Editorial: When the Nature Speaks, Feb 7, 2004, 13:36

Editorial: When the Nature Speaks By CEB WPNews Chief Editor Feb 7, 2004, 13:36

All beings that share this planet earth are natural beings; we are from the nature, in the nature, with the nature, part of it, and we are the natural beings. But, the only problem we have so far, is that almost all of the beings speak the language of the nature, and not human beings anymore. Human beings as one of the beings that share this planet began to speak a different language since what human beings call Renaissance and Industrialisation. This particular being of the beings thought of himself or herself as superior to other beings, having more rights upon the rights of other beings. This particular misconception has changed the face of the world, the map, and the fate of our planet earth.

Since we started preaching of industrialisation, modernisation, civilisation, democratisation, and other -sations with our socialism, capitalism, modernism and other -isms, we have come to the point to realising that we in fact, already separating ourselves from the nature itself; starting from speaking a different language, behaving unnaturally, and living unnaturally. We thought it was development, progress and modernism. We thought it was a linear move from one line to the other end: -better end, a wealthy end, and an everlasting life?

Since then, we began to loose our contacts with other beings in this planet, becoming and behaving against other natural beings. We started with colonising, domesticating other beings, looking at them as inferior classes of beings. Even human beings ever came to conclusion that certain races of human beings are lower in racial rank than the others. It is not surprising to learn from our history that in fact selling and buying other human beings has painted the face of our humanity.

Human sufferings as we know now, be it famine or be it poverty, underdevelopment or overdevelopment, unemployment or debts, are all human-made disasters to our humanity. We also created social and natural phenomenon, including terrorism, suicide acts, depressions, flood, drought, famine, and finally, we are facing the danger of global warming that causes climate change.

Yes, we are the beings, the "superior beings" that are, unfortunate to say, bringing disaster to this planet more than fortune. We are the only beings, responsible for these realities. We have done so in the name of development in the forms of colonisation, modernisation, de-colonisation, civilisation, and now globalisation. We have done so "successfully", because we are in fact, not ashamed of it, but we are unfortunately, proud of it.

We should not forget or be ignorant about the other reality that this planet does not belong to only human beings. It belongs to all beings that share her. Or this planet owns us all, without any distinction in terms of ranks or kinds. But we have so far regarded other beings as "nothing." But, should we assume that other beings are just inferior beings and should not react to anything that the "superior" beings do? Wait a minute! The reality is, that "When the nature speaks!," humans become nothing, and nobody.

Human-Made and Natural Disaster?
We then end up by categorising disasters that this planet's face into two: one is human-made and the other is natural. Which actions should be "natural" and which ones are human-made? Or should we see the disasters differently? Aren't these disasters created by us human beings? Should we, because we are "superior" beings, then blame the nature that brings disaster? Or natural disaster is just something that is not categorised based on cause-and-effect interpretation? Should we say that there is a difference between human-made and natural disasters? Are we not part of the nature, or the nature ourselves? Who is making the differences? and Why?

What is real is that in fact we started perceiving ourselves as separate from the "nature" since we invented machines and began to destroy the earth. That is why we call disasters caused by human activities as human-made ones and those beyond human-interventions are referred to as natural. This is the outcome of our perception and consequently we begin and accustomed to separate ourselves from the nature. Yes, we are not part of or one of the natures, are we? Who is making us un-natural? This question should be questioned again by human beings.

Does the Nature Speak?
This question raises another question: "Do the humans, as part of the natural beings, speak?" If so, then, the answer is of course, "Yes!" What should be questioned is, "Do the other beings speak?" Everybody will say, "Yes, they do!" All will say, "Yes, they do, but they do so in varieties of languages. Bu commonly, some speak in words, others in signs.

What we need to ask is not "Does the nature speak?", but rather "Can we understand what the nature says?" or "Why can't we understand the nature?"

If humans do speak, if nature does speak, then what is wrong here is "Why can't we understand each other?" or "Why can human beings as the 'superior beings' not understand the language of the 'inferior beings'? Again, we come back to the original comments; "Humans have separated ourselves from the nature!" As a consequence of this separation, we now speak our own language, behave in our own ways, act for our own interests, based on our own rights. For the sake of human rights, we have sacrificed the rights of other beings. For the sake of our "development", "modernisation", and "progress" we have violated the rights of other beings, who are supposed to share this planet, equally in our rights. For the sake of these activities, we further sacrificed our own human rights. Wars in varieties of forms are basically started from the violations of the rights of the nature and followed by the violations of the our human rights. In other words, those who successfully violated the rights of the natural beings are in fact those who also successfully violated the rights of humans. One plus one is two, and that is how the violations work.

Recent Proofs in West Papua that the Nature Does Speak
We have so many examples in this planet to proof that the nature does speak. But perhaps it is too difficult for us humans to grasp and explain. We only, therefore, need to learn some lessons from some proofs in West Papua, to give a glimpse to the reality that nature does speak.

Sometime ago, we were surprised when five top-level government officials in Papua Province (Military and Police Commanders, Chair of the Indonesian Parliament for Papua Province, and Head of Papua Court and another important person in the province), died in a plane-crash. As far as any human beings here know, with all the skills and modern knowledge, unfortunately, no one ever be able explained why and how it happened.

Another example was the "natural disaster" in Manokwari (2001) and Biak (1998). In both incidents, hundreds of people died, and hundreds of others were hospitalised. While the estimation of the economic lost is surprising. One was called Elnino and the other was earthquake.

Last year, we have also heard another natural disaster at the Freeport Mining Area. We were told some people died due to another natural disaster. The Freeport Mining operations were suspended for weeks, and even months. Is this particular incident really a natural one? Typical human nature, blaming others and other beings is one of the human natures that no one should love to own it.

Headline news on the Indonesian media today is about yet another natural disaster in Nabire, near the neck of New Guinea Island. The office of meteorology and geophysics in Papua Province gave its explanation of territorial lines potential for earthquake in the Province. Did the office predict the possibility of the earthquake? No, and never, nowhere whatsoever. Why? Meteorologists have the answer. My answer is, "Of course, they do not understand the language of the nature. They can only explain the phenomenon and possibilities, but not the exact ones. They even cannot explain the entire phenomenon. Even though we are humans, the "superior beings", we have limitations, because we are just natural beings.

Will we understand the language of the nature? Or does anybody understand it at all?
The answer is simple, "We must understand it!" If not, we are going to kill ourselves. Human beings are reporting news on suicidal acts in the world, as if they are not doing the same as we are all doing as human race. We think we are "superior", and therefore we are closer to the image of God, the Creator. But in fact, we are not that superior in the way as we perceive. We are in fact, I am afraid, creators of all disasters to this planet.

But we must remember that, this planet does not only own us human beings. Or that we are not the only beings that own this planet. Likewise, we are not the only ones that have rights above the others' rights.

Therefore, those other beings that share this planet are not just sitting and watching the madness we are bringing to this planet. They are not 'inferior" as we think. They are in fact, equal to us, and in some ways superior. One simple reason is that we cannot understand their language, even though they do understand ours.

We do know from the nature that it does understand our language? It does not have verbal languages as that of ours, but it has the basic and natural languages, i.e., the language of signals. Floods, famines, earthquakes, Elninos, plane-crashes, forest fires, climate change and global warming are samples for us.

Yes, there are human beings on this planet, who do understand the language of the nature. They are the ones who live with and as part of the nature. They are natural beings themselves. They are not part this proudly-proclaimed developed, modernised, civilised and advanced societies. But they are part of that simple, basic, and natural lifestyle, whom the developed people call primitive, cannibals, underdeveloped, and so on.

But one thing is for sure, if we are still in this planet, if we are the owner of and owned by this same planet earth, then we are supposed to accept this absolute reality that all beings are 'beings', with the same and equal rights to inhibit and enjoy this planet. We all should speak to and understand each other. And more importantly, we human beings, as "superior" beings are supposed to understand and speak to others beings in the way we govern our countries, the way we develop our communities, the way we manage our world and its resources, and the way we live in it. We should, as "superior" beings, be able to become the examples for other beings.

But the reality is that in fact we have failed. Yes, we definitely did. This is really why this planet is speaking again and again in varieties languages; in different places, and at different times, telling us to be natural and humane, i.e., to be ourselves. The reason is obvious, because "When the nature Speaks!" no one will be able to answer. We are in fact unable to understand, let alone respond to it.

Yes, when the Nature Speaks, hardly no one will be able to understand it nor will be able to respond. And no one will be able to argue with it. Not anyone from the superpower states of the USA and Britain, not from Saddam Hussein, neither from Osama bin Laden. Yes, when the nature speaks, no one has the language to understand, and reply. All human beings are in fact accepting these as realities, as natural disasters. That is the point where human beings are just human beings. Not more than that.

When the nature speaks, surely human-race is bound to respond, not by modern technology, not by human inventions, not by verbal languages, but in the language of the nature, i.e., signs. We need to change our perceptions about this planet and all beings. We need to re-start to position ourselves in this planet. We need to see ourselves as the "real" us, not "us" as we want or as what we dream of. And we need to do so by our actions (signs), not in our debates, lectures, preaching or dreams.

Enough signs in West Papua have spoken to us that we Papuans need to re-position ourselves; in the way we see ourselves and the way we behave, as part of and as the nature itself. We need to forget the rhetoric of development, modernisation, progress, civilisation and globalisation. It is shameful to be proud of such suicidal acts. It is embarrassing to claim that doing the business of managing ourselves and our worlds in the Western way is a good example, and therefore it is our way forward. And, it is more then shameful to say that we Papuans want to be alike and behave like those killers of this planet with all its inhabitants. Because when the nature Speaks, we become Nothing, and Nobody! What we do is we die, don't we?
© Copyright 2003-2004 by watchPAPUA

Posted via email from papua's posterous

HIV/AIDS cases 'soar in Indonesian province'

JAKARTA (AFP) — The number of HIV/AIDS cases in Indonesia's South Sulawesi province has more than doubled since 2006 due to an increase in intravenous drug use, a health ministry official said Thursday.

The provincial health office recorded 1,260 HIV/AIDS cases in 2006-2007 compared to 583 from 1996-2005, local official Raden Muliati told AFP.
"The increase during the last few years is due to the rising level of drug use in the province," she said, adding that some 70 percent of cases were contracted through the use of dirty needles.

Indonesia has the fastest-growing HIV/AIDS infection rate in Southeast Asia, according to the United Nations.

Indonesia had recorded a total of 11,868 cases of AIDS as of March this year, compared to 6,987 in 2006 or an increase of 69.8 percent in just two years, health ministry figures show.

One of the worst-hit regions of the country is the eastern province of Papua, where 1,553 cases of AIDS had been recorded by the end of 2007.

Posted via email from papua's posterous

Aksi Damai solidaritas HAM dan Demokrasi Masyarakat Sipil Papua

Menuntut segera bebaskan Buchtar Tabuni dan Sebby Sambom dari Tahanan Reskrim Polda Papua Rebuplik Indonesia,demi martabat Hukum dan HAM di Papua.Aksi damai ini pun terkabung dalam solidaritas HAM dan Demokrasi Masyarakat Sipil Papua, dari berbagai elemen perjuangan pembebasan Rakyat Bangsa Papua Barat.Dan telah berhasil lonsmarsh dari Taman Imbi ke kantor DPRP Propinsi Papua untuk menyampaikan aspirasi kepada pemerintah dan Polda Papua , agar segera bertangunjawab atas penahanan Buchtar Tabuni,Sebby Sambom dam mempercepat proses Hukum, karena waktu penahanan Buchtar Tabuni, Sebby Sambom dan rekan-rekanya,suda melewati sesuai aturan hukum yang berlaku.kami sampaikan kepda seluruh komponen Rakyat Banngsa Papua Barat dan Masyarakat Internasional, Nasional agar segera Advokasi terhadap situasi yang sedang berlangsung ahir-ahir ini.

Salam pembebasan

By Nery sambbom activis

See and download the full gallery on posterous

Posted via email from papua's posterous

OPM warned that deadline has passed

Puncak Jaya, 31 January 2009

The chief of police of Papua said that the three-week ultimatum for the return of four weapons along with ammuniation has now expired, adding that the police would continue to use the 'persuasive' approach towards religious, leaders, youth leaders and village chiefs for the return of the weapons.

The police chief in Puncak Jaya said he was awaiting further developments from the police chief about what should happen next. There was still no sign of any developments. According to their observations, OPM/TPN units were moving all the time which made it difficult to track them down. Taking other measures mught have serious consequences for other people.

He claimed that the situation in Tingginambut where the weapons were seized was 'calm and conducive'.

Posted via email from papua's posterous

Makeshift constructions near Theys' grave removed

Cenderawasih Pos, 2 February, 2009

A number of makeshift constructions (which are being called tenda or tents) have been destroyed in the vicinity of the grave of Theys Hijo Eluay by the police on the orders of the bupati (district chief). The action was undertaken under guard of a heavy police presence and troops of Brimob, the elite police corps.

[These 'tenda' consist of a roof of made of bamboo, perhaps two metres by three metres in size, held up by four poles, each one with several people inside.]

Theys Eluay, the head of the Papuan Presidium Council was assassinated in November 2001. He was the revered leader of the Papuan people whose loss is still mourned by Papuans.

The police claim that they were forced to destroy the constructions after appeals to the people inside failed to do so themselves. The authorities say that they had shown tolerance in waiting for their voluntary removal following a meeting between Muspida (army, police and administration leaders) and heads of local tribal people. After the deadline passed, they were destroyed, while some people who were present at the site protested at the police presence.

Before the destructions took place, there was a discussion between Viktor Yeimo, coordinator of the occupation of the Theys grave, and district chief, Chris Tokoro Yeimo suggested that the two tenda behind the grave should be left in place, and they themselves would help to destroy the other ones. However, after prayers were said together and the Papuans shouted 'Long Live the Papuan People!' the tenda were forcibly destroyed, the bamboo constructions were thrown onto a garbage truck. The proposal for talks between the government and the chairman of the Adat Council (DAP), as well as Boy Eluay, the son of Theys was ignored.

The district chief claimed that the constructions were being destroyed in the interests of cleanliness.

After the removal, all those Papuans still present were told to return to their homes, and were warned that their identities.would be checked. As the constructions were being destroyed, a bow and arrow was found among the wreckage.

Forkorus Yaboissembut, chairman of DAP, condemned the actions of the authorities, saying that the land around the grave of Theys had been handed over to the local chieftains (ondoafi/ondofolo) for traditional ownership around the grave.. 'The land belongs to the Papuan traditional prople. It is not owned by Boy Eluay or by the ondofolo but by Papuan traditional people, and should never be disturbed,' he said. 'If the reason is to keep the area clean, there are other ways to do this. The matter should be properly discussed by all those concerned, to find a solution together.' He suggested that the local administration could provide funds to supply a special field with a guard post.'

'I want to make it clear that we Papuan people have strong objections to the destruction of these tenda.This will only make people here very angry indeed because they built them on their own land, not on anyone else's land,' he said.

Posted via email from papua's posterous

DAP launches new book

Dewan Adat Papua has launched new book called '|Understanding the Rights of the Indigenous People of Papua'.

The 74-page book is jointly published by Yayasan Anak Dusun Papua and ICCO in The Netherlands. DAP chairman Forkorus Yaboisemut said the decision to publish the book was prompted by deep concern at the destruction of the social structure and administration of the indigenous people of Papua as a result of the oppression and the denial of the basic rights of the people by the authorities.

Papuan people's experiences has shown that development in the Land of Papua has destroy the traditional administration of the people and has destroyed their traditional rights to the land as well as their access to their natural resouces.

Expressing deep concern and sadness, he said that the basic resources for traditional living had been overturned, resulting in their marginalisation and impoverishment and turning them into nothing more than spectators of what is happening in their own land.

He said that at a Grand Conference of the indigenous people held in 2008, A Manifesto of the Rights of the Indigenous People of Papua had been drawn up. The Papuan people's struggle was being waged to free them from injustice, dispersal and oppression, and was a part of the struggle of indigenous people throughout the world.

He then referred to the adoption by the UN on 23 September 2007 of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous People (UNDRIP). The new book would provide the guidelines and references for the indigenous people of Papua to understand their basic rights.

If this struggle leads to their being arrested and imprisoned. he would speak out against this. What the Papuan people were doing these days was not to bring about disintegration or subversion but a struggle to ensure that the rights of the Papuan people are respected.

It was wrong for people engaged in this struggle to be punished,such as what has happened to Buchtar Tabuni and his colleagues. They were not criminal and had not harmed anyone, so why had they been arrested. They had been beaten up on two occasions, once while in police custody and then while in prison. He called on the chief-of-police to take note of this.

When people are struggling for their rights, they should not be arrested, he said.

Posted via email from papua's posterous

Letters from Tokyo - Indonesia and Islamic Terrorism

Asia-Pacific

By Lee Jay Walker
Tokyo Correspondent

An Islamic school in Indonesia

The government of Indonesia faces many internal problems because of the geographical reality of this nation and ethnic and religious tension does engulf Indonesia from time to time. However, what is worrying is the possible collusion between radical Sunni Islamists and the security services of Indonesia. Therefore, is collusion happening in places like Sulawesi and West Papua (Irian Jaya) or is it a long-term goal of containing Christians and ethnic minorities?

If we turn the clock back to 2001 and focus on events in that year, then it is clear that either collusion was happening or events happened because it was a direct policy of the government of Indonesia?

This applies to Laskar Jihad because this brutal Sunni Islamic terrorist organization sent even more fighters to central Sulawesi in order to persecute Christians. Laskar Jihad, like other past or current Islamic terrorist organizations, is brutal, barbaric, and cowardly.

Laskar Jihad, just like other radical Sunni Islamic terrorist organizations, believe that it is their Koran-Hadith inspired duty to kill innocents and to install fear. Therefore, the region of Sulawesi was a paradise for them to cause mayhem and to create a major gulf between both communities. Given this, events spiralled out of control and inter-religious clashes erupted because these outsiders to Sulawesi desired to kill in the name of Islam.

However, much more disturbing is the role of the government of Indonesia or elements within the security services and military. After all, Laskar Jihad was given a free reign to enter the region and this radical Sunni Islamic terrorist network was not removed from this delicate region. Therefore, surely collusion was taking place, if so, then how can religious or ethnic minorities feel secure in Indonesia?

After all, it is noticeable that in Sulawesi and West Papua that Islamists and the government of Indonesia do have vested interests which overlap. Also the situation in East Timor in the past mirrored covert operations based on systematic terror and fear.

Yet East Timor belonged to the “old world” of nationalism and preserving the nation state of Indonesia. However, just like the Palestinian situation, it became clear that Islamic terrorism and militant organizations were on the rise. The secular nature of Palestinian resistance now lies in tatters because Hamas and others now have a clear Islamic agenda, therefore, Sulawesi and West Papua are seeing a “new world” whereby Islamists have an ideological motive in spreading hate and dhimmitude.

Zachary Abuza, the author of Militant Islam in Southeast Asia, Crucible of Terror, states “The government never prevented the Laskar Jihad militia from coming, nor did it try to expel them. Muslim paramilitaries were reportedly armed with machine guns (including M-16s) and rocket-propelled grenades, forcing thousands of Christians to flee.”

This raises serious issues because it appears that the government of Indonesia and various radical Islamic organizations do share a common ground. Of course, many Indonesian political leaders do not share the same theme but important elites within powerful institutions do share similar concerns, albeit from different perspectives.

Zachary Abuza comments that “First, Jafar Umar Thalib and the Laskar Jihad have considerable political support. Vice President Hamzah Haz has been a staunch defender of the organization and helped get Thalib acquitted in January 2003.” Zachary Abuza also states that “…while the military has at times had to employ force against the Laskar Jihad, the reality is that the two organizations have the same goal in preventing secessionist movements from succeeding, as happened with East Timor.”

However, the Indonesian government will clampdown when vested interests are threatened and this applies to Islamic terrorist attacks in Bali or against hotels, and other economic based attacks. Also, it appears that the government will take action against international Islamic jihadists rather than home-grown Islamists.

Once more, Zachary Abuza comments that “Until the Bali bombing, Indonesia took few constructive measures in the war on terrorism. The Singaporean, Malaysian, Philippine, and U.S. governments all expressed utter frustration with the Indonesian government, and despite many appeals, the Indonesians did not arrest any Indonesian suspects wanted abroad.”

Therefore, just like the government of Pakistan which manipulated radical Sunni Islamists to cause mayhem in Afghanistan and Kashmir; the government of Indonesia had similar vested interests when it applied to domestic issues.

However, the Pakistan government can no longer control elements within Pakistan because Islamists have been emboldened and they desire to enforce Islamic Sharia law and dhimmitude throughout the nation. Indonesia does not face this problem because the centre is much stronger but it is a dangerous game to play and it is clear that religious minorities and secularists in Indonesia are worried about this.

Also, Islamists will have ample opportunities to stir mayhem because various parts of Indonesia remain tense and another major incident could easily ignite tensions. The people of West Papua may also witness Islamization because of increasing Muslim migration and Islamic organizations which have a shared agenda with the government of Indonesia.

In an article published by Asia News in 2006 it stated that “Islamic extremist groups are entering West Papuan territory, with the consent of elements of the Indonesian army, to set up bases there.” Therefore, this part of Indonesia faces severe problems and Islamic radicals and government agencies have similar objectives. Given this, many Papuans are worried about religious persecution and state-sanctioned persecution.

Therefore, Christian areas of Indonesia face a frontal attack against them and this applies to Javanization, Islamization, direct government policies, and the threat of Islamic terrorism in sensitive parts of Indonesia is always possible.

This policy does not apply to the whole of Indonesia and it must be mentioned that this nation is very complex because Christians have much greater freedom in Indonesia than in the majority of mainly Muslim nations. Yet for Christians in sensitive areas of national interest or in areas of distinct divisions, then the situation is very different.

Despite this, it is clear that the implementation of Islamic Sharia law is a worry for all religious minorities, moderate Muslims and secularists. Therefore, radical Islamic organizations must not be given a free reign because if this happens, then the only victory will be for the dark forces of humanity and this means radical Sunni Islam and the implementation of Sharia Islamic law.

It is now vital that pressure is put on all nations which are colluding with radical Islamic terrorist organizations or with radical Islamic educational institutions because this is where the brainwashing begins. Therefore, more pressure must be put on Indonesia to clampdown against radical Islamic institutions and to stop the manipulation of these networks when it comes to secessionist problems within Indonesia.

Posted via email from papua's posterous

Genocide and demographic transformation in Papua - A response to Jim Elmslie and Stuart Upton, Richard Chauvel

Stripped of the obvious differences in rhetorical tone and values, the articles by Jim Elmslie and Stuart Upton have much in common. They both agree that:
Papua has experienced a large scale demographic transformation since 1963
the modern economy is dominated by Indonesian settlers and Papuans are marginalised
Papuans suffer disadvantage in education, employment and health
there have been significant human rights abuses by the Indonesian security forces

One of the useful contributions that both articles make is that they place Papua in a broader regional context. In comparing the markedly different rates of population growth in Indonesian Papua and Papua New Guinea, Jim Elmslie asserts that the two are ‘comparable Melanesian societies’. Looking west to the rest of the archipelago, Stuart Upton argues that population change in Papua looks like ‘the normal pattern of inter-island migration rather than genocide’.
Comparing Papua and PNG

Had Jim Elmslie’s comparison been related to New Guinea prior to intensive Dutch, British/Australian and German intervention in the last decades of the nineteenth century, it would have been more convincing than it is today. However, over the last one hundred years, the heterogeneous Melanesian societies in the two halves of the island of New Guinea have come into contact and interacted with the world beyond New Guinea through very different colonial and post-colonial governance structures. This has made them very different places.

In the case of PNG, Australian colonial rule and, since 1975, an indigenous Papuan political elite have been the mediating agencies. PNG was the sole Australian colony. The western half of the island was colonised by the Dutch as part of the Netherlands East Indies. Prior to the Pacific War, it was ruled through various administrative structures based in the neighbouring Maluku Islands. In the Australian territories, Australian administrators interacted directly with all levels and regions of PNG society. On the other side of the island, particularly before the Pacific War, there were more east Indonesian officials, police, teachers and missionaries than there were Dutch. The missionary education, the Christianity and the dialects of Malay that developed in Papua were those of the east Indonesian teachers and missionaries. Papuan contact with Indonesians in Papua and with Indonesian society outside Papua has intensified greatly since 1963.

I am not suggesting, however, that the different patterns of change in the two halves of the island over the past century or so explain the difference in population growth rates. The poorer levels of health care in Indonesian Papua, especially in the highlands and remote and still predominantly Papuan regions compared to the ‘failed state’ the other side of the border is one factor that helps explain the differences in population growth. The most obvious difference generated by the divergent patterns of change is that PNG has remained a predominantly Melanesian society, while the western half of the island has become more ‘Indonesian’ through education, language and religious change as well as a demographic transformation. With these great changes, Indonesian Papua and PNG now have much less in common than before colonisation.
Comparing Papua and East Indonesia

Stuart Upton notes, correctly, that the percentage of migrants in East Kalimantan is in fact higher than in Papua. Yet, there has not been any independence movement in East Kalimantan and migration is not discussed in terms of genocide. This broader context of inter-island migration in Indonesia helps us to understand what makes Papua different. There are strongly divergent patterns of inter-island migration across the Indonesian archipelago. East Kalimantan and Papua are examples of frontier economy regions that have attracted large numbers of economic migrants. Maluku and the islands east of Bali have not had the same pulling power. South Sulawesi has experienced significant emigration to Papua and East Kalimantan, among other regions.

There are a number of factors that help explain how demographic change has evoked a political, cultural and economic response in Papua that has not occurred in East Kalimantan. The Papuan discourse on demographic change is the product of an elite that has held positions in government, universities, the churches, NGOs and Papuan nationalist organisations since the last years of the Dutch administration. The governors and deputy governors of both Papuan provinces and all the district heads are now Papuans. The same positions in East Kalimantan are mostly held by politicians of South Sulawesi, Javanese or Banjarese background. The governor elected last year in East Kalimantan is the first indigenous politician to hold that position, and the heads of two indigenous-majority districts, Kutai Barat and Malinau, are Dayak politicians. Other important officeholders are mostly migrants or their descendants. In contrast to the Papuans, the indigenous peoples of East Kalimantan are poorly represented in the democratic structures of post-Suharto Indonesia.

Another factor is the history of migration. The coastal areas of East Kalimantan were integrated in the trading and religious network of Malay-Muslim sultanates of the western archipelago prior to the region’s incorporation into the Netherlands East Indies. The populations of these sultanates in coastal East Kalimantan were cosmopolitan. The development of the oil industry around Balikpapan from the 1920s attracted economic migrants from outside East Kalimantan.
In Papua, Indonesian immigration is understood to be a consequence of the territory’s incorporation into Indonesia: a very different situation from East Kalimantan or other high immigration provinces

In Papua, with the exception of the relatively small number of strategically placed east Indonesian servants of the Dutch administration, mass migration of Indonesians to Papua started with the advent of Indonesian rule in 1963. The older members of the Papuan elite can remember meeting their first Indonesian. Benny Giay, in his biography of the Rev Herman Saud, records that Saud and his fellow secondary school students in the Birds Head region (from Manokwari west to Sorong) had not met an Indonesian prior to 1963. Saud recalled that they did not know what to expect of Indonesians and their culture. Herman Saud became the head of the Papua’s largest protestant church and witnessed from the Synod Office the transformation of Jayapura, where the office was located, into an Indonesian city. In 2005, towards the end of his period as head of the Church, Saud raised his concerns about the ongoing arrival of Indonesian economic migrants with the provincial parliament, asking rhetorically if migrant labour was the only way to develop Papua.

In short, Indonesian immigration in Papua is understood to be a consequence of the territory’s incorporation into Indonesia. Given that in the eyes of many Papuans their incorporation into Indonesia occurred without their participation or agreement, the Indonesian migration that followed is likewise highly contested. That’s a very different situation from East Kalimantan or other high immigration provinces.

Stuart Upton has identified, correctly, that the administrative separation of Papua from the rest of Indonesia from 1942 until 1962 was a reason for weaker commitment to the Indonesian nation state in Papua. The isolation of Papua before the Pacific War, its relatively recent incorporation into the Netherlands East Indies and its separation afterwards meant that there was little Papuan participation in the ‘making’ of Indonesia through involvement in nationalist organisations, the struggle for independence and the nation-building policies of the Sukarno years. With respect to the latter, Papuans were the object rather than the subject.

Not only did many in the Papuan elite find the idea of an independent nation more attractive than incorporation in Indonesia, but during the last years of the Dutch administration they had been the beneficiaries of Dutch policies of ‘Papuanisation’ of the bureaucracy. As Stuart Upton notes, many of the early Indonesian migrants were those who assumed senior government positions, taking over not only positions previously held by the Dutch, but also those occupied by Papuans.

It is worth noting that the Papuan nationalist constructions of their identity, in terms of differences in physical appearance between themselves and Indonesians and as responses to the racist Indonesian stereotyping of Papuans, were first developed in the 1950s and early 1960s – well before the onset of large scale migration. The reference points in these constructions were the east Indonesian servants of the Dutch administration, who occupied the bureaucratic positions to which the Papuan graduates of vocational training colleges and missionary schools aspired.
Beyond the figures

Jim Elmslie and Stuart Upton use an analysis of census data to debate whether genocide has occurred in Papua. This is not how Papuans discuss genocide and Indonesian migration. The Papuan discourse, amongst intellectuals and politicians and more broadly in society, is based on collective subjective experience. As Budi Hernawan and Theo van den Broek in their discussion of ‘Memoria passionis’ (memory of suffering) noted, if you visit remote parts of Papua you can easily hear stories of suffering from ordinary people: ‘Our father was killed in that river. On the side of the mountain there used to be villages, which were destroyed by ABRI [The Indonesian Military]’.
Accusations of genocide are often directly linked to demands for independence

Accusations of genocide against the Indonesian military and government retain their currency in popular discourse and as political slogans. Demonstrators in Jayapura at the time of the legislative elections earlier this year held banners demanding: ‘Immediately withdraw organic and non-organic military units from West Papua…Stop genocide against Melanesians in West Papua’.

Accusations of genocide are often directly linked to demands for independence. For example, one participant in the mass consultation (Mubes) of Papuan nationalists in February 2000 suggested: ‘In ten years time Papuans will all be killed by the Indonesian military; better that we become independent now.’ Papuan discussions of genocide might focus on the presence and human rights abuses of the Indonesian military as well as the intentions of the Indonesian government, but also encompass a broad range of issues including dispossession, marginalisation and various forms of disadvantage that demographic change and the pattern of economic development have brought for many Papuans. Some Papuan discussions of the spread of transmission of HIV/AIDS and the role of the Indonesian authorities therein are conspiratorial.

Stuart Upton is not the first person to suggest that the racist language in which some Papuans discuss their own identity, Indonesian migration and accusations of genocide has been repudiated by the international community given that its continued use is counter-productive. That well-educated and worldly-wise Papuan leaders continue to use such language is a measure of their concern about the threats posed to their society and culture as well as an expression of their alienation from and distrust of the Indonesian government.

For these reasons I agree with Jim Elmslie that West Papuan opinions and experiences deserve to be taken seriously. Putting a figure on the loss of life is problematic, however. Elmslie cites a death toll of 100,000. That a figure is routinely quoted, as this one has been, does not make it any more or less accurate. The core problem, as Elmslie concedes, is that the research has not been done and, in current political circumstances, is unlikely to be done. Tapol’s West Papua: The Obliteration of a People, a booklet published in 1983 stated that ‘Estimates of the numbers killed or who have died as a result of Indonesian repression, suppression or neglect range from 100,000 to 150,000 since 1963.’ The range of estimates of lives lost has not changed much over more than two decades, despite the conduct of numerous military operations.
Elmslie cites a death toll of 100,000. That a figure is routinely quoted does not make it any more or less accurate

The Human Rights Watch Report, Out of Sight: Endemic Abuse and Impunity in Papua’s Central Highlands (July 2007) illustrates some of the difficulties faced when investigating violence and human rights abuses in one of the most tightly controlled and conflict-ridden regions in Papua. Working without the cooperation of the Indonesian authorities, the researchers found that the Indonesian security forces ‘…continue to engage in largely indiscriminate village “sweeping” operations in pursuit of suspected militants, using excessive, often brutal, and at times lethal force against civilians’. This indiscriminate abuse by the security forces of Indonesian citizens and their livelihoods suggests that the civilian and military leaders in Jakarta have limited capacity to control the conduct of their troops operating in Papua. The security forces’ behaviour serves to further alienate both the communities directly affected and Papuan society as a whole. However, this carefully documented Human Rights Watch report does not provide evidence that there has been systematic killing of large numbers of Papuans. Rather it provides insights into how systemic violence pervades relations between the security forces and Papuan communities.

We should respect Papuans’ discussions of the demographic transformation of their society and endeavour to understand the experience they are describing. However, I suspect that the use of the term genocide obstructs our comprehension of the endemic nature of state violence against Indonesian citizens in Papua and makes the necessary institutional reform and cultural transformation of the Indonesian security forces more difficult.     ii

Richard Chauvel (richard.chauvel@vu.edu.au) teaches at Victoria University.

Inside Indonesia 97: Jul-Sep 2009

Posted via email from papua's posterous