It has to be said plainly that this policy is not working and will not work. It is leading to increasing unrest, human rights abuses and the build-up of military forces in each of the three areas. I am afraid that it is the age-old policy of divide and rule—a policy that has a particular economic dimension in West Papua, when one province has the liquid gas. It will not satisfy the West Papuan people who wish for self-determination as a people, not rule from Java through a well-funded elite and a strong military presence. Where do we go from here? I have three questions for the Government. I leave the important question of arms sales, particularly arms that can be used for internal repression, to others.
First, will the Government take the lead in bringing this issue to the United Nations? I do not underestimate the difficulties. A number of powerful countries have strong economic ties to Indonesia, not least in the arms trade, and will be only too anxious not to make a fuss about this matter, as they were anxious not to make a fuss about it at the time of the so-called “Act of Free Choice” in 1969. We are, of course, one of those countries. But this Government, through the noble Baroness, Lady Symons, had the honesty to admit that what happened in 1969 was a total travesty. The Government can only enhance their reputation by carrying this issue forwards with—and these are the key words—a steady and consistent policy.
The public recognition in this House in December 2004 was only a first step. To mean anything, it must be pursued. In particular, will the Government make a public commitment to support a UN-sponsored rerun of the flawed in 1969 “Act of Free Choice”, this time as a genuine, one-person-one-vote referendum, internationally monitored and giving the tribal peoples of West Papua the chance to choose freely between independence, free association or continued integration with Indonesia.
8 Jan 2007 : Column 92
Secondly, will the Government make more specific representations about the human rights abuses taking place, documented by Amnesty International? It has been estimated that, since 1969, more than 100,000 West Papuans have been killed and there are now some 9,000 refugees in Papua New Guinea. The Catholic Church's Papuan Peace and Justice Secretariat reported in June last year that students who had been arrested after a peaceful demonstration and been interviewed by their investigators had been denied access to legal representation and had suffered physical and mental torture. At present, there are more than 100 political prisoners in West Papua of whom I mention only two this evening, Filep Karma and Yusak Pakage, who were jailed for 15 and 10 years respectively for raising the West Papuan national flag—the morning star—on 1 December 2004, and who have been recognised by Amnesty International as political prisoners. The date of 1 December is significant because that was the day in 1961 that the Dutch granted West Papua independence, an independence which was quickly and sadly lost when Indonesia invaded the island in 1962, claiming it for themselves.
I understand that the Government are generally monitoring the situation of political prisoners through their embassy in Jakarta, but will they specifically raise the issue of these two prisoners of conscience, Filep Karma and Yusak Pakage, with the Indonesian Government and make it clear to them that not only must they be treated humanely, but that the basis of their charge and imprisonment is totally unacceptable in any society that claims to be democratic?
Then, thirdly, arising from this there is the whole question of freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom to form political parties, freedom of access for journalists and NGOs and the importance of achieving a genuine dialogue between the Indonesian Government and the people in West Papua who wish to raise the issue of self-determination.
At the moment the Indonesian Government lay down a pre-condition that this subject cannot even be raised in discussions. Yet that is the issue at the heart of this conflict. The West Papuans are a peace-loving people and they want to talk about what matters to them. At the moment, this is prevented by the heavy military presence and the refusal of the Indonesian authorities even to allow certain questions to be raised. Linked to this is their refusal to allow access to outsiders who raise these questions. In May of last year the UNHCR’s regional representative said in evidence to an Australian Senate inquiry,
“I can confirm that, despite repeated requests, the UNHCR has not been given permission by the Government in Jakarta to have access to West Papua”.
Other aid agencies and nearly all foreign journalists, as well as Amnesty International’s fact-finding mission, have also been refused permission to visit.
After its historic recognition in December 2004, I hope that the Government will pursue this matter with a steady and consistent policy in three ways: first, with a view to achieving a genuinely free vote about self-determination; secondly, by raising the
8 Jan 2007 : Column 93
matter of serious human rights’ abuses, particularly in relation to Filep Karma and Yusak Pakage; and, thirdly, by urging the basic freedoms of speech, assembly and access, which are absolutely fundamental to any country that regards itself as democratic.
8.36 pm
Lord Griffiths of Burry Port: My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, is to be congratulated on bringing this matter to our attention. He has long championed the human rights of the people of West Papua, keeping their plight before the House and the British public for a number of years. He is to be thanked for doing so again this evening, and the least that we can do for him in this short debate is to press my noble friend the Minister to inject some urgency into efforts to address the flagrant denial of justice to the people of West Papua. The noble Lord has put forward an admirable programme and some practical suggestions. If every speaker simply does that, it might give the weight of the whole House this evening to some practical outcomes.
As the noble Lord said, when my noble friend Lady Symons of Vernham Dean admitted in an answer to a previous debate that the 1969 Act of Free Choice was a flawed exercise, she went on to ask a simple question: “What should happen now?”. She gave the beginnings of an answer to her own question by suggesting that, as 35 years had passed since the flawed referendum of 1969, it would be better to look to new proposals then being put forward than to continue to harp on about ancient events. Special autonomy legislation only recently passed by the Indonesian Government would, she said, grant,
“70 per cent of oil and gas royalties originating in Papua—as well as 80 per cent of forestry, fishery and mining royalties—to the people of Papua”.—[Official Report, 13/12/04; cols. 1084-85.]
A truth and reconciliation committee had been set up to look into a number of the offences that people were complaining about. It would be best, said the noble Baroness, to see how the measures were embedding before we mapped a way forward.
What she did not say was that, between 1969 and 2004, the same 35 years that were considered to have consigned the referendum to ancient history, there had been a massive transmigration programme that brought 1.2 million people into West Papua of Javanese and Sumatran origin, nearly all of them Muslims. That changed the nature of Papuan society and culture radically. The Indonesian Government implemented the same policies at roughly the same time in East Timor and with the same objective—to change the nature and allegiances of a people who were being obstreperous and seeking their rights of self-determination. Incidentally, in Eritrea, Ethiopia attempted the same business of changing the nature of the population to achieve its ultimate goals.
The benefits of the new legislation—the special autonomy legislation—would accrue not to a Papuan population at all but to one so radically different that fewer than 50 per cent of the population were the original indigenous Papuans in the first place. The
8 Jan 2007 : Column 94
noble Lord, Lord Harries, mentioned the large number—more than 100,000 at the lowest estimates—of people of Papuan origin who had been killed in the same period.
We have seen in the way in which Eritrea was abandoned by its United Nations overseers in the post-war period to the whims of Ethiopia a similar case of injustice. It was a United Nations set-up body that in New York allowed Indonesia to annex West Papua to itself. The Eritrean People’s Liberation Army fought a long war of attrition to attain its rightful status, and I was present on the day of the referendum in 1993 when, with great jubilation, at last the Eritrean people felt that they had gained their objective despite the opposition of the international community; so, too, the Free Papua Movement may be counted on to maintain its opposition to the present arrangements and to seek the support of the world community in achieving its legitimate objectives.
The 1969 Act of Free Choice was both cynical and wrong. It involved about 1,000 hand-picked people; a significant number of them were tribal leaders who were rounded up a month before the referendum and indoctrinated so that they would vote as they were obliged to, at gunpoint, on the day of the referendum. The voting exercise was overseen by, of all people, the Indonesian army, mainly. There were a couple of objective overseas observers, but they left before the vote was completed. All responsible commentators agree with that analysis. No amount of truth and reconciliation will hide or play down that basic fact.
Indonesia has been seen by all the major players in the West as an important bastion against communism. The United States has played a significant part in seeing the outcomes that we are discussing this evening come to pass, but our own country is associated with it and so is Australia. Even the Vatican, because of the significant number of powerful Roman Catholics in the Indonesian republic, has preferred to turn a blind eye to some of these questions on the margin of its consideration.
In view of that, we must ask ourselves how we implement an ethical foreign policy towards this small region. The question will not go away; it did not do so in Eritrea or East Timor, nor will it in West Papua. I hope that my noble friend will help her colleagues in government to show a preferential option to those suffering injustice, as this is a case clamouring for appropriate attention.
8.43 pm
Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, together with my noble friend Lord Griffiths, I congratulate my noble friend Lord Harries on again drawing attention to a subject that for too long has represented a dereliction of responsibility by the international community. Any unlawful usurpation should evoke condemnation if international law is not to be brought into disrepute, but here there has been persecution, murder, evictions and burning of the villages of innocent human beings, while the world has looked on. Surely that will reflect opprobrium on our generation from those who come after us.
8 Jan 2007 : Column 95
We could debate at length the precise criteria for the right of a people to self-determination. Those debates go back to the League of Nations, but today we are spared legal hair splitting. Here, there is a population of 800,000 people, racially differentiated from the population of Indonesia, with its own history, culture, and inhabiting a clearly defined territory, yet ruled by an alien administration which by a persistent policy of repression and terror has made itself hated and feared.
We have every criterion for the right to self-determination. The principle is declared in Article 1.2 of the United Nations charter and further enshrined in the two human rights covenants of 1966. There is clear consensus that two principles follow. First, the right includes the right of a people to decide how to exercise its choice. It is for the people to decide who their delegates are to be and what the decision-making process is to be. They are entitled to do that free from any pressures, internal or external, after such free discussions as their choice may require. Secondly, the right is continuing and not exhausted once it has been exercised, validly or otherwise. A right to choose entails a right to make continuing choices as circumstances change or simply if there is a change of mind. A third principle, while we are passing, is that the right includes a right to enjoy the natural resources of the area and to decide how they are to be developed and exploited. Article 1.2 of the international economic covenant reads:
“All peoples may, for their own end, freely dispose of their natural wealth and resources”,
subject, of course, to existing obligations.
The situation has a shamefully long drawn-out history of which the international community has no reason to be proud. In 1949, the Netherlands Government conceded independence to Indonesia, but vast areas had been included in the territory purely for the purposes of administration and not by any stretch of the imagination because they were a natural part of Indonesia. The Indonesian Government said that the newly acquired statehood should extend throughout that territory. The Netherlands Government said that the peoples of West Irian were entitled to decide whether they should be included in the new state or whether they should have some other status.
Up to that point, the Papuan people had not been invited to participate in the discussions. The Netherlands said that the issue should be decided by the United Nations. Indonesia said that it was an internal matter, not the concern of the international community, and that it should be resolved by negotiations between Indonesia and the Netherlands, which clearly would never eventuate in an agreement. Nevertheless, the General Assembly discussed the question in 1954 and again in 1961 but was unable to agree on a resolution. It is worth pointing out that in those debates West Papua had no representation—it had no seat in the General Assembly.
On 31 December 1961, West Papua achieved a very short-lived independence. The Indonesian Government terminated it unilaterally by military
8 Jan 2007 : Column 96
force. In 1962, Indonesia and the Netherlands reached the New York agreement, which was designed to resolve the issue. The Netherlands would transfer administration of West Papua to a United Nations Temporary Executive Authority established by and answerable to the Secretary-General. It was said that arrangements would be put in place for the people of West Irian to choose in accordance with international practice and with the participation of all adults, male and female. That agreement was approved by the General Assembly, so it was accepted by all concerned that the population of West Papua was a separate and identifiable people entitled to self-determination. I hope that, in replying, my noble friend will clarify whether the Government accept that conclusion or, if not, why not.
The outcome of such a choice was predictable. We now know that John Kennedy’s ambassador reported 85 to 90 per cent of the population as being in sympathy with the Free Papua Movement. That outcome would have left Indonesia, as my noble friend Lord Griffiths said, blaming the West. The United States was concerned that if Indonesia turned to the communist bloc there would be an outpost of communism in east Asia. The Temporary Executive Authority proved to be very temporary. It was persuaded by the United States to acquiesce in the assumption of control by the Indonesian Government. That was fatal to any hope of a fair entitlement. It led to the infamous Act of Free Choice about which both noble Lords have already spoken, and I will not repeat that. It has been condemned by international lawyers and by other authorities again and again.
There the situation rests. The Indonesian Government introduced the special autonomy law in 2001, as my noble friend Lord Griffiths pointed out, but there has been no autonomy, and the atrocities go on. As all too often, the persecution, the murders and the incarcerations will continue for as long as the protest continues, and that will continue as long as the situation remains as it is. Any form of international action can take place only if it is initiated by a national Government. The United Kingdom Government still carry respect and influence in these matters. The question is whether they retain their dedication to an ethical foreign policy. I am sure that I know the answer that my noble friend would like to give; many of us are looking forward to hearing the answer that she is authorised to give.
8.51 pm
Lord Judd: My Lords, I, too, congratulate the noble Lord, Lord Harries of Pentregarth, on introducing this important debate tonight. There were many reasons for wanting to intervene; perhaps the whole issue of human rights, to which the noble Lord referred, would be sufficient in itself. We have a Government who claim that they want to see a world based on human rights, accountable government and democracy. They want to play a full part in working towards that world. It logically follows, therefore, that we have an interest in the injustice of the situation in West Papua.
8 Jan 2007 : Column 97
I am afraid that I see in the situation too many sinister and ominous parallels with East Timor. I have visited Indonesia on a number of occasions, and I visited East Timor in the final stage, just before the terrible conflict that led to independence. The people of that part of the world are wonderful; they deserve more than they are enjoying.
Sometimes in debates of this kind we become a bit theoretical and remote in our analysis, and I therefore am not ashamed to bring to the attention of the House a letter that was brought to my attention fairly recently. It is an open letter written by Benny Wenda, the chairman of the Koteka Tribal Assembly and the leader of the West Papua Independence Movement, to the Indonesian ambassador in Britain, who had apparently expressed surprise that West Papua was seeking independence. This letter, written with some passion, was to tell him why. In the letter, Benny Wenda referred first to what we have already heard about the invasion of their land. He then referred to the referendum that was offered as a so-called act of free choice, which in fact was in the context of the ruthless intimidation of those who were likely to vote for independence. Then there was the removal of people to make way for the exploitation of gold, copper, oil and timber reserves. Again, ruthless techniques were employed, such as bombing from helicopters. People were rendered homeless, raped and murdered; all this was part of what happened.
Perhaps I can quote directly from the letter, which is passionate and written with real feeling:
“Then you started to rip open and destroy our Land. We call our Land our Mother because she gives us everything we need to live. You sold our Mother to British, American & Australian companies like Rio Tinto & BP. You got rich whilst we West Papuans got poorer, not because we want your kind of riches, but because without our Mother we die”.
He concluded:
“Now you say that we are ‘free and equal citizens of the new Indonesian democracy’. But when we tell you we want to use this ‘new free democracy’ to campaign democratically and peacefully for independence and when we just want to see our own flag flying in our own Sky, you cover our Land with soldiers, you put us in prison, you torture us and you kill us”.
I have no first-hand experience by which I can assess these accusations, but I have the experience of visits to Indonesia and to East Timor and I am afraid that the accusations ring all too true to me.
Obviously, it is not convincing to contemplate a world in which every ethnic group has a national identity of its own. That would make neither political nor economic sense. But consent is essential if countries are to stand together in meaningful democracy and freedom, and consent depends on trust. Where trust is absent—and it seems to be totally absent in this case—consent can hardly be expected. The genie is out of the bottle.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldhansrd/text/70108-0013.htm#07010827000002
Tags:
Media Barat Utk Papua
Indonesia's 'slow motion genocide'
Indonesia's 'slow motion genocide'
By ignoring Indonesian army killings in West Papua, the western press is tacitly colluding in mass murder
I have a hit list in my hand. Fifteen people are threatened with assassination because they speak out for freedom and democracy, against a massacre. One of them, in a list of civilians including church ministers, youth leaders, legislators and an anthropologist, is a friend of mine.
The hit list is compiled by Kopassus, the Indonesian army's notorious special forces unit, responsible for vicious human rights abuses in Timor-Leste and West Papua. Kopassus targets these 15 for their "prohibited speech" that has "reached the outside world", bearing witness to "the issue of severe human rights violations in Papua". These are the words of Kopassus itself, in a leaked report given to investigative reporter Allan Nairn, last month. Kopassus has not denied its veracity.
Although the US Leahy Law forbids funding to military units that violate human rights, Kopassus is now being supported by president Obama, under the guise of fighting terrorism. The Kopassus document gives the lie to that, showing their systematic targeting of civilians. Number five on their list is the current president of the Papuan Presidium Council, whose predecessor, Theys Eluay, had his throat slit in 2001. While I was in West Papua, I met the then-president, who told me he had also been the victim of a failed assassination.
My friend, a church minister, told me of widespread abuse, rape and killings. Another told me about seeing soldiers torture and murder around 100 villagers. In October, video footage showed West Papuan villagers being tortured by the military. Yelps, gulps and sobs of fear and pain momentarily broke a media silence until the websites hosting the footage were subject to cyber attacks. But the chances are you won't know anything about this, because the media does not bear witness to it. In a form of lethal meekness so well exposed by John Pilger, journalists say Indonesia refuses entry to the media. This is entirely correct and entirely spurious. It is not difficult to go there: buy a ticket, say you're a tourist, and get your notebook out.
A functional media is as important to democratic freedom as voting. West Papua has been robbed of both. Indonesia invaded in 1962. In 1969, under the "act of free choice", 1,026 West Papuans were ordered at gunpoint to vote for integration with Indonesia. This contravened international law, and was a travesty of democracy. "The process of consultation did not allow a genuinely free choice to be made," said a British Foreign and Commonwealth Office briefing that year. The American embassy in Jakarta in June 1969 knew what was in store for the Papuans: the act of free choice, according to the embassy, "is unfolding like a Greek tragedy, the conclusion pre-ordained".
The reasons for this collusion become clear if you rewind to 1967, when president Suharto's men struck a deal to hand over West Papua's wealth of natural resources to international companies, including a mountain of copper and gold – now the world's most valuable mine, Freeport McMoRan.
In return, Indonesia received billions of corporate dollars plus, crucially, international connivance in covering up human rights abuses. Racism played a part: those who would suffer, said the British embassy, were merely "a relatively small number of very primitive people", occupying what a White House adviser dismissed as "a few thousand miles of cannibal land".
A massive transmigration programme of Javanese aims to make Papuans a minority in their own lands. At least 100,000 Papuans, according to Amnesty International, have been murdered, with weaponry provided by British and American companies in lucrative arms deals. Obama knows this: just ahead of his November visit to Indonesia, 50 members of the US Congress wrote to him concerning West Papua's "slow-motion genocide", and Congress held a (barely reported) hearing on Papuan human rights abuses. Human rights organisations repeatedly bring massacres and abuses to the attention of the media, who repeatedly ignore them. In these lethal omissions, the press tacitly colludes in mass murder.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/30/indonesia-killings-west-papua-western-press
By ignoring Indonesian army killings in West Papua, the western press is tacitly colluding in mass murder
I have a hit list in my hand. Fifteen people are threatened with assassination because they speak out for freedom and democracy, against a massacre. One of them, in a list of civilians including church ministers, youth leaders, legislators and an anthropologist, is a friend of mine.
The hit list is compiled by Kopassus, the Indonesian army's notorious special forces unit, responsible for vicious human rights abuses in Timor-Leste and West Papua. Kopassus targets these 15 for their "prohibited speech" that has "reached the outside world", bearing witness to "the issue of severe human rights violations in Papua". These are the words of Kopassus itself, in a leaked report given to investigative reporter Allan Nairn, last month. Kopassus has not denied its veracity.
Although the US Leahy Law forbids funding to military units that violate human rights, Kopassus is now being supported by president Obama, under the guise of fighting terrorism. The Kopassus document gives the lie to that, showing their systematic targeting of civilians. Number five on their list is the current president of the Papuan Presidium Council, whose predecessor, Theys Eluay, had his throat slit in 2001. While I was in West Papua, I met the then-president, who told me he had also been the victim of a failed assassination.
My friend, a church minister, told me of widespread abuse, rape and killings. Another told me about seeing soldiers torture and murder around 100 villagers. In October, video footage showed West Papuan villagers being tortured by the military. Yelps, gulps and sobs of fear and pain momentarily broke a media silence until the websites hosting the footage were subject to cyber attacks. But the chances are you won't know anything about this, because the media does not bear witness to it. In a form of lethal meekness so well exposed by John Pilger, journalists say Indonesia refuses entry to the media. This is entirely correct and entirely spurious. It is not difficult to go there: buy a ticket, say you're a tourist, and get your notebook out.
A functional media is as important to democratic freedom as voting. West Papua has been robbed of both. Indonesia invaded in 1962. In 1969, under the "act of free choice", 1,026 West Papuans were ordered at gunpoint to vote for integration with Indonesia. This contravened international law, and was a travesty of democracy. "The process of consultation did not allow a genuinely free choice to be made," said a British Foreign and Commonwealth Office briefing that year. The American embassy in Jakarta in June 1969 knew what was in store for the Papuans: the act of free choice, according to the embassy, "is unfolding like a Greek tragedy, the conclusion pre-ordained".
The reasons for this collusion become clear if you rewind to 1967, when president Suharto's men struck a deal to hand over West Papua's wealth of natural resources to international companies, including a mountain of copper and gold – now the world's most valuable mine, Freeport McMoRan.
In return, Indonesia received billions of corporate dollars plus, crucially, international connivance in covering up human rights abuses. Racism played a part: those who would suffer, said the British embassy, were merely "a relatively small number of very primitive people", occupying what a White House adviser dismissed as "a few thousand miles of cannibal land".
A massive transmigration programme of Javanese aims to make Papuans a minority in their own lands. At least 100,000 Papuans, according to Amnesty International, have been murdered, with weaponry provided by British and American companies in lucrative arms deals. Obama knows this: just ahead of his November visit to Indonesia, 50 members of the US Congress wrote to him concerning West Papua's "slow-motion genocide", and Congress held a (barely reported) hearing on Papuan human rights abuses. Human rights organisations repeatedly bring massacres and abuses to the attention of the media, who repeatedly ignore them. In these lethal omissions, the press tacitly colludes in mass murder.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2010/dec/30/indonesia-killings-west-papua-western-press
Tags:
Media Barat Utk Papua
