West Papua 1969 Act of NO Choice letter to Rob Wilson MP (Conservative
Member of Parliament for Reading East & Shadow Minister for Higher
Education)

Mr Rob Wilson MP,  House of Commons, LONDON SW1A 0AA

24th February 2008.

Dear Mr Wilson,

WEST PAPUA: 1969 'Act of Free Choice'.

Thank you for your letter enclosing a reply from Meg Munn MP, Foreign Office
Minister with responsibility for the UK's relations with Indonesia. (Her
ref.53976)

I have read her letter very carefully and, I admit, discussed the matter
with colleagues and friends who are more expert than I in the technical
details surrounding the subject to which she refers, namely the Act of Free
Choice.  As one of your constituents, I have an interest in the UK's foreign
affairs, and especially how our country is perceived by others abroad - I
would like it to have a reputation for fairness and justice in its foreign
policy.  I am therefore very concerned about the Government's stance on this
matter, as outlined in Ms. Munn's reply, and would be grateful if you could
raise this issue further with her on my behalf.  For ease of reference, I
have included the Minister's words from the letter in bold, followed by my
comments on each statement, and my specific questions in italics.

The Act of Free Choice took place in Papua in 1969. A group of 1,000 Papuan
representatives, who were given the responsibility to make the choice on
behalf of the Papuan people, voted to remain part of Indonesia.

Ms Munn's brief description of the 'Act of Free Choice' is a very distorted
one. To quote Baroness Symons, one of her own Ministers addressing
Parliament in December 2004, 'there were 1,000 handpicked representatives
and [that] they were largely coerced into declaring for inclusion in
Indonesia'. Even more recently in January 2007, Baroness Royall admitted
that 'we recognise that it [the Act of Free Choice] was extremely flawed'.
This position is reflected in much greater detail by the Dutch Government
commissioned Drooglever report, a summary of which can be found here:

http://tapol.gn.apc.org/reports/droogleverengsum.htm

and as she may be aware concludes as follows:

'In the opinion of the Western observers and the Papuans who have spoken out
about this, the Act of Free Choice ended up as a sham, where a press-ganged
electorate acting under a great deal of pressure appeared to have
unanimously declared itself in favour of Indonesia.'

This conclusion seems to support the views expressed by Baroness Symons and
Baroness Royall.

The British Government of the day supported the Act of Free Choice, as did
the United Nations and almost all members of the international community.

I feel I must make two comments on this statement:

Firstly, to say that UN and members of the international community supported
the Act of Free Choice is at best an overstatement, at worst misleading. The
relevant part of the text of UNGA Resolution 2504 (XXIV) of 19 November 1969
states that the General Assembly:

'Takes note of the report of the Secretary-General and acknowledges with
appreciation the fulfilment by the Secretary-General and his representative
of the tasks entrusted to them under the Agreement of 15 August 1962 between
the Republic of Indonesia and the Kingdom of the Netherlands concerning West
New Guinea (West Irian)' 

The 'tasks entrusted' to the Secretary-General were very limited. They were
to advise, assist and participate in the arrangements for the Act of Free
Choice. The UN representative and his team did advise, assist and
participate in the arrangements, to the very limited extent that they were
allowed to do so by the Indonesian authorities, as detailed in Dr. John
Saltford's book, 'The United Nations and the Indonesian Takeover of West
Papua, 1962-1969: The Anatomy of Betrayal'. So in the above Resolution the
UNGA appreciates the fact that the UN representatives advised, assisted and
participated in the arrangements for the Act of Free Choice. 

The General Assembly is NOT however, commenting on whether their advice,
assistance and participation amounted to a fair exercising of the right to
self-determination by the people of West Papua, which is the point at issue.
The Resolution does NOT support the Act of Free Choice in this sense.
 
This leads to my second and more important comment, namely that Ms. Munn is
confusing the arrangements made under the bilateral treaty (New York
Agreement) with the quite separate right to self-determination held by the
West Papuans under international law. The General Assembly was commenting on
the bi-lateral treaty and nothing else. 

Any Act of Self-determination must be carried out in accordance with
international law, as established in such documents as the UN Charter, the
Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and
Peoples (UNGA Resolution 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960), the rules
concerning when a territory ceases to be non-self-governing (Res 1541 (XV)
of 15 December 1960), published opinions of the International Court of
Justice etc. 

The New York Agreement was a purely bi-lateral arrangement between the
Netherlands and the Republic of Indonesia, in which Indonesia took over
colonial administration (not sovereignty) from the Netherlands.  The Papuan
peoples, who were the object of this arrangement, had in 1969 a legal right
to self-determination. That right cannot be removed by the Indonesian
government or indeed by a major power like Britain. The right to
self-determination continues until the right-holders freely express their
wishes, which, according to Principle IX of UNGA Resolution 1541(XV) of
1960, (see below), must be by 'universal adult suffrage' i.e. by way of
plebiscite. 

The International Court of Justice has also confirmed that
self-determination requires a free expression of the will of the peoples
concerned. As the British Government has conceded, the Papuan peoples did
not agree to integration with Indonesia (They were 'largely coerced'
according to Baroness Symons quoted above [2004], a comment confirmed by the
then Foreign Secretary, Jack Straw [2005]).  

It follows that Indonesia's acquisition of West Papua is an illegal
annexation and Indonesia's position continues to be that of a colonial
power. 

The UN Secretary-General's Special Representative at the time reported that
'in accordance with Indonesian practice' the population had 'expressed their
wish to remain with Indonesia'. Thus Papua became an integral part of the
territory of Indonesia.

Ms. Munn mentions that the UN report stated that the 'Act of Free Choice'
took place 'in accordance with Indonesian practice'.  However, if you read
the actual text of the 1962 New York Agreement, which I have done, it
specifies that something different should happen - Article XVIII (d) refers
to:
'The eligibility of all adults, male and female, not foreign nationals, to
participate in the act of self-determination to be carried out in accordance
with international practice.' (My emphasis)

The UN report is therefore saying that the 'Act of Free Choice' was NOT, in
fact, carried out in the way specified in the New York Agreement -
'Indonesian practice' is not 'International practice'.  The 'selection' of
'representatives' is NOT how such acts of self-determination are to be
carried out according to 'International practice'.  This term was clearly
defined at the time, in fact. For example, Principle IX of the 1960 UNGA
Resolution 1541 (XV) (on the integration of one territory with another)
states:  
'The integration should be the result of the freely ex-pressed wishes of the
territory's peoples acting with full knowl-edge of the change in their
status, their wishes having been expressed through informed and democratic
processes, impartially conducted and based on universal adult suffrage.'

As all objective commentators, including Baroness Symons, acknowledge, the
'Act of Free Choice' bore no relation to this.  Instead 1,022 Papuans were
hand picked by Indonesia, supposedly to represent the entire West Papuan
population. They were then paraded in front of Indonesian Generals, UN
officials and a few foreign Ambassadors who watched as they were coerced
into voting unanimously to integrate with Indonesia.

In August 1969, Brigadier-General Ali Murtopo, special envoy of President
Suharto, speaking to West Papuans selected to take part in the 'Act of Free
Choice', made this threat:

'This is what will happen to anyone who votes against Indonesia. Their
accursed tongues will be torn out. Their full mouths will be wrenched open.
Upon them will fall the vengeance of the Indonesian people. I will myself
shoot them on the spot.'

And at the same time, the recently deceased Indonesian dictator Suharto sent
this message to his military forces in West Papua:  
'See that the [act] on West Irian's [Papua's] future status will yield a
clear pronouncement in favour of Indonesia.'

It would seem that Baroness Symons was correct that the Papuans 'were
largely coerced into declaring for inclusion in Indonesia.' 

We can also see why Baroness Royall was led to comment that the Act of Free
Choice was' extremely flawed'.

Just by way of reminder, Ms Munn describes this in her letter as: 'A group
of 1,000 Papuan representatives, who were given the responsibility to make
the choice on behalf of the Papuan people, voted to remain part of
Indonesia'. 

Perhaps Ms. Munn didn't know the background I have summarized above.

My questions here are:

1. In the light of the comments above, does she still stand by the statement
highlighted above?  

2. What comment would she give on the statement of Baroness Royall that
'[the Act of Free Choice] was extremely flawed.'?

3. What comment would she give on the statement of Baroness Symons that the
Papuans 'were largely coerced into declaring for inclusion in Indonesia.'?

We do not support a re-visitation of the 1969 Act of Free Choice.

My next question relates to this statement, and is the following: 

4. In the light of the facts above, WHY does the UK Government not support a
re-visitation of the Act of Free choice?   

As a Permanent member of the UN Security Council the UK has a special
responsibility to hold the UN and its member states to account when it the
organisation is brought into disrepute by its involvement in such a tragic
episode.  It is surely in the best interests of West Papua, the UN and even
Indonesia, that the full facts surrounding the Act of Free Choice be
examined and acknowledged. There is nothing to be gained from maintaining a
distorted version of history that can only further distort current efforts
to solve the West Papuan issue peacefully. It does the UK no credit if it is
seen to be supporting something that is clearly recognized today, even by
ministers in its own Government, as 'extremely flawed', resulting in the
Papuans being 'largely coerced into declaring for inclusion in Indonesia'.
I would therefore ask that the FCO reflects on these fundamental issues
instead of ignoring or distorting them, when it responds to queries about
the 'Act of Free Choice'.

As I have set out in my previous replies to your letters on behalf of Dr
O'Leary, and as stated in Parliament most recently by Lord Malloch-Brown on
13 November [2007], the UK respects the territorial integrity of Indonesia
and does not support independence for Papua.

Maybe the British Government should support Indonesia's territorial
integrity but, as explained above, Indonesia's acquisition of West Papua was
an illegal annexation, so that 'territorial integrity' does not include West
Papua. West Papua cannot legally be a part of Indonesia's territory unless
the West Papuans agree in a genuine act of self-determination.

Further, it is not a matter for the UK 'to support independence for
Papua', and I am not asking them to do this.  Who am I to say whether West
Papua should be independent?  That is for the people of West Papua to
decide.  But as pointed out below, the UK has a legal obligation to ensure
that the West Papuans are given the opportunity to exercise their existing
right to self-determination.

We believe that full implementation of existing Special Autonomy legislation
is the best way to proceed towards a sustainable resolution to the internal
differences and the long-term stability of Papua.

The situation in West Papua is not a matter of 'internal differences' but of
international law. Self-determination is an obligation erga omnes,
recognised by the International Court of Justice in the 1995 'Case
concerning East Timor' for example, and cited with approval in paragraph 156
of their Advisory Opinion on the Legal Consequences of the construction of a
wall in the occupied Palestinian Territory in 2004.  Thus it imposes on
Britain a legal obligation to ensure that the West Papuans are able to
exercise their right of self-determination freely. It also imposes on
Britain a legal obligation to avoid recognition of the current illegal
situation.   

Finally Ms Munn mentions that full implementation of existing Special
Autonomy (SA) legislation is the best way forward to resolve West Papua's
problems.  This is something that all FCO responses have referred to since
the legislation was first introduced in 2001. May I therefore draw her
attention to two recent verdicts on Special Autonomy? In late 2007,
Octavianus Mote, a fellow at Yale University, completed a paper titled 'The
failure of Special Autonomy'. In this he notes that among others, the Papuan
Traditional Council, the Papuan Peoples Council and Governor of Papua,
Barnabas Suebu have all concluded that Special Autonomy has failed. He went
on to say that throughout 2006 and 2007, Papuans, sometimes numbering in
their thousands, have demonstrated to renounce Special Autonomy and
petitioned their representatives, formally to reject it. At the same time,
nearly 50 Christian, Muslim and Hindu religious leaders from West Papua sent
a series of recommendations to the government and also concluded that SA had
been improperly implemented.   

In the light of this can Ms Munn answer this question: 

5. What evidence does she have that Special Autonomy really is helping to
improve matters in West Papua? 

She might like to read the recently published report on the situation in
West Papua, by Franciscans International, a non-governmental organisation at
the UN, which has General Consultative Status with the United Nations
Economic and Social Council:
 <http://www.franciscansinternational.org/news/article.php?id=1417>
http://www.franciscansinternational.org/news/article.php?id=1417

It makes grim reading for those who might believe that things are getting
better there. 

6. Will she then look for other solutions, such as genuine dialogue between
Papuan representatives and the Indonesian Government without pre-conditions
on either side? 
 
7.  Would Ms Munn, as has been suggested by FCO officials in the past, offer
to take on a role as mediator? 

I am very grateful to you Mr. Wilson, for your continued efforts on my
behalf to ensure that my Government answers my questions fully and
truthfully.  Ms. Munn's reply to my most recent questions indicates that the
UK is in danger of seriously damaging its reputation for fairness and
justice in its foreign relations, through its approach to the situation in
West Papua.  We, in Britain, and more importantly the long-suffering West
Papuans themselves, deserve better.

Yours sincerely,

Dr Sean V. O'Leary