The people of West Papua have been subjected to persistent human rights abuses since the region was annexed by Indonesia in 1969. While the devastating conflict over Timor Leste gained the condemnation of many international players, there has been a deafening silence over the Indonesian Government’s violations of international human rights law in West Papua. And there are no signs of an imminent resolve to the hostilities - violence recently erupted during a protest demanding the closure of the Freeport mine, an increasing presence of troops threatens to further suppress the rights of the people of West Papua, and the provisions of the Special Autonomy Law have still not been fully implemented by the Indonesian Government. 

Any rights for the West Papuans? 

The West Papuan people, although linguistically and culturally diverse, share a common Melanesian identity that sets them apart from the majority Javanese population of Indonesia. When Indonesia gained independence in 1949, it assumed sovereignty over West Papua until 1969 when the international community supported an ‘Act of Free Choice’ to enable the people of West Papua to exercise their right to self-determination. Although a United Nations (UN) monitoring team was dispatched, the presence of the Indonesian military greatly undermined its effectiveness, and the government succeeded in selecting only 1026 delegates to vote out of West Papua’s population of 800,000. In the shadow of intimidation and violence, only 1024 delegates voted. There were no dissenting votes. In what has been labelled as an ‘Act of No Choice’, West Papua’s annexation by Indonesia was formalised and accepted as legal by the UN General Assembly. 

The tribes of West Papua opposed the annexation, leading the Indonesian government to crack down. Approximately 100,000 West Papuans have reportedly been killed, (representing almost ten per cent of the population) in what has been labelled by a project of the Yale Law School as genocide.  

In addition to the 1977 aerial bombardment of several thousand Papuans in Jayawijaya and the October 2000 massacre of 32 people in Wamena, the West Papuan people have also been subject to extrajudicial killings, torture and other inhuman treatment (such as electric shocks, beatings, pistol whipping, water torture, cigarette burns), arbitrary and mass detention, disappearances, public rape and sexual violence.  

Moreover, the people of West Papua are subject to less direct methods of human rights abuse through the government’s economic and social policies. Not only does West Papua have a poverty rate more than double the national average (at 41.8 per cent), but approximately 40 percent of the country’s HIV and AIDS cases are located in the province, despite having only one percent of the population. Further, Indonesian policies of transmigration and forced relocation have appropriated land from indigenous owners and deprived local people of employment, causing the marginalisation of the West Papuan people and the destruction of their resources, crops, environment, subsistence practices and governance systems.  

Violence over Freeport mine 

As the West Papuan land is rich in gold and copper, many of the Government’s policies in West Papua surround their economic interests in resource exploitation. In March 2006, a student protest demanding the closure of the US-owned Freeport-McMoran mine ended in the death of five members of the Indonesian security forces. The mine continues to be the centre of West Papuan frustrations as the indigenous population benefit very little from the mine, which employs a non-indigenous workforce and is guarded by Indonesia’s special force Kopassus, who have been condemned for human rights abuses in Timor Leste. The Indonesian government, however, benefits directly from Freeport-McMoran, which reportedly paid the government US$ 33 billion between 1992 and 2004. 

Terrorists or civilians? 

Since the annexation, the Indonesian government has focused on the suppression of separatist sentiments such as those of the Free Papua Movement (OPM - Organisasi Papua Merdeka). Civilians, as well as West Papuan political and village leaders, have been the targets of violent attacks and have been denied their civil liberties such as the freedom of expression, opinion and association - it is, for example, illegal to fly the West Papuan Bintang Kejora (Morning Star) flag. Further, the Indonesian government has labelled it a terrorist organisation. In doing so, Indonesia has regained the military support of the United States, Britain and Australia and justified the increased presence of National Army of Indonesia (TNI - Tentara Nasional Indonesia) troops in the region, scheduled to be augmented by a further 12,000 to 15,000 before 2009. Although claimed to be a security measure, the International Herald Tribune reports that the Indonesian military is known to be running lucrative business operations in West Papua, such as private security contracts, illegal logging, extortion, prostitution and smuggling.  

Impunity for TNI troops and paramilitary forces is a major reason for the persistence of human rights violations. Despite a 2000 legislation providing for permanent Human Rights Courts and the establishment of a National Human Rights Commission (Komnas HAM) in 1993, those accused of human rights abuses in West Papua have gone unpunished. The Papuan Tribal Council has recently demanded that investigations be conducted by an independent fact finding team.  

Special Autonomy 

The Special Autonomy of Papua Law (UU 21/2001) offered some hope for the people of West Papua by providing for the establishment of a law-making Papuan People's Assembly (MRP), the allocation of 70 percent of the province’s oil and gas revenue and the potential for political participation by the West Papuan people. However the government failed to implement the provisions of the law and in 2001 the Presidential Instruction No. 1/2003 divided West Papua into three provinces. This attempt to structurally weaken the province met with strong resistance from the West Papuan people and in November 2004 the Indonesian Constitutional Court declared the law unconstitutional and invalid, yet in the same judgment the court recognised the existence of West Irian Jaya as it had already elected members to the House of Representatives in Jakarta. Since the election of President Soesilo Bambang Yudhoyono, Papua branch offices of Komnas HAM and the MRP have been established, and most recently in August this year President Yudhoyono agreed to evaluate Law No.21/2001, including the provision on the existence of West Irian Jaya. 

Nevertheless, the complete provisions of the Special Autonomy law have still not been implemented and there are demands for the government to uphold its obligation to the people of West Papua by doing so. Efforts must also be made to ensure that the legislature and the MRP are both involved in any revision to the law and that the law does not neglect the cultural values of the Papuans. 

What must be done? 

Indonesia, as a member of the Human Rights Council, has pledged to “do its upmost to fully implement all international human rights instrument to which it is a party”. Indonesia must uphold this by promptly incorporating the provisions of the ICCPR and ICESCR (acceded in February 2006) into its domestic legal system, withdrawing its reservations on ratified human rights treaties, and by extending open-ended invitations to the outstanding Special Procedures visit requests on the issues of torture; freedom of religion or belief; migrants; freedom of opinion and expression; extrajudicial, summary or arbitrary executions; human rights defenders; and on structural adjustment policies and external debt.  

While parliamentary committees in Britain, Ireland and New Zealand have expressed concerns about the situation and the US Congress has repeatedly reported on increasing West Papuan human rights abuses, direct action must also be taken. Human Rights organizations have put forward a number of recommendations in this regard. To summarise, States must: advocate for the situation in West Papua to be specifically addressed by the Human Rights Council through a country-specific resolution; request that the United Nations send a fact-finding mission to West Papua (following the lead of Vanuatu); and address human rights issues in bilateral diplomacy with Indonesia. Governments, regional groups and non-government organisations must also specifically demand that multinational corporations operating in West Papua issue publicly available corporate responsibility reports; pressure Indonesia to grant the people of West Papua indigenous status; condemn violence against journalists in Indonesia and demand that the ban on foreign media in West Papua be lifted. 

Most importantly, it is imperative that states cease all arms sales and military support to Indonesia. The United States must reverse the recent decision by the Department of State to resume military assistance to Indonesia despite restrictions being enforced by the US Congress since 1999. Similarly the UK, in being one of Indonesia’s largest supplier of arms, must consider the humanitarian impact of its plans to strengthen military and anti-terror ties with the Indonesian government and in particular cease the deployment of Tactica armoured vehicles and water cannons which are used in West Papua.

 Human Rights Features