“We are ready to take over our country.” This is how the leader of the West Papuan independence movement, Benny Wenda, described the situation against Jakarta in July of 2019. Like many other Papuans, he fled abroad after being arrested and tortured by Indonesian security forces. The origins of this movement can be derived from the decolonization period, where in 1969, a sham “referendum” involving the annexation of Indonesia was held.
More than five decades have passed and the indigenous population continues to face repression with little international support. One of the main reasons for this abandonment of the indigenous population is due to the high value of foreign investment and the exploitation of natural resources in West Papua. The economic benefits from the Indonesian rule over the region have led the international community to ignore the “slow-motion” genocide of Papuans and abstain from organizing a collective response.
From One Colonial Power To Another
In 1962, the Dutch withdrew from “Netherlands New Guinea”. This decision was followed by the signature of the New York Agreement, between Amsterdam and Jakarta, and lacked Western Papuan consent. This treaty established a temporary United Nations administration and formalized Indonesian control of the territory as a transitional authority. Likewise, it also included a provision that a plebiscite would be held before 1969.
In May 1963, Indonesia became the successor-state of Papua and in 1969, Jakarta organized the referendum through the Act of Free Choice. Only a handful of the local population (1025 people) were allowed to vote in this undemocratic process. Although Indonesia conducted a democratic process on paper, their initiation of a terror campaign was organized and people were ordered to vote at gunpoint for integration. Consequently, there was a unanimous decision by Papuan representatives to accept Indonesian sovereignty.
Since the referendum took place, around 500.000 indigenous inhabitants have been killed and many others have been imprisoned, tortured, and displaced. There have been many reports of human right violations being committed by security forces against the local population, including extrajudicial killings, torture, arbitrary detention, excessive use of force, and the mistreatment of peaceful protesters.
Likewise, as a way of suppressing indigenous culture, the government sponsored a transmigration program to West Papua from high densely populated areas of Indonesia. This policy led to the displacement of indigenous people, who were violently repressed by the army. As a consequence, natives were subjected to racial and religious discrimination, marginalization, and subjugation.
Environmental Devastation
West Papua is extraordinarily rich in minerals, especially gold and copper, and its tropical forests keep a substantial level of biodiversity. The resource wealth of the region is a perfect exploitative opportunity and tool for Jakarta, who is using it as a mean to control the territory. Transnational corporations and trade partners are going to continue supporting Indonesian control over the area because they are obtaining a lot of benefits from this resource exploitation.
During the last five decades, foreign logging and mining companies have been profiting from West Papua’s resources. In 1967, President Suharto reached an agreement with international companies to hand over West Papua’s natural resources in exchange for billions of corporate dollars. Since then, there has been environmental degradation and a disruption in the traditional ways of life of the native population. Australian, Canadian, Japanese, and Malaysian enterprises have been destroying Papuan rainforest for raw materials, especially palm oil production. Nevertheless, US company Freeport-McMoRan has been the main polluter in the island.
In 1963, Freeport commenced negotiations with the new Indonesian rule in West Papua in order to construct the world’s second-largest copper mine and largest gold mine, called Grasberg. It was covered by the excuse of “economic development”, but as some scholars have noted, it was more like an “invasion”. The buildup of this mining operation led to massive military actions to help to “protect” the project. In exchange, Freeport paid millions of dollars to members of the Indonesian security forces. However, this project generated a huge environmental degradation and has been criticized by many human rights and environmentalist organizations.
This resource wealth raises a lot of revenue for the national government and makes it very difficult to accept an agreement of independence. Furthermore, Jakarta’s actions have been supported by the United States and Australia, countries who have large investments in the area. These nations are motivated by the desire to maintain good relations with such an important trade partner. This is the reason why they have asserted Jakarta’s sovereignty over West Papua. Thus, the efficacy of the independence movement will continue to be very limited without the support from both the global and regional hegemons.
Armed Resistance Against Jakarta
Every action has a reaction. In this case, an armed struggle emerged out of local outrage over the treatment of Papua natives. Some organizations appeared with the objective of getting independence for this territory. The most important one was the Free Papua Movement, which is also called OPM (Organisasi Papua Merdeka). Since the moment of its creation, it has waged a low-scale insurgency against Indonesia. However, internal problems made very difficult for this insurgency to succeed. It was a clandestine movement, with no central leadership and proper communication channels, and it led to the emergence of several factions and organizations.
When Suharto’s New Order regime fell in 1998, Papuans believed there was an opportunity to achieve independence. The poorly armed OPM continued pressuring Jakarta with its attacks to the security apparatus. Nonetheless, the independence of East Timor in 1999 led the Indonesian Government to take a hard-line on separatist movements again. People feared that the country could be broken apart.
Meanwhile, the fractured civil independence movement started to grow. It tried to rally support from state actors overseas, especially from culturally similar countries – the Melanesian Spearhead Group. As a consequence, in 2019, the Pacific Islands Forum issued a statement asking the UN High Commissioner of Human Rights’ office to visit West Papua and investigate human rights abuses in the area.
This civil movement became larger and stronger because it gradually became politically cohesive. In 2014, three independence groups – the Federal Republic of West Papua (NRFPB), the West Papua National Coalition for Liberation (WPNCL), and the National Parliament of West Papua (NPWP) united under the name of the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) and selected Benny Wenda as its chairman. After this, international coverage over the conflict increased significantly.
At the beginning of 2019, Wenda gave a petition signed by almost two million Papuans to the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights. It asked for a UN investigation into Human Right violations in West Papua and for the UN to supervise a vote on independence. Likewise, months later there was an increase in military cooperation: Several armed groups announced their unification under the command of Wenda and the ULMWP.
Besides this, in August the “most serious civil unrest in years” turned into large demonstrations against Indonesia. They started after the arrest of some Papuan students who allegedly disrespected the Indonesian flag. In some places, these protests turned into general riots and attacks on government buildings. However, the problems did not finish here. In September, there was an escalation of violence: Papuan students were shot by pro-government militia groups, Indonesian soldiers fired against peaceful demonstrators, protests were banned, and it was declared that people “supporting separatism” would be arrested and charged with “treason”.
These demonstrations represent a significant shift in the dynamics of the conflict. There is a larger and better organized generation of pro-independence activists who are more closely coordinated with the leaders in exile than before. Likewise, as it has been shown, Indonesian state’s counter-insurgency techniques are underprepared.
Solutions?
Despite the fact that in the last year tensions have been rising, this conflict has been going on for the last five decades. An involvement of third countries is necessary. However, the global and regional hegemons support Jakarta’s actions over West Papua. Thus, a clear solution would be based on grassroot pressure in both the United States and Australia. With the help of West Papuan pro-independence activists, citizens of these nations could encourage their political leaders to change their relationship with Indonesia. They must demand this country to develop a policy framework that offers a peaceful resolution of this conflict.
This solution depends on the Indonesian President Jokowi. While a referendum on independence is very difficult to be held in the short run, a new approach towards the conflict could reduce the tensions. He could supervise the army’s activities closely and ensure that their conduct towards the local population respects local ways of life and human rights values. In addition to this, the exploitation of natural resources by foreign companies must be more regulated and the tribal leaders must be taken into account when extracting these raw materials. Likewise, Papua and West Papua are the poorest provinces in the country, so the Indonesian government could try to reduce the economic disparities in the area and fight against unemployment. These steps could make an agreement easier for West Papua to stay in Indonesia in the future.
In conclusion, in the short run, a more comprehensive approach must be developed, including the exploitation of natural resources, the relationship with the army and the fight against economic inequalities. Meanwhile, in the medium-long run, a referendum must be held.. West Papuan people have been resisting for a long time and it is necessary an external support. Grassroot pressure can make governments to change their relations with Jakarta. It is up to the aforementioned actors to uphold the international human rights framework in Indonesia.