Papua crucial to Indonesia

Indonesia’s extreme sensitivity and depth of feeling about Papua is reflected in its decision to recall its ambassador.

Papua's economic importance to Indonesia is symbolised by the controversial Freeport gold and copper mine, which is Indonesia's largest corporate taxpayer, worth $US1.2 billion ($1.7 billion) last year.

Former Indonesian president Sukarno's statement in 1963 that his country was not complete without Papua conveys something of Papua's importance in Indonesian nationalist thinking. Sukarno successfully used the incorporation of Papua as a focus in the struggle for national unity. It remains thus.

There are no significant (non-Papuan) Indonesian leaders or parties that support Papuan independence and there are many who have grave reservations about any form of autonomy.

The Indonesian parliamentarians' protests and criticism of the granting of visas for the 42 Papuans have come from across the political spectrum, not just from the outspoken nationalists.

One of the reasons for Indonesia's sensitivity about Papua is the confusion surrounding Jakarta's policies in Papua. President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has made numerous statements about his government's commitment to find a political solution to the Papua conflict on the basis of the 2001 special autonomy law. The successful negotiations about Aceh have given the commitment to resolve Papua credibility and momentum.

He received strong support in Papua in the 2004 elections. His election generated considerable optimism among Papuans.

However, Yudhoyono has done little to clarify the confusion, contradictions and divisiveness in the Papua policy he inherited from Megawati Sukarnoputri.

Is his government committed to the implementation of special autonomy or will it continue Megawati's policy to create two or more provinces in Papua?

Megawati's decision to partition Papua was motivated by a fear that if the special autonomy law were implemented, it would empower a Papuan elite in Jayapura that would use it as a basis for a further step towards independence.

The Yudhoyono Government's policy decisions of the past couple of months have made a political resolution more difficult. The decision to hold elections for governor in the newly created province of West Papua indicates that the government is determined to pursue the partition of Papua.

This decision undermines and marginalises the Papuan People's Assembly, the institutional centrepiece of special autonomy, which the government established as the representative forum for Papuans. The decision disregarded the assembly's recommendation in March that the election for governor not proceed as the assembly had found there was little Papuan support for the new province. The assembly appealed to the government for a comprehensive and open dialogue to resolve Papua's problems. Senior government officials from Jakarta, including Security Minister Widodo, who visited Jayapura the day after the Abepura riots (March 15-16), refused to hold substantive discussions with members of the provincial parliament and Papuan religious leaders.

This supports the argument in last week's briefing update from the International Crisis Group that the government is shutting down dialogue with Papuans.

Relations between the Papuan elite and the Jakarta Government have never been easy, but Papuan trust in Jakarta is at a low point. The brutal killing of five members of the security forces in the Abepura riots reflects something of the depth of feeling among Papuans, their desperation and the degree of alienation from Indonesia.

Canberra's decision to grant Papuan asylum-seekers visas has exacerbated the Indonesian government's anxieties about Papua and heightened suspicions about Australian interests and intentions. Jakarta's statement notes that: "The [visa] decision justifies speculations that there are elements in Australia that support separatist movement in Papua and in this regard the government of Australia has not done anything to them."

The head of the National Intelligence Agency, Syamsir Siregar, alleged that non-governmental organisations involved in the riots in Abepura earlier this month had links in Australia.

It is not only the alleged activities of Australian NGOs that are suspected by Indonesian officials. The head of the armed forces, Djoko Suyanto, suggested that the asylum-seekers could not have reached Australia without the assistance of Australian patrols and that asylum-seekers from the Middle East were treated differently.

These Indonesian suspicions relate directly to Australia's role in the 1999 international intervention in East Timor. Many Indonesians, inside and outside the government and the military, believe, mistakenly, that an independent East Timor was the preferred strategic outcome for Australia. They suspect that Australia has the same objective with respect to Papua. Frequent and definitive Australian Government statements of support for Indonesian sovereignty in Papua evoke the Indonesian response, "That's what you said about East Timor."

Australia has a vital interest in Indonesia peacefully resolving the conflict in Papua. Indonesians and Papuans need international support to help reduce Indonesia's dependence on violence in its governance in Papua and to accommodate Papuans, their interests and values, in the government of the province. The agreement on Aceh is a model of what is politically possible.