Versi Bahasa Indonesia |
In the Papuan context, the development of AMAN as an indigenous peoples organisation has faced difficulties due to negative experiences with the Indonesian government. Mistrust of AMAN, which is viewed by some Papuans as part of the government apparatus, still persists.[1] We have seen that the indigenous movement as a whole has had its successes and setbacks. Organisations expected to play a leading role in motivating others often suffer from internal problems which cause financial problems and social tensions. This kind of experience has also resulted in some resistance to attempts to consolidate indigenous groups in some parts of Papua. Efforts to organise continue despite these problems and despite the fact that funding and communication remain the biggest obstacles in Papua. The initiative to consolidate[2] Papuan indigenous organisations is being done from the bottom up (starting at community level) as this is believed to be the most realistic way, despite the long time needed. This approach is also being taken to avoid the clash of priorities that may arise if it were done at a higher level, such as district or provincial. At the moment, Alex is pioneering consolidation in his area by setting up the Waropen Area Indigenous Council.
In the Third Adat Council Session in Manokwari, in January-February 2005, a deadline was set (August 2005) for the proper implementation of special autonomy with clearer supporting regulations to implement it. If this call does not get a good response from central government, special autonomy and the Government Regulation on the Establishing the Papuan Consultative Council (MRP) will be rejected and returned to Jakarta.
Setting up the Papuan Indigenous Peoples Alliance (AMA Papua) is an opportunity to develop existing indigenous institutions - the Adat Council, the Adat Consultative Institute and the Presidium[4] - at least as partners, by developing and strengthening capacity as well as the network. Clarifying the relationship between these groups and explaining how each organisation strengthens its constituent community groups and encourages them to become autonomous organisations, has already raised awareness of network development.
There are currently AMAN members in 9 districts in Papua (and West Irian Jaya). This shows the great potential for AMAN to become a large indigenous peoples organisation, but there has not yet been enough consolidation. Issues surrounding Special Autonomy and the establishment of the Papuan People's Council can be used as an arena for consolidating and strengthening the indigenous position, especially as regards control over natural resources management and land rights. This will only happen if the Papuan Regional Government (provincial and district levels) are serious about developing people's capacity, have confidence in people and give them scope to participate in the processes of implementing special autonomy and development in Papua.
The Yapen Waropen case provides a lesson in how development can be sidelined under the guise of promoting development through creating new administrative districts. Previously three areas (Biak, Yapen and Waropen) were grouped in one district - Biak, then split into two (Biak and Yapen Waropen districts) and finally became three districts (Biak, Yapen and Waropen). This would have been beneficial if carried out in the spirit of decentralisation, but this split was really aimed at strengthening central control over the area. This can be seen from the logical consequences of the move: more district military commands (Kodim), one for each new district. Security and politics have been more prominent considerations here than development and empowerment.
The development of human resources is very poor in Papua. Indigenous demands for community participation and the guarantee and protection of indigenous rights to land and natural resources are seen as threats to economic and political stability. Alex strongly stated that Papuan people are undergoing a process of genocide in all aspects (economic, political and social). An example of discrimination is the handling and response to the earthquake disaster in Nabire (Alex compared it to the handling of the earthquake-tsunami disaster in Aceh) and also the central government's attitude to building dialogue with the Free Aceh Movement (GAM), which is so different to the treatment of Papua, where the armed and repressive approach alone is used to counter separatism.
It is unjust if forests are closed off and indigenous Papuans are denied access to them, simply due to the mismanagement of IPKMA and conflicting legislation issued by central government. The government is prioritising the exploitation of Papua's natural resources under the guise of development.
The OPM or separatist label is often used to pressure people - there have been cases of arrest, beatings/torture and abduction without clear evidence or legal basis. This disregard for the law is reflected in the division of Papua at district and provincial level, despite the Special Autonomy Law.
Also linked to the independence movement issue is historical transparency. There have been systematic attempts to conceal and even distort the history of Papua's inclusion into Indonesia. History must be set straight, for everyone's benefit, predominantly by those who played leading roles in the so-called Act of Free Choice in 1969.
Militarism, military oppression and the many human rights violations in Papua, together with the half-hearted implementation of special autonomy, are providing more fertile ground for the independence movement in Papua. People are even starting to discuss their desire for a referendum and how to submit this to the MPR [People's Consultative Assembly - Indonesia's highest legislative body].
For Alex, the key to holistic development in Papua is proper implementation of special autonomy, including a serious commitment to building the capacity of its human resources and strengthening the people's participation in development.
DTE notes: