Tag: Right of Self-determination

Agus Alue Alua: A life of dedication to the Papuan People

Obituary of Agus Alue Alua
A life of dedication to the Papuan People 

Agus Alue Alua was born on 13 September 1962.  He studied at the Catholic secondary school Dok V, Jayapura and later worked as a teacher, then spent three years studying at the Catholic University in Leuven, Belgium.

From 1997, he took part in discussions within Catholic circles about the need to wage a struggle for the rights of the Papuan people, always stressing the importance of eschewing violence and pursuing the path of peace.

During the reformasi era that followed in the wake of the downfall of Suharto, he made good use of the newly-found freedoms to discuss such issues as development and the basic rights of the people of West Papua. Under discussion at the time were two alternatives for West Papua, autonomy or independence from Indonesia.

Agus Alua was one of several Papuan intellectuals to be appointed to the Committee of 100 which held important talks with President B.J. Habibie on 25 February 1999.  According to a colleague, he impressed everyone as he spoke with conviction and dignity: ‘We want our freedom,’ he said. ‘We want to organise our own homeland.’

The meeting ended inconclusively. The Papuans were advised to go away and consider their situation but the talks were never resumed. He was one of the first Papuans following that aborted encounter with Habibie to spread the idea about the need for dialog with Indonesia.

Catholic church leaders made good use of the more conducive political atmosphere to discuss the role of the church in Papua’s political struggle. While Bishop Leo Laba Ladjar OFM who was then the Bishop of the Jayapura Diocese, was hesitant about siding with the Papuan people, Agus who was a lecturer at the STFT -Fajar Timur (the High School of Philosophy and Theology) at the time challenged these thoughts, warning that if the Church failed to side with the Papuan people, he and others would set up a Papuan Catholic Church.

At the historic Second Papua Congress in June 2000, Agus Alua was elected deputy secretary-general of the Central Council of the newly-created PDP, the Papuan Presidium Council, one of two Papuans from the Central Highlands, along with Tom Beanal, and two from the coastal regions, one of whom was Theys Hijo Eluay, who became chairman of the PDP. Theys was assassinated in November 2001 by members of the army’s elite force, Kopassus. As a member of the PDP Central Council, Agus Alua played a key role in drafting documents that gave voice to the need to struggle for the Papuan people’s aspirations.

He later became the Rector of STFT-Fajar Timor, where he had previously been a student, as well as Director of the Catholic Senior Seminary. He also wrote and published several books about the culture of the Dani people and about a whole range of Papuan political issues.

However, the Papuan spring ended in 2002 when Kopassus agents infiltrated the PDP leadership and set about destroying the movement from within. Some of its leaders withdrew, several died under mysterious circumstances, while others gave up the struggle and threw in their lot with Indonesia. Agus remained true to the Papuan struggle, using all means possible at home and abroad, frequently visiting countries in the Pacific and Europe to win support for the Papuan people.

When the Special Autonomy Law, OTSUS, was enacted in October 2001, a special council composed solely of Papuans, the Majelis Rakyat Papua, the Papuan People’s Council, was set up which he recognised as an institution of crucial importance in the fight for Papuan aspirations. He became its first chairman with the support of Bishop Leo Ladjar, a position he held for the first five-year term of the Council till shortly before his death.

He fought strenuously throughout his term to expose the malicious strategies of the central government which sought to undermine OTSUS. From the start, the central government had been half-hearted about OTSUS and had even delayed its establishment for several years, fearing that it might become a springboard for Papuan political aspirations One of the moves from the central government to undermine the unity of the Papuan people was the decision to split West Papua into two provinces which Agus Alua vehemently opposed. He continually worked hard to counter the government’s attempts to create divisions and conflicts among the Papuan people.

After the creation of the two provinces, he insisted that there should be a single MPR and whenever Jakarta pushed for policies to undermine OTSUS, he strenuously resisted, along with his close colleagues Frans Wospakriek, former rector of Cendrawasih University, and Hanna Hikoyobi who was deputy secretary-general of the MRP.

Among the many central government decisions he opposed was Presidential Decree No 77 which banned the use of Papuan symbols such as the Morning Star flag, the mambruk bird and the Papuan song, Hai Tanahku Papua, insisting that these were legitimate cultural symbols provided for within the terms of OTSUS. Another of his decisions was to make it obligatory for all positions of leadership in the Papuan provinces and regions to be held by indigenous Papuans.

Before ending his term as chairman of the first MRP, Agus oversaw the adoption of eleven recommendations. These recommendations included a declaration that OTSUS had been a failure and should be returned to Jakarta, that there should be an internationally-mediated dialogue, facilitated by a neutral third party, and that a referendum should be held on the question of Papuan sovereignty. These eleven recommendations comprehensively set forth the basic demands of the Papuan people and continue to inspire the Papuan struggle to this day.

Agus Alua was always steadfast in his support for Papuan efforts to make Special Autonomy a reality against constant obfuscations from central government, and continually used his outstanding intellectual abilities to promote Papaun interests and aspirations.

At the time of his tragic death, the second-term MRP was due to be inaugurated amid disputes about its membership, with Jakarta rejecting the appointment of Agus Alu and Hanna Hikoyobi. According to sources in Jayapura, these two had been elected as members of the new body, against the wishes of central government. The appointment of the second-term MRP is still in dispute; some of his colleagues believe that the pressures and intimidation he experienced at the time plunged him into deep depression, leading to his untimely death on 7 April. On that day, he was found lying on the floor at home and was rushed to hospital but was dead on arrival.

He is survived by his wife Cornelia Pekey and his three children, Liberta Claudia Alua, Liberto Claudia Alua and Hilerti Alua.

Carmel Budiardjo [with help from Octovianus Mote]

7

Comprehending West Papua: A report on the CPACS conference in Sydney and surrounding events

University of Sydney Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies

Comprehending Papua Conference

February 22-23, 2011

Comprehending West Papua: A report on the CPACS conference in Sydney and surrounding events

 

“We are Melanesian, not Indonesian!” and “Free Filip Karma!” chanted a group of West Papuans from around Australia – some refugees, some studying in Australia on scholarships – who had gathered in front of the Indonesian embassy in Maroubra, Sydney, on February 22, 2011. This demonstration urging Indonesia to free West Papuan political prisoners kicked off a week of events in Sydney bringing together academics and other advocates to focus on the status of West Papuan human rights.

 

Later that evening, a cocktail reception hosted by the West Papua Project at the Centre for Peace and Conflict Studies (CPACS), University of Sydney, followed by a dinner for conference participants, marked a merry beginning to a serious conference on Comprehending West Papua (February 23-4), the sixth in a series of conferences on the topic held by CPACS over a decade.

 

The conference was opened the following day by Emeritus Professor Stuart Rees and a performance group from the West Papuan community in Melbourne, both of whom graced the conference, respectively, with West Papua-centred revolutionary poetry and songs of inspiration. Up to 80 people attended the conference which convened at International House, with presenters from overseas (The Netherlands, Indonesia, Japan, New Zealand and Vanuatu), and interstate (Victoria and the ACT). Papers from in absentia participants (Paul Barber and Rosa Moiwend from TAPOL based in Surrey, John Saltford from London and Jim Elmslie from South Australia) were presented on their behalf, and Eben Kirksey, currently based in Florida, addressed the conference via video link.

 

The conference received good media coverage prompting an op ed in the Sydney Morning Herald by Hamish McDonald (http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/a-worm-inside-the-new-); several ABC radio interviews http://www.abc.net.au/ra/asiapac/stories/m1965274.asx; a New Matilda article (http://newmatilda.com/2011/03/03/does-west-papua-have-publicity-problemINTERVIEW), and coverage by Radio New Zealand International and SBS.

 

Paper highlights covered new interpretations of self-determination, from Akihisa Matsuno, in light of the concept of legitimate sovereignty (rather than decolonization) that guided the independence successes of East Timor, Kosovo and (soon to be) South Sudan; a presentation by Nick Chesterfield on the opportunities afforded for West Papua by new social media currently carrying revolutions in the Arab world; a spectacular analysis of the Australian Museum’s Sentani bark cloth art production by Yvonne Carrillo-Huffman; the outlaying of precise political goals for achieving independence and for post-independence governance by Jacob Rumbiak; and an astute reappraisal of the anti-Act of Free Choice campaigns that took place in West Papua in the 1960s by Dutch historian Pieter Drooglever. The entire collection of papers will be gathered into a book to be published later this year.

 

West Papuan political positions were represented by Rex Rumakiek and Otto Ondawame from the West Papua National Coalition for Liberation, Jacob Rumbiak and Herman Wainggai from the West Papua National Authority, and Franzalbert Joku and Nick Messet from IGSSARPRI (the Independent Group Supporting the Special Autonomous Region of Papua Within the Republic of Indonesia). Passions ran high as discussions on the different political positions (essentially support for independence or integration) predictably emerged with so much at stake for all, but a respectful atmosphere reigned and peaceful dialogue between parties transpired.

The conference closed with the launch of a beautiful short film titled Mambefor Dance directed by West Papuan Melanie Kapisa, showcasing two young children learning West Papuan dance from imitating bird of paradise rituals. Dr Jude Philp from the Macleay Museum also generously showed conference participants around the University of Sydney’s West Papua collection donated in the 1970s and housed at Fisher Library. Finally, conference participants signed an open letter initiated by Human Rights Watch to Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono, requesting that the prohibitive restrictions on access to West Papua be lifted for researchers, NGOs and foreign media.

That evening at the Amnesty International offices in Sydney, Indonesian Solidarity launched a campaign to free West Papuan political prisoners. The launch was addressed by Human Rights Watch’s Andreas Harsono with a powerful presentation documenting Filip Karma’s imprisonment, and John Dowd, QC, President of the International Commission of Jurists (ICJ) Australia. The week closed on Saturday 26 February with the annual national meeting of the Australia West Papua Association at which campaign decisions to support West Papuan self-determination for 2011-2012 were decided upon, together with West Papuan advisers (and members) Rex Rumakiek, Jacob Rumbiak, and Otto Ondawame.

 

Cammi Webb-Gannon camelliabell at gmail.com;

Related Articles
2

SMH: A Worm Inside the New Indonesia

FYI – Media Information

[With reflections on West Papuan situation.]

The Sydney Morning Herald
February 26, 2011

A Worm Inside the New Indonesia

by HAMISH McDONALD

WITH popular uprisings turfing out rulers in Tunisia, Egypt and perhaps elsewhere in the Arab world, a lot of analysts have focused on fears of ”contagion” in other regions, notably on China’s censorship of news reports about the protest wave in the Middle East.

Yet the Middle East event that might have the most far-reaching effect is not the awakening of the Arab ”street” against authoritarian rulers, but the vote in a United Nations supervised referendum a month earlier.

The largely African people in the south of Sudan voted overwhelming to secede from their Arab-dominated country and form a new nation – a result accepted by the Khartoum government and its main foreign backers, including China.

This has followed the declaration of independence from Serbia by Kosovo in 2008 that was accepted by most of the world and approved by the International Court of Justice, and Russia’s unilateral recognition of Georgia’s South Ossetia and Abkhazia as sovereign states soon afterwards in retaliation. It has left respect for the ”territorial integrity” of states and post-colonial boundaries somewhat tattered.

Already the example is being applied to an intractable issue right on Australia’s border and forming the touchiest part of what many see as our most important foreign relationship – the question of West Papua, the western half of New Guinea now part of Indonesia.

As Akihisa Matsuno, a professor at Osaka University, pointed out this week in a conference at Sydney University’s Institute of Peace and Conflict Studies, South Sudan and Kosovo take West Papua out of the usual context of debate about the rights and wrongs of its decolonisation from Dutch rule in 1962 and ”act of free choice” under Indonesian control in 1969.

Kosovo’s independence was a case of ”remedial secession”: no states claimed the Kosovars had a right to self-determination, there was just no prospect of its peaceful reintegration back into Serbia or the rump Yugoslavia. Protection of people in Kosovo had more weight than Serbia’s territorial integrity.

Sudan became independent in 1956 from British rule, but has been in civil war most of the time since, with a 2005 peace agreement finally conceding a referendum. This suggests lack of integration between territories ruled by the same colonial power can justify a separate state, Matsuno said. ”This means that colonial boundaries are not as absolute as usually assumed.”

Indonesia itself went down this path in 1999 by insisting, for its domestic political reasons, that East Timor’s vote in 1999 was not a delayed act of self-determination that should have been taken just after the Portuguese left in 1975, but a ”popular consultation” with the result put into effect by Indonesia’s legislature. This amounted to conceding a right of secession to its provinces, Matsuno said.

West Papua’s act of free choice was seen as a farce from the beginning. As the historians Pieter Drooglever in Holland and John Saltford in Britain have documented, monitors were kicked out of the territory by the Indonesians in the seven-year interval between the Dutch departure and the ”act” – which was a unanimous public vote by an assembly of 1022 handpicked, bribed and intimidated Papuans in favour of integration with Indonesia.

Revolt has simmered and broken out sporadically ever since. Canberra’s relations with Jakarta went into crisis in 2006 when 43 Papuan independence activists and family members crossed the Torres Strait by motor canoe and requested political asylum.

Richard Chauvel, an Indonesia scholar at Melbourne’s Victoria University, told the conference Jakarta feels Papuan independence is not seen as the threat it was a decade ago when a ”Papuan spring” of breakaway sentiment and protest followed East Timor’s departure. The territory has been broken into two provinces so far, and numerous district governments, Papuan separatists fragmented, and no state bar Vanuatu is questioning Indonesian sovereignty (though the US Congress last September held its first committee hearing on West Papua).

Yet Chauvel says West Papua has become an ”Achilles’ heel” for a democratising Indonesia over the last 10 years. ”Papua is Indonesia’s last and most intractable regional conflict,” he said. ”Papua has become a battleground between a ‘new’ and an ‘old’ Indonesia. The ‘old’ Indonesia considers that its soldiers torturing fellow Indonesians in a most barbaric manner is an ‘incident’. The ‘new’ Indonesia aspires to the ideals of its founders in working towards becoming a progressive,
outward-looking, cosmopolitan, multi-ethnic and multi-faith society.”

President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono called the recently reported
torture cases ”incidents” by low-level soldiers, not the result of high-up instructions. Chauvel says he is probably correct: ”A more likely explanation is that instructions were not necessary. These acts reflected a deeply ingrained institutional culture of violence in the way members of the security forces interact with Papuans.”

Matsuno argues that South Sudan makes Indonesia’s post-colonial claim to West Papua more shaky, since it too had racial, religious and other differences to the rest of the country and had been administered separately within the former Netherlands East Indies. A ”more moral question” behind self-determination is coming to the fore, he said, the factor of ”failure” in governing.

The Japanese scholar sees echoes of East Timor in the late 1980s, when even foreign policy ”realists” started recognising the failure of Indonesian rule on the ground: serious human rights abuses, foreign media shut out, migrants flooding in, local leaders turning away from government, a younger generation educated in the Indonesian system refusing to identify themselves as Indonesians.

”These young people were increasingly vocal and continued to expose the ‘unsustainability’ of the system,” Matsuno said. ”Indeed the unsustainability of the situation in West Papua seems to be a truth. Only it takes some more time for the world to realise the truth.”

No one expects any outside power to intervene. But as we are seeing in the Arab despotisms, the new media make it harder and harder to draw a veil over suppression. In the Indonesia that is opening up, the exception of West Papua will become more glaring.

Related Articles
1

Create a website or blog at WordPress.com

Up ↑