The Universe Catholic Newspaper (UK)
 
Sunday 30 March 2008
 
The justice and peace worker for the Liverpool diocese has called on Catholics to speak out for the suffering people of West Papua.
 
Steve Atherton was speaking after Papuan leaders complained about the conduct in the country of oil company BP.
 
Papuan leaders 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.
 
Mr Atherton called on Catholics to look at their own lifestyles and asked them to be prepared to sacrifice some of their comforts to act for the people of West Papua.
 
"We need to put pressure on politicians here to act for the West Papuans," said mr Atherton.
 
Campaigners for Free West Papua are hoping that Catholic parliamentatarians John Battle and Lord Alton will raise the isssues of the West Papuan people in Westminster.

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 

Sunday, 10 February 2008, 9:40 am
Press Release: Australia West Papua Association

AWPA Calls on Prime Minister Kevin Rudd to raise the issue of West Papua with the Indonesia's Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda Joe Collins from the Australia West Papua Association said that AWPA is still concerned about the ties with the Indonesian military that the Lombok Treaty commits us to. (The treaty came into force on Thursday at a ceremony in Perth which was attended by the foreign ministers of Australia and Indonesia.

Prime Minister Rudd will meet with the Indonesian Foreign Minister Hassan Wirajuda in Sydney today. Joe Collins from the AWPA said that "West Papua will be one of our most pressing foreign policy issues in the future, here is the opportunity for the Prime Minister to raise the issue of West Papua with the Indonesian Foreign Minister. We all want to have good relations with our neighbours but good relations with Jakarta should not be at the expense of the West Papuan people who are struggling for their right to self-determination".

Australian governments of all persuasions have believed that a stabilised region to our north is our best defence. Kevin Rudd gave a talk last July to the Lowy Institute on the very subject called Fresh Ideas for Future Challenges: A New Approach to Australia's Arc of Instability. In discussing Australian-Indonesian relations, however, there was no mention of West Papua. Yet it is the Indonesian military that are one of the main destabilising factors in West Papua. The activities of the military, their involvement in human rights abuses and resource extraction will lead to the very instability the government is trying to avoid.

The message that Kevin Rudd should give to the Indonesian Foreign Minister to take back to the Indonesian President is that Jakarta should dialogue with the Indonesian leadership to try and solve the many issues of concern in West Papua.

We know from history that dialogue is the beginning of the political resolution of such conflicts. To quote from Nelson Mandela, "One of our strongest weapons is dialogue".

ENDS

[Letter sent by two senior members of the Committee of Foreign Affairs. - JMM/ETAN]

CONGRESS OF THE UNITED STATES

COMMITTEE ON FOREIGN AFFAIRS
U.S. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
WASHlNGTON, DC 20515

TELEPHONE: (202) 225·5021

HTTP:// WWW.FOREIGNAFFAIRS.HOUSE.GOV/

February 14, 2008

The Honorable Ban Ki-Moon
Secretary-General, United Nations
799 United Nations Plaza
New York, NY 10017

Dear Mr. Secretary-General:

We are writing to express our deep and growing concern regarding rising reports of human rights violations in West Papua. These reports come against a backdrop of decades of abuse by Indonesian security forces targeting the Papuan people.

The upsurge in violence has come on the heels of the June 5 -12, 2007 visit to West Papua by Special Representative of the Secretary-General, Ms. Hina Jilani. These threats and harassment appear to be specifically focused on Papuans who met with Special Representative Jilani. In her report to you, Ms. Jilani noted "harassment and intimidation" of human rights defenders. Moreover, as noted by Ms. Jilani, security forces in West Papua enjoy impunity from prosecution for human rights abuse and corruption. Juan Mendez, UN Special Advisor on the Prevention of Genocide, described, in 2006, West Papua as being among those countries whose populations were 'at risk of extinction'.

We are also concerned about the tight restrictions placed upon journalists, human rights activists and diplomats trying to obtain access to West Papua. As you know, nongovernmental organizations, the media and foreign officials can act as witnesses to and bulwarks against human rights abuses as well as agents of change. So, the failure of these individuals to gain unobstructed access to the country hinders Papuans' stories of human rights abuse, quashing of civil liberties and inability to express their right to self-determination from coming to the fore.

On June 24, 2004, twenty US Senators urged former Secretary-General Kofi Annan and the General Assembly to appoint a United Nations Special Representative to Indonesia to monitor and report on the situation in West Papua. The letter also urged that the Special Representative also "make recommendations regarding steps the UN Security Council and General Assembly might undertake to end the troubling and deadly conflicts" there. Events in West Papua have reached such a dangerous level that it is important for the UN Security Council to take action. The deteriorating human rights conditions in West Papua have led directly to a significant flow of Papuans across international borders, notably to Papua New Guinea and Australia. Papuans have also sought and received political asylum in the United States and in Europe. It is critical that the UN Security Council address the security concerns posed by human rights abuse in West Papua.

United Nations involvement in West Papua extends back to 1962. The UN was charged with helping implement the 1962 "New York Agreement" which guaranteed Papuans the right to participate in an "act of self-determination" to decide whether they wish to remain or sever ties with Indonesia. A referendum that clearly presented this choice never took place. In fact, thirty-seven Members of the US Congress wrote a letter, in 2006, to Mr. Annan requesting that the UN review its action accepting the "Act of Free Choice."

We are also concerned that notwithstanding assurances by Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono that his administration would address long standing Papuan grievances and implement Law No. 21/2001 on Special Autonomy, security and other Indonesian central government officials in West Papua have failed to carry out reforms.

Understandably, Papuan officials, civil society leaders and Papuans overwhelmingly have rejected the failed Special Autonomy policy of the central government. They have instead rightly called for an internationally mediated dialogue between Papuan officials and civil society and senior Indonesian government officials to discuss such concerns as the demilitarization of West Papua, Papuan self-determination and transmigration of Javanese into Papua.

We welcome the recent adoption of the United Nations' Declaration on the Rights ofIndigenous Peoples which calls for the elimination of human rights violations and for combating discrimination and marginalization against indigenous peoples. In that spirit, we urge that the Security Council appoint a senior official with responsibility to pursue the creation of a senior level dialogue between the government of President Yudhoyono and Papuan government and civil society leaders to be mediated by a UN Security Council representative.

Sincerely,

Donald M. Payne
Member of Congress

Eni F.H. Faleomavaega
Member of Congress

[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.

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MEDIA ADVISORY
Catholic PRWire

GENEVA, SWITZERLAND, OCTOBER 5, 2007 - Franciscans International hosted a two-day meeting for the faith based network on West Papua – a concert of NGOs promoting peace, justice and human rights in the region. Along with Franciscans International, the network consists of Justitia et Pax Netherlands, ICCO, Cordaid, Geneva for Human Rights, the West Papua Netzwerk, the United Evangelical Mission and other renown Christian organisations with grassroots constituencies in West Papua. The Geneva rendezvous gave the NGOs an opportunity to share information on developments in West Papua and to discuss future advocacy strategies.

"The faith-based network on West Papua represents the strongest ecumenical actors - Catholic and Protestant - coming together on human rights issues at the international level as one unified block”, said Chris Duckett, Franciscans International’s advocacy officer for West Papua. “Because churches is naturally interested in peace as an initiative, this [collaboration] was particularly important.”

Created in 2003, in response to a call from West Papuan religious leaders, the faith-based network aims to direct the international community’s attention towards West Papua’s beleaguered people and environment.

West Papua’s allure to the Indonesian government is evident. The island is home to two million people, divided into 245 tribes, accredited with speaking 15% of the world’s known languages. It is hailed by environmentalists as one of the most bio-diverse regions in the world, with a rainforest is second in size only to the Amazon in Brazil. But West Papua’s seventh seal is that it is, quite literally, worth its weight in gold.

The island’s colossal gold and copper resources are harvested by the Freeport Mine, said to be protected by the Indonesian military. In 2001, the Indonesian government implemented a Special Autonomy law, pledging majority of the mining revenue to West Papuans. The locals, however, are yet to receive their share. Oppressed by an often brutal Indonesian army; the Papuans are struggling to claim their economic and cultural rights.

Yet, for a region so rich in both natural resources and conflict, West Papua has gained little international attention.

“West Papua is very remote so it does not enjoy widespread coverage in the European media”, explained Chris Duckett. “Often, faith-based NGOs, with their grassroots connections, are the primary source of information on West Papua.”

Franciscans International has spent the past six years advocating on the behalf of West Papuans at international treaty bodies such as the Human Rights Council. The Geneva office of Franciscans International gets first-hand information on human rights abuses in Papua from their grassroots constituency - the Office for Justice and Peace in the Diocese of Jayapura. The information is then brought to the attention of international organizations by Franciscans International’s advocacy team. “You can view our work as a Franciscan diplomatic service, where our capital is Jayapura”, Duckett summarized. “My ‘foreign minister’ is a Franciscan friar and human rights defender.”

Other members of the faith-based network echoed Duckett’s emphasis on disseminating information on West Papua. “Since communication with Papua is difficult and trustworthy information is scarce, it is difficult to discern rumors from facts”, said Marijn Peperkamp, Coordinator of Peace and Reconciliation Programs at Justitia et Pax Netherlands. “This is why”, she added, “meeting each other as a network, on a regular basis is necessary, not only to be inspired, but also to get a shared feeling of urgency and to act upon it.”

The faith-based network will have plenty to act upon this year. For the 2008 universal periodic review for Indonesia, the network is working jointly to produce an NGO report on the plight of the West Papuans. “Our goal is to put West Papua on the UN agenda”, said Elin Martinez, Franciscans International’s West Papua advocacy intern. “Gross violations of human rights occur there all the time, but are not given any international attention.”

The network, however, acknowledges that its goals must go beyond just publicizing the grievances of the West Papuans. Duckett believes that the network’s main goal must be to “find ways in which a culture of peace can be encouraged in the region”.

The faith-based network’s special guest - Judith Large, Associate of Conflict Resolution at the Crisis Management Initiative- recommended some ways to engender peace. In a thought-provoking lecture on mediation, Large suggested that environment could be the issue to put West Papua on the international agenda.

“We can engage Indonesian government on issues such as national habitats, indigenous people, ecosystems, re-examining deforestation, and more”, Large explained. “Papua can be symbolic for the Indonesian government. Environmental concerns can give them more legitimacy with west, because these issues are on the global agenda right now.”

Large was however, quick to admit the optimism of such a strategy. “I am not being too idealistic”, she concluded. “It will be difficult, but reframing the West Papua question in terms of the environment would give the international community a supranational goal to work on, one that could benefit everybody. It may not be an answer, but it is an opportunity.”