The Jakarta Post
Wednesday, April 2, 2008

Ridwan Max Sijabat, Jakarta

In the first-ever informal meeting with the leadership of Regional Representatives Council (DPD) at the presidential office here Friday, President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono expressed his concern over the social unrest in Papua and simultaneously
his commitment to address the prolonged issue.

The President then instructed Coordinating Minister for Political, Legal and Security Widodo A.S. to prepare a government regulation in lieu of a law (Perpu) on West Papua
province, whose legal jurisdiction under a 1999 law was annulled y the Constitutional Court following the enactment of the 2001 Papua special autonomy law.

Is that all?

The Papuan issue is not only a matter of social concern and political commitment, but also a question of how to manage the prolonged conflict and determine what needs to be done to calm  down a tense situation.

Not only the President and other state institutions but also the Papuan people and the international world have been worried about the tension. Papuan students have gone down to the streets of Papua's Jayapura, Central Java's Semarang and South Sulawesi's Makassar demanding a self-determination referendum for the province since the seven-year-old special autonomy status has brought no significant changes nor eased decades of
grievances of Papuan people still living in fear of intimidation, torture and violence.

Concerned over the terrible conditions, American Samoan Congressman Eni Faleomavaega, who was barred from visiting Papua last July, has launched a black campaign on the Indonesian government, accusing it of abusing human rights and turning a blind eye to Papuans living in poverty. The Germany-based World Church Council recently delivered an official letter to the President with a similar accusation and a call for immediate measures to fully implement the special autonomy and revive the Papuan people's human dignity.

As head of the government, the President should first identify major problems in the resource-rich province so the government knows what to do to better the real condition. He should also evaluate why the special autonomy, which came at the national consensus, does not work optimally.

The anti-Indonesia campaign abroad and the increasing demand for the province's secession from Indonesia will gradually go down  if the major problems are settled. But we should bear in mind it could go wrong unless the people's disappointment is addressed.

The special autonomy is not only a matter of funds but also of law enforcement and security to return the tense situation to  normalcy. As it was recognized by Governor Barnabas Suebu, despite the annual allocation of huge funds to the province a majority of people are still living below the poverty line and cannot afford the expensive education and health service. The special autonomy fund for the province has drastically increased to Rp 21 trillion (US$2.2 billion) this fiscal year from Rp 3.5 billion in 2003 and around Rp 4.5 trillion in 2006, but only a small part has been used to develop education, health and the people's economic livelihood.

If Jakarta is really concerned with the Papuan issue, the President should have the special autonomy fully implemented. The special autonomy will remain stagnant unless government regulations mandated by the 2001 law on the Papuan special autonomy are issued to allow the provincial government and the Papuan People's Assembly (MRP) to issue relevant bylaws as a legal basis for development programs in Papua.

The law mandates the issuance of seven government regulations as technical and operational guidelines for reconciliation and justice, human resource management, the MRP's establishment, Papuans' cultural rights, province symbols, the flag and other marks of identity and population affairs. So far, only a single regulation on the MRP has been issued.

The proposed development of Papua and West Papua into six provinces will meet stronger resistance because it will considerably solve the main issue, except for certain benefits to security and defense authorities.

The President should go down to relevant ministries to have the long-awaited government regulations issued to allow both the MRP and the provincial governments in Papua and West Papua to issue the bylaws.

Justice will be upheld and the people will no longer live in fears and under intimidation if the planned reconciliation is conducted and the unresolved human rights abuse cases are brought to an ad hoc human rights court despite strong resistance from the Indonesian Military and the police. With a special bylaw on Papuans' cultural rights, the MRP will work to educate some 1.5 million indigenous people partly living in the stone age in remote areas and ensure their access to modernity.

The provincial government should also issue bylaws to design pro-poor, pro-growth and pro-environment budget policies and ensure Papuans' civil and political rights and free access to education and health services, construction of public infrastructure and the sustainable management of natural resources. And any party will be barred from activities supporting secessionism inside and outside the two provinces.

The right approach to development will certainly be effective to develop Papua and West Papua into "a land of peace".

The author is a staff writer at The Jakarta Post.

By Damien Kingsbury, Associate Head (Research) of the School of  International and Political Studies at Deakin University and author  of "The Politics of Indonesia"

Entering its tenth year since the fall of the authoritarian President  Suharto, Indonesia has progressed towards consolidating its  democratic system, respecting rule of law and resolving ethnic grievances.

Notably, after a couple of false starts, the direct election of  President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono helped consolidate Indonesia's  reform process. Yet despite this progress, Indonesia retains a blot  on its democratic and human rights record; that of West Papua.
 
There was some hope after 2001 that Indonesia's process of political  and economic decentralization would allow West Papua a degree of  genuine autonomy.

On paper, the "special autonomy" package offered to West Papua, and  Indonesia's other formerly troubled province of Aceh, looked to  address many outstanding issues.

Yet as has since been noted by many observers, West Papua's "special  autonomy" status has been methodically undermined until it has become  next to meaningless.

In particular, dividing the province into three provinces, later ratified by Indonesia's constitutional court as two, destroyed much of the substance of its autonomy package. A proposal to create even further provinces even further diminishes the original "special autonomy" package.

Meanwhile, since the redeployment of troops following Aceh's successfully negotiated peace settlement, West Papua has seen a significant build-up of soldiers and paramilitary police. The human rights situation, while not at record bad levels, has consequently deteriorated.

Underlying West Papua's problems with Jakarta has been the means by which the territory was incorporated into the state in 1968. In this, a little over one thousand hand-picked village leaders were compelled to ratify West Papua's forced incorporation into Indonesia in 1963. This process was sanctioned by the UN, but has since been discredited.

West Papua was not only constructed by many Indonesian leaders as central to completing their nationalist project, but the wealth it generates has since underpinned Indonesia's economy.

As a largely self-funded institution, Indonesia's military, the TNI, also has a major economic stake in West Papua, and for both reasons is profoundly opposed to its separation.

Yet for a wealthy province, most West Papuans are poor, have abysmally low levels of education, health care and other development indicators.

And, as Melanesians, West Papuans are looked upon by malay Indonesians with attitudes ranging from pity to contempt. Many Indonesians, in particular in the military, regard West Papuans as being less than fully human, which has exacerbated human rights abuses.

Following the Aceh peace agreement which has seen that province prosper in peace over the past two years, many West Papuan political leaders hoped for a similar resolution.

In order to achieve this, last year the province's disparate political groups, including the Free Papua Organisation (OPM), came together under an umbrella organization, the West Papua National Coalition for Liberation (WPNCL).

The word "liberation" in the WPNCL's title refers to freeing West Papuans from oppression, not necessarily separating from Indonesia.

However, to date, President Yudhoyono has refused to talk with the WPNCL, at least under international mediation, perhaps fearing political backlash from the often fractious and self-serving politics of Jakarta.

Yet following from Aceh's relative success, such a process might offer a means of resolving Indonesia's outstanding separatist issue while significantly improving the lives of a people who have been treated as second class citizens.

 From an international perspective, such a resolution would remove a significant impediment from relations with Indonesia, particularly with Australia and the United States.

The West Papua issue retains the potential to destabilize bilateral relations, especially in Australia was faced with accepting another boat-load of West Papuan asylum seekers. Last year's Lombok Treaty does not trump Australia's international and humanitarian obligations to legitimate refugees, and the West Papuan issue continues to come up with members of the US Congress.

It is in Indonesia's interests, and those of its friends, to see the West Papua problem disappear. This cannot happen by sweeping it under the carpet, as with East Timor until the fateful referendum of 1999.

Rather, the problem of West Papua will only disappear when the government of Indonesia decides to seriously address the myriad issues that have bedeviled the territory.

The international community has a role in monitoring events in West Papua, at least as best it can given the continuing restrictions on travel there. And the international community might, as with Aceh, have a role in mediating and overseeing the implementation of any future agreement.

In this, Indonesia can build on its success in Aceh, which brought the government international accolades including Nobel Peace Prize nominations. The question really is, though, whether Indonesia is still serious about reform, or whether the gains of democratization will again be allowed to slip between it political fingers.


etanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetanetan

Suara Pembaruan, 21 March 2008
Abridged in translation

The government has announced its intention to introduce a Perppu (Presidential Regulation in Lieu of Law) to provide the legal framework for the Province of West Papua within the Special Autonomy Law No 21.2001 (Otsus Papua). According to the government,  this would provide the legal umbrella that will resolve this  problem.

It is very clear that  a Perppu for the Province of West Papua would create a precedent. If the government does indeed introduce this regulation, West Papua would become a very special province indeed, because it would be the only province in Indonesia that is created not by law but by a presidential regulation (Perppu).

This would convey the message to Indonesians, especially those living in the Land of Papua, that a new province can be created by the Central Government, if need be, by force, although the basis in law has not been established. It would mean that a law will no longer be necessary to create a province.

Further consequences could ensue from this move. Although the President has announced a moratorium on the creation of new provinces, the enactment of a Perppu for the Province of West Papua would raise expectations and reinforce the determination of those who are campaigning to bring about the creation of other new provinces in the Land of Papua as well as in other parts of Indonesia. They would no longer need to go to all the trouble of providing the status in law for creating new provinces.

These people would draw the conclusion that, by using the Perppu for West Papua as the model,  they can go ahead and declare the creation of new provinces such as South-west Papua, Central Papua and South Papua simply by means of a Perppu.

Those who want new provinces to be created would demand the same treatment from the central government. If the government were to refuse, they would accuse it of discrimination.. They would say, what is so special about people living in one part of the country if their own wishes were not heeded. This opens up the possibility  that people anywhere could get together and demand that their regions should also become a new province..The political elite and bureaucrats in Papua  and in other places  could demand that the government can simply produce a Perppu to create the province for which they are campaigning.  They could try to get
Parliament (DPR)  to pass a resolution or, if not, get the President to issue a Perppu. If this happens, the Perppu for the Province of West Papua will create a very bad precedent indeed.

The creation of new provinces in Papua cannot be equated with other parts of the country because Papua enjoys a special status, namely that it has special status because of the Special Autonomy Law 21. 2001 which was introduced  for the Province of Papua.   The existence of the special province  is protected within the 1945 Constitution, in particular Article 18 (b) which states that special governments are permissible. This means that if the government  approves the Perppu for West Papua, the President is acting in violation of the Constitution.

In my opinion, this inconsistency from the government will have fatal consequences. The confidence of the Papuan people in the government will suffer drastically.and could reach the lowest point ever.  They would come to the conclusion that if the country's Constitution can be violated, then other government regulations can also be ignored by the government. How can the Papuan people be expected to hope that the Special Autonomy Law can be properly implemented  if the government itself violates the country's Constitution?

For this reason, the government should consider these matters very seriously indeed before going ahead with the Perppu for the Creation of West Papua.

The writer is a lecturer at the Fajar Timor College of Philosophy and Theology, Abepura, Papua.

When BP set out to build a £3.5bn natural gas plant in remote West Papua, local villagers hoped for a bright future. But all is not well.

    * John Vidal
    * The Guardian,
    * Wednesday March 19 2008
    * Article history

This article appeared in the Guardian on Wednesday March 19 2008 on p8 of the Society news & features section. It was last updated at 00:10 on March 19 2008.

Recently, with hundreds of Indonesian troops just out of sight in scenes of intense security, Prince Andrew, the government's official business envoy, dropped in on Bintuni Bay, one of Indonesia's mots remote corners. The plan was to inspect BP's new £3.5bn natural gas plant. What the Duke of York probably did not know was that he had walked straight into a row between the giant oil company and local villagers.

The British firm had promised its new neighbours, who live on the edge of the pristine Papuan rainforest, better homes, long-term jobs and full environmental protection when it started several years ago to build its giant plant to extract 14 trillion cubic metres of gas. But with the gas about to flow, village leaders have now complained bitterly that the company has reneged on its agreements.

In a long letter sent to the Guardian and in telephone conversations, Papuan leaders requesting anonymity have complained that the company has blocked off their fishing grounds, attracted a flood of migrants to the villages, provided very few jobs for local people and is now siding with the Indonesian authorities against native Papuans who are engaged in a long struggle for independence.

"Everything we feared when BP came to the area has come true," claims one community leader. "People are not allowed to catch any fish or shrimps in the exclusive zone established by BP. More and more migrants are coming because of the plant. There is very high inflation because there is lots of money around. The number of local people from Bintuni Bay who work in the project is very low. Local Papuans are never recruited as full-time members of staff."

BP has been desperately keen to avoid the experiences that it, Shell and other oil companies, have had in Africa and Latin America, where oil and gas extraction has left a trail of pollution, human rights abuses and distressed people with no share in the wealth extracted from their land. The company pledged from the start to set new social and environmental standards, and to be a model of corporate social responsibility. It hired some of the best development NGOs to offer advice.

Papuan leaders say they were initially impressed when BP completely rebuilt one fishing village, poured money into the nearby communities, and employed leading environment, human rights and health groups to advise them on how to avoid conflict and bring prosperity to the villages. But as the project has come closer to opening, people have flooded into the area. "Conflicts between local communities and migrants have begun," says the leader. "The migrants [from all over Indonesia] have come here to look for jobs, and are staying. There are about 1,500 in the village of Babo and 1,200 in Bintuni. They are the majority now in all the villages," he says.

The Tangguh gas field, believed to be eventually worth more than £100bn to BP and the Indonesian government, is one of the largest in the world. Known as a "super giant", it is contracted to provide gas for China, Mexico and the US, and should last 30 years.

But the Papuan leaders, who have long been pressing for independence from Indonesia, say they fear that BP is taking sides with the Indonesian government, as they are bypassed from all the lasting benefits. According to documents seen by the Guardian, less than £30m was budgeted for the Tangguh social programme over six years, including money for resettlement and security; nearly £15m was earmarked for "consultants" and administration. The nine most affected villages in the area are being given £15,000 a year for five years, and others in the area £5,500 a year.

"BP has built 100 houses for 100 heads of families. All looks wonderful," another village leader says. "But the people actually suffer mentally from their new settlement. Their access to the sea is limited because of the company's exclusion zone, and they cannot expand their gardens. They do not have enough [space] to expand their families."

Criticism of BP's employment policy was levelled at the company last year and the Tangguh Independent Advisory Panel, chaired by Lord [David] Hannay, to monitor the project, encouraged BP to employ more Papuans and to educate the local population about the "demobilisation" process when the construction work is complete.

Although nearly 6,000 people have been employed in constructing the plant, fewer than 500 will be employed by the company after the building is complete later this year. Of these, only around 50 are expected to be Papuan.

"People's dependency on BP is very high. There will be problems when the work ends. There will be economic and psychological degradation," say Papuan leaders in their letter to the Guardian.

"We predicted that BP and Indonesia would not care about the very survival of the Papuans on their land and their nation. We expected that BP and Indonesia would continuously destroy our forests and our trees and pollute the rivers and seas," they says. "And we feared that BP and Indonesia would bring misfortune for the Papuans by employing skilled workers from outside West Papua, claiming that we Papuans are not 'skilled workers'. I have to tell you that our worst predictions and fears have come true."

BP denies that it is causing environmental damage, or that it is favouring non-Papuans. The company said it is bound by strict guidelines about how many Papuans should be employed. A spokesman says: "We think about 30% of the construction workforce is Papuan. The intention is that there will be long-term employment for Papuans. We are prioritising the most affected villages," says a BP spokesman.

But he also concedes that Papua is large and that it has been difficult to identify who is an original inhabitant of these villages. On the fishing situation, he points out that BP has provided outboard motors to some people so they can travel further to fishing grounds. "We believe we have set new standards for the BP group. There has been a lot of progress but there is no complacency," he says.
    * guardian.co.uk © Guardian News and Media Limited 2008

In recent years, there has been a sickening process of Judaization, in which Jewish towns are built to encircle and close off most Arab villages, towns and cities. It's ethnic warfare by any definition, and is typical of extremely racist settlement policies practiced by states against separatist movements - i.e. Indonesia in East Timor and West Papua, China in Tibet, Morocco in Spanish Sahara and Syria in the Kurdish North.
-------------------

Settler Criminals Not Innocent Civilians
Via Joachim Martillo, we have this interesting piece, Settler Criminals Not Innocent Civilians, on the attack on the Yeshivat Merkaz haRav in Jerusalem that killed 8 young Israeli male yeshiva students. There are some errors in this piece.

Read more:HERE

Santa Barbara International Film Festival
Human Rights for West Papua

Freeport-McMoRan Corp is destroying the Papuan rain-forest
Richard Elfman, Editor In Chief

Santa Barbara International Film Festival

West Papua: Free to Choose

I just saw a no-budget short film at the SBIFF, a documentary about the human rights struggle in West Papua (formerly western New Guinea--now annexed by Indonesia). The story was so damned
compelling that it kicked this writer's butt enough to start writing Congressmen--as well as writing YOU, my dear Buzzine readers (and please read this article if nothing else).

When New Guinea (the world's second-largest island--located north of Australia) gained its independence from the Dutch, neighboring Indonesia moved right in with a classic "screw the
natives" land grab. The other villain is American-based mega-mining company, the Freeport-McMoRan Copper & Gold Corporation, which, in collusion with oppressive military
police, operates a humongous land-stripping and utterly polluting cash machine, with barely pennies going to the very people whose land they ruin. It's obscene.

Filmmaker Craig Harris, a carpenter by trade and passionate human rights activist, keeps the candle burning with this film-in-progress, as he is attempting to go back to West Papua
and film some more. Helping him and the subject of our following interview is Octovianus Mote, Papuan human rights activist, respected journalist in his homeland, and visiting fellow at Cornell and Yale Universities, who now lives in exile in the USA--supporting his family with odd jobs at gas stations and delivering pizza, while trying to finish a book to promote social justice for his people.

Richard Elfman: Tell us a little about your background.

Octovianus Mote: I am a journalist and activist from (West) Papua, Indonesia, now residing in the United States. In 1998, I was appointed by the government of Indonesia as a mediator in
the national dialogue on Papua between representatives of West Papuan people and the Indonesian government. Following a meeting with West Papuans and the president of Indonesia in 1999, I was blacklisted and denied the right to travel outside Indonesia. Nevertheless, I came to the United States and have heldappointments as a visiting fellow at Cornell and Yale Universities.

RE: Can you give us a brief history of the situation in West Papua?

OM: Indonesia maintains control over West Papua, using military might to deny indigenous people human rights and to quell their demands for self-determination. Since the invasion in 1963, an estimated 100,000 Papuans have been killed by Indonesian armed forces and militias:

Papua is rich in natural resources, including natural gas, oil, minerals, and rainforests. The Indonesian government relies on the taxes from foreign sponsored extraction industries which are
devastating the environment and that return few or no benefits back to the Papuan people. The military is directly involved, engaging in illegal logging and acting as security teams for
mining companies. Papua is now home to the highest concentration of illegal logging operations in Asia. Widespread logging and mining have a serious impact on the livelihood and traditions of the Papuan people, who rely on the land for survival. Traditional land is continually being cleared, which has created conflict amongst the indigenous people, foreign companies, and Indonesian security forces.

USA-based freeport McMoRan is operating in the world's largest gold and copper mine in the mountainous home of the Amungme indigenous people, who have always opposed their presence. Freeport pays the Indonesian military $5 million per month to maintain security at the mine. These armed forces and militia groups regularly use torture, extra-judicial killings, and forced detention to block Papuans from protecting their traditional lands and expressing their rights to self-determination. According to Yale University and University of Sydney, West Papua is one of ten nations in world that is facing the possibility of the extinction of its indigenous people if there is no international intervention.

RE: What happened that caused you to flee West Papua?

OM: My neighbor and close relative, Obeth Badii, was found dead in a police office. A couple of days earlier, Obeth warned me about some people looking for me. Military persons had been following me around--although I was guarded by Papuan people day and night, I no longer had freedom to work as a journalist.

RE: Is it difficult, living in exile?

OM: On the positive side, for myself and my family, I have security. My children can go to school without any problems. If I were in Papua, my family and I would be threatened. Having
political asylum gives me the opportunity to continue in my human rights work, where I can speak and meet freely. Also, since I have had political asylum, I have had the privilege of
being affiliated with Cornell and Yale Univeresities, working with important anthropologists and Indonesian experts. Also, I have greater access to influential people in the US. For instance, I meet with US Congressional people, to whom I give data about Papua.

The negative side of having political asylum is that I feel distant from people, Where in the past, as a journalist, I had close connections to my people, now I have to, in part, rely on
other people's reports. Furthermore, there's an issue with funding. Back home, I had no problems with funding my work, because I had a consistent job as a journalist. I could give
full attention to my work as a journalist and human rights advocate. Additionally, I cannot finish my work (on the genocide  project and my book, as well as my lobbying activity) because I have to work - e.g., in a gas station, delivering pizza, and transporting medical specimens. This takes up a lot of my time, but I have to keep my family fed.

RE: What can people--Americans and others--do to help the situation?

1. Call your representatives (Senate and House) to support this issue.
2. Lobby the US government to pressure Indonesian  government and military to stop their brutallity in Papua.
3. Lobby US government to bring this case back to UN as part of moral responsibility.
4. Make this issue into international radar through variety of media.

My greatest hope is that the world will recognize West Papua and support the Papuan people so they can live on their land peacefully.

[Comment: The use in the earlier part of this posting of the name Irian Jaya is very regrettable. This is the name which Suharto concocted for West Papua, surely in an attempt to erase the identity of the Papuan people as an ethnic group. TAPOL]

PNG Post Courier
February 6, 2008

By Emmanuel Pok

The problems posed by Irian Jaya and its continued incorporation into Indonesia remain considerable.

The indigenous Irianese the West Papuans are ethnically and culturally quite different from the other peoples of Indonesia.

In 1969, an Act of Free Choice was conducted in which the Irianese voted in a referendum on whether they wanted to remain with Indonesia or become a separate autonomous state. However, as the referendum was taken under Indonesian supervision and control, with few safeguards to ensure that the Irianese would be given a fair opportunity to exercise their choice, charges of Indonesian vote rigging abound. Irianese nationalists, who were determined to fight for an independent Irian Jaya, formed the Organisasi Papua Merdeka (OPM or Free Papua Movement). During the early 1970s, sporadic armed clashes occurred throughout Irian Jaya, between the Indonesian authorities and West Papuan freedom fighters.

The OPM continues to operate from bases in The Netherlands, Senegal, and Papua New Guinea, and partly as a guerrilla force throughout Irian Jaya particularly in the region near the Papua New Guinea-Irian Jaya border.

The OPM dissension with the Indonesian Government is based on several grievances, including:

* forced territorial incorporation into Indonesia;
* cultural imperialism;
* loss of identity;
* alienation of land; and
* political repression.

The Indonesian Government is determined to consolidate control over Irian Jaya and integrate the area into Indonesia, for economic, symbolic, and security reasons. Politically, if Irian Jaya was granted autonomy, other dissatisfied regionally-based minorities could potentially follow suit.

The Trans-Irian Jaya Highway is being built along the length of the border with Papua New Guinea in an attempt to cut off the OPM from its support in Papua New Guinea and the South Pacific region. Currently, the international community considers Irian Jaya as a province of Indonesia. The United Nations has notregistered it as an independent state, which has been a continuous problem for the West Papuans. The international community generally regards the conflict between the Indonesian Government and West Papua as internal within the Indonesian governing body. Consequently, the West Papuans are burdened with many political challenges.

Political representation

The West Papuans represent themselves in the Indonesian Government but they have little say in any decision-making.TheIndonesians dominate the Government and the political bureaucracy, mainly because of the West Papuans fight for freedom against the Indonesian military. Political representation and liberty for the West Papuans is strictly guided.

West Papuans are not allowed to participate in Indonesian political issues, talk politics in public, or conduct awareness campaigns concerning their struggle for independence. It is not
tolerated by the Indonesian Government, and people involved in such activities are arrested by the military.

To escape this persecution, West Papuans have sought refuge mainly in the Pacific Island regions, but also other parts of the world. As Papua New Guinea is the closest neighbour, refugee camps have been set up along the borders, at Vanimo, West SepikProvince and in Western Province.

Participation in the Pacific Island Forum

The Pacific Island Forum is an important association and regional integration of all independent Pacific nations that come together to address issues concerning the region. West Papua has never participated directly in the Pacific Island Forum, although it has claimed to be part of the Pacific region. West Papua has always been enthusiastic about participating in the South Pacific Forum, but have never been given a chance, and no indigenous West Papuans have been represented in the forum. West Papuan participation is through indirect representation, which is mainly through petitions. When West Papuans think that an issue needs to be discussed in the forum, they forward it through a petition.

In every forum, the West Papuans always have a petition. On some occasions, peaceful demonstrations occur just outside the location of the forum to remind the forum members that West Papuans are still struggling and need the Pacific Island countries support.

Most of their petitions receive scant response, and the Forum takes very little action. West Papuan issues are not given priority, probably because Irian Jaya is seen as a part of
Indonesia. Also, the member states of the forum have many oftheir own conflicts and debates to deal with, so the West Papuans petitions receive only limited attention.

In 2003, a representative of the West Papua New Guinea National Congress (WPNGC) was sent to participate in the forum, and present a petition. He was refused entry. Further, his request
to be an observer was also rejected. However, the Kanakys of Vanuatu were given the opportunity to be observers at the forum, and this is seen as unfair.

Apart from Papua New Guinea, there are other Pacific Island countries that recognise the struggle that West Papua is facing:

* Nauru: Nauru is a very good supporter of the West Papuans. The Government of Nauru has brought the issue of West Papua to register with the United Nations, which was a bold move.

* Vanuatu: The Government of Vanuatu has taken a firm stand to support the West Papuans. The refugees have set up an office in Vanuatu, and the chiefs and the whole population are behind West Papua.

* Solomon Islands: Some refugees have entered the country and the government officials are very supportive. At one stage, the West Papua struggle was addressed on the floor of Parliament.

* Fiji: Fiji has supported the West Papuans in their campaigns. When Fiji was the chair of the Pacific Forum, West Papua's struggle was included on their agenda.

Indonesia and Papua New Guinea have good trading relations, have signed several agreements, and have a friendly relationship. However, the West Papua issue could potentially affect this bilateral relationship. Many West Papuans escaped political discrimination and migrated to Papua New Guinea. However, the Papua New Guinean Government has never made any attempt to address this illegal migration. The current group of West Papuans who are camped at the Boroko police station are one example. The time has come for Indonesia, Papua New Guinea, and the Pacific Island countries to address the West Papua Issue .

The West Papuan struggle for independence began in the 1960s, and they are still struggling to attain their ambition. One may ask why it has taken so long for the West Papuans to be politically free, compared to East Timor.

West Papua has many organisations and groups that are pushing for a single goal independence and there are many internalpolitical and power struggles among the leaders of those groups.
Originally, it started as the Organisasi Papua Merdeka (OPM or Free Papua Movement), but a lack of indigenous unity has divided this once powerful movement. Leaders had a variety of interests
apart from the fight for independence . Currently, there areless than 15 West Papuan movements. Lack of unity is oneweakness that is hindering their pursuit for independence.

If the West Papuans stood solidly together in a single organisation and collectively pushed for independence, then they would have a greater impact. The West Papuans are not receiving
favourable responses from the Pacific Island Forum, possibly because the member nations see that they are divided. There aremay be other issues that are impeding their progress. However,
it is up to the West Papuans to devise strategies that will motivate and pull together the interests of their fellow PacificIslands countries, and win collective support for their cause.

Emmanuel Pok is a cadet researcher in the political and legal studies division at the National Research Institute.