This moment could be considered one of the bleakest times in Papuan history due to escalating conflict and violence in the region. There have been several causalities reported both civilians and military/police officers.
What attracted public attention is the locations of violence, which have
tended to shift from isolated areas, normally in the highlands or
mountainous areas to the capital of Papua, Jayapura.
In
addition, these “mysterious shootings” have occurred in broad daylight
and have hit their “targets” in public areas and near police and
military offices.
There are a few lessons that we could learn
from the aforementioned escalating conflict and violence in Papua.
First, we can question whether President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s
program of the Presidential Unit for the Acceleration of Development in
Papua and West Papua (UP4B) is indeed the right “panacea” to solve the
complex problems in Papua.
Also, is the program effectively
implemented and enthusiastically welcomed by the Papuans? There have
been numerous reports which show people’s skepticism about the program
which may be rooted in the failure of Special Autonomy.
Second,
escalating violence and conflict is also a sign that the government is
overwhelmed by the complexity of the issues in Papua and an inability to
restore order. Authorities are unable to catch and bring to trial the
perpetrators of such violence.
This is certainly a sad story.
Unable to solve the problem, the government tends to make unnecessary or
defensive statements. For example, they claimed that the violence was
caused by a separatist movement.
This statement was indeed
premature and lacked evidence, especially when knowing that in the
recent mysterious attacks the victim have been shot in vital organs. The
gunmen are certainly trained |people.
There are just too many
“invisible hands” meddling in Papua, especially when the case in Papua
is about power politics and vested economic interests (Macleod and
Martin, 2012).
Therefore, the government needs to update their
data on the mapping of violence and conflict in this region. Various
violent incidents in Papua could be committed by several “actors”.
Therefore, the government should not easily scapegoat local Papuans as
perpetrators of such attacks. The government must also have the courage
to publish the conflict and violence mapping as clear evidence.
An
article by Macleod and Martin (2012) clearly stated that there are
segments of the population in Papua which are indeed opting for a
nonviolent struggle. They argued that a nonviolent struggle, is
definitely more desirable than an armed struggle, which causes less loss
of life and greater participation of ordinary people.
Another
repetitive and unreasonable statement by the government is that these
perpetrators of conflict are difficult to capture because of the
isolated and geographic conditions in Papua. This may be true in one
sense, but as media reported, quoting from the statement by Neles Tebay,
mysterious shootings and snipers are currently operating in the city of
Jayapura. How hard could it be to locate these shooters in Jayapura,
which is geographically a small city?
Third, with the rise of
conflict and violence occurring lately, it is a clear sign of deepening
distrust between the Papuans and the government. The government is seen
as incapable or not serious about solving problems in Papua. The
mysterious shootings and snipers only exacerbate the already heated
situation there.
When distrust is deepening between the two
parties, what is then the prospect of dialogue? Dialogue seems to be a
more popular word, recently compared to any other catchword, when one
talks about Papua.
The questions that follow in dialogue, which
should be publicly understood, are who should be involved? What should
be the content of dialogue? What is the time frame? What is the
measurement of success or failure in a dialogue? What are the
objectives, outcome and output indicators of a dialogue? What are the
key activities in a dialogue and so forth?
Dialogue is only a
means or even a tool to solve problems in Papua and not an end in
itself. There are pre-conditions that need to be taken into
consideration before dialogue could be implemented effectively. In other
words, there are “prerequisites” for effective dialogue. We need to
remember that “winning trust” is one of the main objectives of dialogue.
Supported
by UNDEF, CSIS is currently conducting a project to promote Social
Accountability in Papua. We have worked with various elements of civil
society. In Australia we have also talked with several academicians to
obtain their insights on the situation in Papua.
It is
interesting that during our project activities, elements of civil
society and Australian academicians frequently stressed the importance
of meeting these pre-conditions before any other programs or even
dialogue could be effectively implemented.
When these preconditions are met, there is hope that the government could win the long awaited trust from the Papuans.
In
our discussion with elements of civil society and Australian
academicians, the preconditions for Papua are clarification on the
history of Papua’s integration, investigating human rights violations
and bringing to trial the perpetrators, a fair trial for Papuans
“convicted” for involvement in separatist actions, eliminating Papuan
marginalization, and improving the welfare of Papuans.
Does the
government have the political will to deal with these preconditions in a
timely manner? Let’s say Papuan integration is final and not considered
a topic which needs further discussion; there are still other
preconditions which are seemingly manageable to be sorted out.
To
conclude, we could say that the current instability and chaos in Papua
is the price that the government must pay for neglecting or even
underestimating the complexity of the problems in Papua. The government
and other stakeholders need a breakthrough and not treating Papua just
as business as usual to restore peace and order.
One possible
solution is bringing onto the discussion table a third party negotiator,
whether a prominent national or international figure who is trusted and
respected by the Papuans.
The government should not be paranoid
about bringing international parties, especially when it is clearly
stated beforehand that a referendum in not an option and the history of
integration is final. Another solution is again making more serious
efforts to meet the preconditions for Papua mentioned earlier. These are
indeed urgent tasks to help avoid further disruptions in Papua.
The
writer is a researcher at the Department of Politics and International
Relations, Centre for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS),
Jakarta.