Papua has once again come under not only the national but also the international spotlight. The situation was exacerbated by a leaked document about the Indonesian Army titled Autonomy of Papuan Separatists, on the Internet.
Many human rights activists were quick to voice criticism over the report. E. Pearson from the Human Rights Watch, for instance, wrote a subtle piece in the Huffington Post on Aug. 20, in which he clearly argues that the acts of some international supporters of Papuans are legitimate and lawful as they were not intended to harm Indonesia’s national integrity.
Certainly, in terms of human rights protection, an international cooperation should be deemed legal and legitimate, as in no matter what circumstances, human rights should be protected.
Nevertheless, the current discussion over the situation in Papua would not be sufficient to answer another significant issue in Papua of whether or not a group of indigenous Papuans, such as the Free Papua Organization (OPM), could take up arms and wage a lawful “battle for self-determination”.
The OPM’s prolonged battle, not to mention the current situation on the ground that could be described as armed conflict, is mainly based on the group’s demand to exercise their right to self-determination.
By doing this, I presume, a group of people should have the privilege of taking up arms to fight for “liberation”. It is of course undeniable that one may find such demand in any other part of the world.
Last week, the Sri Lanka’s Liberation Tigers of Tamil Elam (LTTE), to name a few of those so-called “self-determination groups”, filed a case against the European Union (EU) with the European Court of Justice. By banning the organization, through putting them on the EU’s terrorist hit list in 2006, they argued that the EU had violated international law.
In an interview in the magazine International Justice Tribunal, the attorney for the LTTE, Victor Koppe, says that in the pursuit of self-determination, the LTTE consequently has both the right to resistance and to use arms as it is in an armed conflict. He mainly based such understanding on the UN Charter.
Of course, the situation in Sri Lanka might be quite different from the one in Papua, but can such reasoning be applied to the OPM’s battle for self-determination?
The right to self-determination is indeed tricky in terms of legal terminology. The unclear parameter of the right is as old as the application of the right and dates back to the decolonization era in the 1960s up to late 1980s.
In discussing the legitimacy of the battle for this right, initially, I would convey several norms acknowledged in the United Nations (UN) practice.
It is clear, that within the ambit of the UN Charter, all member states shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations. Nonetheless, one possible lawful exemption on the prohibition of use of force is the act of self-defense.
In its Resolution 3070 (XXVIII), 1973, the General Assembly: “reaffirms the legitimacy of the peoples’ struggle for liberation from colonial and foreign domination and alien subjugation by all available means, including armed struggle”.
Furthermore, in the General Assembly Resolution 2625 about the Declaration on Principle of International Law, it solemnly proclaims at least two important principles related to this issue.
First, the principle that states shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the purposes of the United Nations, and second, the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples.
Based on the aforementioned laws, it can be concluded that states have the duty to refrain from the use of force upon people exercising the right to self-determination. It is also important to note that in international law discourse, the right of peoples to self-determination is today a right erga omnes (right toward all).
Thus, in order to gain legitimacy, one possible legal argument of the “self-determination groups” would be the act of self-defense. However, there is yet any exact answer for this as the international community is still divided on this issue.
On the one side, some countries, mainly Afro-Asian countries, affirm the right to use force on the basis of that the colonial or suppressive power aggression itself is a violation of the UN Charter, therefore any counter attack against it should be deemed legitimate. On the other side, some countries, mainly the West, argue that peoples do not have the same status as the states enjoy in international law.
Therefore, any privileges or rights in international law are not applicable to the peoples.
To conclude, back to the OPM’s battle, it is not always clear whether it should be deemed as legitimate under the current international law. One thing for sure is that the laws do not specifically rule such possibility of using arms and the states, presumably, will not grant an international legal status over them on their struggle for statehood.
Consequently, in terms of concept, it would be intractable for the OPM to struggle for statehood, following J. Crawford who opines that “a state is not a fact in the sense that a chair is a fact; it is a fact in the sense in which a treaty may be said to be a fact: that is, a legal status attaching to a certain state of affairs by virtue of certain rules”.
The writer is a staffer at the Human Rights Research and Development Agency under the Law and Human Rights Ministry. The opinions expressed are his own.
Comments (7)
gary, Bandung | Tue, 06/09/2011 - 14:09pm
It’s not the same my friend, at the time of the Dutch colonial the Indonesia is really struggling to get their freedom cause there are no freedom from Dutch colonial , at that time the Dutch is really exploiting Indonesian people, natural resource and Indonesia people became a slave and being sold by the Dutch. Really my friend Fakta from Port Numbay (who ever you and I don’t really want know) in the case of Papua Indonesia and Papua have a long history before the occupation of the Dutch colonial ( The era of the Great Kingdom of Majapahit) so Papua is part of Indonesia..My concern is that there are a lot of people involve (foreign country like Australia,USA and other big country) in the Papua matter, because it’s involve natural resources interest and geo strategic concern (politic, economic, social, culture and security)… So my friend the deal is this Papua have to learn what is the meaning of freedom, because Papua is already free to do want they want, (free of speech like any other Indonesia people, have the right of politic, equal right like other Indonesian people). So my friend the way for freedom isn’t struggling for separate from Indonesia, Papuan people need to fill the Independence with making improving the education, health, infrastructure for the people not by making Papua becoming next Kosovo like the OPM/TPN say with their ally…Peace my friend
I would say this article is really interesting and rich of new knowledge in addition also emerge such a debate in it. To understand the purpose of UN resolution must be based on the fundamental element on the establishment of the UN itself. Firstly, It was listed in the UN Charter preamble that the people of the UN would determine to establish conditions under which justice and respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained. This is the basic understanding that all people should “respect for the obligations arising from treaties and other sources of international law can be maintained.” Historically Papua have been part of Indonesia since the legal process conducted by the United Nations Temporary Executive Authority (UNTEA) since September 1962. It was signed and ratified under international treaty and noted by the UN resolution number 1752 (XVII). This is the legal resolution that should be respected by the people. Furthermore, the UN also have been acknowledge the territorial integrity of the Republic of Indonesia including the West Guinea (Papua) under UN resolution number 2504 (XXIV) November 1969. As well as have been accredited by the 24th UN General Assembly. At this point, I’ve assumed that UN and its members would consistently respect the obligation to respect the integrity of Indonesia’s territory including Papua. Secondly, in the term of foreign affairs, Internationally, I believe most member of the UN will maintain their consistency to promote and respect the integrity of Indonesia. As regionally, through the association like ASEAN, ASEAN+ 1, 2 and 3 and also the Pacific Forum in the Pacific Region will support the same way. Thirdly, the world have been see how Indonesia deal with the situation in Papua, in the term of fair and justice, many thing have been done for the people in Papua to uphold the law which that applies equally to all people. This term absolutely also apply to the pro independence movements and Free Papua Organization. Besides their “differences” with the government the pro independence movements can be freely expressed their opinions and critics to the government. But of course it can’t be apply to the OPM since the law has managed the restriction of utilization of gun. I believe, there are many leaks that might be used as means to fool the law since we’ve realized that there is no perfection in any law as long as it made by the human. So, I would say that the UN resolution number 3070 (XXVIII) would be interpreted difference from many parties. I would assume that this resolution can apply to the country that still remain in occupation by colonialism. And it was happened a long time ago, before the UN establishment. Papua Butuh Formula Terbaik Antara Dialog Referendum atau Merdeka Opini: by Turius wenda Berbagai solusi yang menerapkan di papua barat Papua masa ke masa sama saja, konflik berkepanjangan tidak kunjung usai, berbagai solusi telah berlaku di papua barat selama setegah abad (49th), anehnya perundingan ke perundingan masalah papua tidak pernah melibatkan orang papua yang nota bene sebagai pemilik dan akhli waris bangsa papua Apa saja yang menjadi solusi dan formula terbaik ,yang pernah berlaku dan akan berlaku bagi bangsa papua, demi perdamaian dan kelangsungan bangsa papua barat, ini sedikit uraian yang pernah tawarkan bagi rakyat papua, tapi bagimana penerapan dan hasil dari formula itu sendiri: Solusi Papua yang di gagas belanda Antara pada tahun 1949-1969, ketika seluruh jajahan Hindia Belanda menjadikan Negara merdeka sepenuhnya seperti Indonesia, namun Belanda mempertahankan kedaulatan Belanda atas West New Guinea, dan mengambil langkah-langkah untuk mempersiapkan kemerdekaan sebagai negara terpisah. Pemilu diadakan di Belanda pada tahun 1959 Nugini dan Dewan New Guinea terpilih resmi dilantik pada tanggal 5 April 1961, untuk mempersiapkan kemerdekaan penuh pada akhir dekade itu. Belanda mendukung pemilihan dewan dan beberapa atribut Negara berhasil di tetapkan seperti lagu kebangsaan baru (Hai Tanahku Papua), Bintang Kejora sebagai bendera nasional baru, Burung mabruk (Lambang Negara) tepat pada tanggal 1 Desember 1961. • Solusi Papua yang di gagas Amerika, PBB, Belanda, Indonesia Di tahun 1960 an Papua menjadi daerah perebutan antara belanda dan Indonesia, pertempuran belanda – Indonesia tidak kunjung usai, akhirnya amerika sebagai sekutu belanda telah mengambil peran penting dalam persengketaan ini. dalam hal ini penyebaran komunisme di Asia Tenggara telah menjadi beban berat bagi sekutu, sehingga Amerika Serikat menekan Belanda dalam Perjanjian Otoritas pengawasan Nation Temporary Executive (UNTEA) satu badan PBB yang akan bertugas memediasi daerah papua antara Indonesia dan belanda, Akhirnya, 1 mei 1963 secara administrasi dengan tekanan amerika UNTEA transfer Papua Barat ke Indonesia. • Solusi Papua yang di gagas PBB Status politik Irian Barat (papua). Ditandatangani di Markas Besar PBB di New York pada tanggal 15 Agustus 1962, yang sering di sebut dengan New York Agreement, demi penyelesaian persengketaan PBB mengambil peran untuk dimediasi antara kedua negara, Puncak penerapan perjanjian terjadi di tahun 1969 yang sering di kenal dengan PEPERA 1969, dalam perjanjian itu di sebut bahwa melalui pemilihan bebas (one vote one man) atau harus satu orang satu suara, namun di lapangan tidak terjadi seuai perjanjian, yang terjadi adalah dilaksanakan sesuai dengan sisten tradisi jawa (Musyawarah) dengan alasan orang papua sangat primitive dab bodoh namun setelah 2 tahun 1970 masyarakat papua sangup dan mampu berpartisipasi dalam pemilihan Umum indonesia. Yang akhirnya dengan tekanan militer Indonesia papua berhasil di menangkan Pepera dan resmi bangian dari NKRI. Hasil Pepera ini menjadi kontroversi di tingkat lembaga dunia seperti, Institut Internasional untuk Penentuan Nasib Sendiri (IISD), LSM dan pelaku sejarah orang papua (Rutherford). Bahkan Dr. Fernando Ortiz Sanz, utusan khusus PBB untuk mengawasi pepera telah melaporkan pada sidang Umum PBB bahwa, Mayoritas Orang Papua menunjukan berkeinginan untuk berpisah dengan Indonesia dan mendukung pikiran mendirikan Negara papua barat (UN dok.Annex I.A/7723, Paragraph 243,P47) (S.yoman 2011). • Solusi yang di gagas Indonesia Reformasi di Indonesia dimulai tahun 1998. Pada mementum ini, presiden Republik Indonesia berwatak ototiter dan militeristik, Soeharto (alm.) disingkirkan dengan kekuatan rakyat (people power) yang dimotori oleh para mahasiswa seluruh Indonesia. Pintu reformasi ini, menjadi kesempatan yang berharga bagi rakyat dan bangsa Papua yang berada dalam penjara kekerasan dan kejahatan Negara selama tiga puluh lima tahun (35 tahun) sejak 1961-1998. - Solusi Otsus Dalam momentum Reformasi seluruh rakyat papua meminta merdeka dan berdiri sendiri sebagai Negara merdeka (pisah dari NKRI), namun Jakarta rupanya tidak mau lepaskan papua sehingga sebagai hasil kopromi politic jakarta dan elit papua berhasil menawarkan solusi (win – win solution) yang sebut OSTUS (Undang – Undang Otonomi Khusus No. 21 tahun 2001 bagi Papua) sebagi solusi final. Otsus telah berjalan 10 tahun lebih dengan mengucurkan dana triliunan rupiah di papua namun sampai saat ini tidak Nampak hasil yang maksimal alias berjalan di tempat atau rakyat papua menilai Gagal. - Solusi Pemekaran Wilayah Lahirnya UU. No. 21 tahun 2001. ini sekaligus ‘mematikan’ kekuatan UU No. 45 tahun 1999 tentang Pemekaran provinsi Irian Jaya Tengah dan provinsi Irian Jaya Barat. Jakarta tahu bahwa pemekaran provinsi sangat bertentangan dengan UU Otsus namun Lewat Instruksi Presiden Megawati Soekarnoputri tiba-tiba dibentuk Provinsi Irian Jaya Barat sejak tahun 2003. dengan kepentingan politic demi keutuhan wilayah maka para elit politic papua, BIN dan Jakarta berhasil memekarkan provinsi IJB (Papua barat Sekarang). Pemekaran kabupaten daerah otonom baru (DOB) di papua sangat meraja lelah walaupun segi kelayakan wilayah pemekaran sangat tidak cocok atau tidak memenuhi syarat bahkan bertentangan dengan UU Otsus. - Solusi PP, Inpres, Perpu, bagi papua Papua tidak saja berlaku UU ostus tapi banyak peraturan tambahan yang sedang berlaku, seperti PP 77 Pelarangan Lambang kultur orang papua walaupun PERATURAN Pemerintah nomor 77 tahun 2007 tidak memiliki dasar hukum yang jelas. Dalam artian, tidak diamanatkan langsung oleh perundang-undangan, termasuk Undang-Undang No. 21 Tahun 2001 tentang Otonomi Khusus bagi Provinsi Papua. PP No. 77 tersebut bukan justifikasi yuridis. Ia merupakan justifikasi politik, karena tidak bersumber langsung dari undang-undang yang menjadi dasar pencetusannya, Kepres nomor 54, Inpres Percepatan pembangunan daerah tertinggal, Unit Percepatan Pembangunan Papua dan papua barat (UP4B) dan banyak lainnya. • Solusi yang di gagas LIPI ‘ DIALOG” Dialog Jakarta – papua telah di gagas oleh LIPI melalui peneliti senior Muridan wijoyo dengan menerbitkan buku dengan judul Papua Road Map bersama Jaringan damai Papua (JDP) dengan koordinar Dr. Peter Neles Tebay. proses penjaringan asprirasi dan konsultasi public telah berlangsung lama dan berhasil mencetuskan beberapa juru runding dalam KTT Perdamaian Papua. Namun Pemerintah NKRI sampai saat ini belum ada sikap yang jelas atas gagasan dialog Jakarta papua walaupun KTT perdamaian papua telah resmi di buka oleh penkopulkam dan jajaran pemerintah daerah papua. • Solusi yang di Gagas KNPB “REFERENDUM” Komite nasional west papua (KNPB) adalah sering di sebut dengan media rakyat yang di pimpin oleh Buctar tabuni (Tapol) dan di dalamnya banyak pemuda radikal yangtersebar di seluruh papua dan papua barat, selalu menyoroti pemerintah Indonesia atas penyelesaian kasus papua melalu Jalur Referendum. KNPB dengan percaya diri dan jakin bahwa Referendum adalah media yang terbaik untuk peryelesaian kasus papua karena pilihan politic ada pada kedaulatan rakyat papua. • Solusi Yang di gagas Rakyat Papua “MERDEKA” Jujur bahwa tidak ada manusia di dunia tidak mau hidup bebas (Merdeka), 100% saya yakin bahwa seluruh rakyat papua ingin merdeka pisah dari NKRI karena mereka yakin bahwa merdeka sendiri akan membawa perubahan dan menyelamatkan kelangsungan hidup bangsa papua. Tuntutan rakyat papua bahwa papua harus lepas dari NKRI tanpa pertempuran dan pertumbahan darah karena papua punya pengalaman buruk atas pembantaian Negara atas rakyat papua selama 49 tahun. Dari akhir artikel ini telah menarik kesimpulan bahwa persengketaan dan kasus atas papua telah menawarkan berbagai solusi baik dari akar rumput sampai lembaga internasional seperti PBB namun sampai di tahun 2011, dari semua solusi yang berlaku tidak ada ujung penyelesaian bangi rakyat papua, papua hanya menjadi lahan konflik sepanjang stegah abad. akhirnya solusi dialog, Referendum dan merdeka mamang belum menerapkan di papua, barangkali akankah dari tawaran 3 solusi terakhir ini mampu dan sangup membawa perubahan di papua? Penulis Turius w Finally, the failure of special autonomy, the invalidity of the act in 1969 on a free choice, and ignorance of the fundamental rights of peoples will pave the way for international intervention and support secessionist movements. For this reason, I believe that self-determination may be the last resolution for Papuans. The struggle of the people and the people of West Papua to independent and stand alone are not discussed in the forests, on a side road, and not through the banners, not through paper flyers, not through raising the Morning Star in the mountains, in forests, not through killing innocent civilians. However, the West Papuan people and the nation struggling with a very respectable and dignified presence in the Palace of the Republic of Indonesia and delivered in a polite, respectable and honorable to the Government of the Republic of Indonesia, through the President will of the people and the nation of Papua for Freedom gary, it's true that OPM also kills, which of course is not the adequate way of dealing with occupation. but do you in the same way condemn the killings of dutch colonisers by indonesian "heroes" in the 1940s? it is the same case, of course: papuans try to liberate themselves from an illegitimate occupation by foreign armed forces. in its blind ultra-nationalism indonesia was never willing to look at history objectively and to discuss papua in a civilised way. since 40 years indonesians only kill instead of discuss. it is the same problem like in israel: the palestinians want their own state. any attempt to discuss this issue, israel answers with bombs. indonesia and israel both know that they are most probably wrong about history and their position is very, very weak, so they are afraid of a just and fair dialogue. therefore, the only way they deal with the problem is to shoot the people who open their mouths. it's a pre-mature behaviour of course... it is very certain that just paying otsus money to the papuans and even to bring development to papua is not enough to cover the justified demand for political independence. the only thing that can solve the papua problem is to conduct the referendum, the repetition of the act of free choice of 1969, which has been promised to the papuans but which has never been conducted in a way respecting international standards (indonesian democracy means to say yes, yes, yes, while a gun is pointed at you head. the so-called "free choice") What about OPM kill civilian and military / police personnel? where is the human right for them? OPM also abuse Human Right..All people have Human Right you know including TNI/POLRI so Human Right NGO have to look both side not one side so that justice prevail.. and another thing the Indonesian Government is trying to improve the development of education, health, way of live, infrastructure and equal right for all real Papua People in Papua.. So, the author argues that there is an armed conflict (regardless its nature) in Papua. IMO, the author fails to connect the relation between the legal suit in ECJ and OPM's "self-det" and the so-called on-going armed conflict in Papua..
raflihasan, medan | Tue, 06/09/2011 - 12:09pm
turius, Jayapura West Papua | Mon, 05/09/2011 - 18:09pm
however, papua Issues in international law perspective to self-determination may be available.
why? In the end, although the consequences of outside pressure, it is doubtful that Indonesia will submit Papua without fighting. Thus, self-determination for Papua sounded like a castle in the air as long as there is in the State of unity republikl Indonesia. However, there are several key points, which can act as a potential time bomb. In addition, international human rights conventions allow the group to determine their own destiny to govern themselves.
Here: http://politik.kompasiana.com/2011/08/11/kasus-papua-dalam-perspektif-hukum-internasional-untuk-penentuan-nasib-sendiri-satu-bangsa/
turius, Jayapura West Papua | Mon, 05/09/2011 - 18:09pm
Fakta, Port Numbay | Mon, 05/09/2011 - 15:09pm
gary, Bandung | Mon, 05/09/2011 - 15:09pm
donz, Indonesia | Mon, 05/09/2011 - 10:09am