Back
About RSIS
Introduction
Building the Foundations
Welcome Message
Board of Governors
Staff Profiles
Executive Deputy Chairman’s Office
Dean’s Office
Management
Distinguished Fellows
Faculty and Research
Associate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research Analysts
Visiting Fellows
Adjunct Fellows
Administrative Staff
Honours and Awards for RSIS Staff and Students
RSIS Endowment Fund
Endowed Professorships
Career Opportunities
Getting to RSIS
Research
Research Centres
Centre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)
Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)
Centre of Excellence for National Security
Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)
International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
Research Programmes
National Security Studies Programme (NSSP)
Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)
Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
Other Research
Future Issues and Technology Cluster
Research@RSIS
Science and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
Graduate Education
Graduate Programmes Office
Exchange Partners and Programmes
How to Apply
Financial Assistance
Meet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other events
RSIS Alumni
Outreach
Global Networks
About Global Networks
RSIS Alumni
Executive Education
About Executive Education
SRP Executive Programme
Terrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
International Programmes
About International Programmes
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)
Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)
International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)
International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
Publications
RSIS Publications
Annual Reviews
Books
Bulletins and Newsletters
RSIS Commentary Series
Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
Commemorative / Event Reports
Future Issues
IDSS Papers
Interreligious Relations
Monographs
NTS Insight
Policy Reports
Working Papers
External Publications
Authored Books
Journal Articles
Edited Books
Chapters in Edited Books
Policy Reports
Working Papers
Op-Eds
Glossary of Abbreviations
Policy-relevant Articles Given RSIS Award
RSIS Publications for the Year
External Publications for the Year
Media
Cohesive Societies
Sustainable Security
Other Resource Pages
News Releases
Speeches
Video/Audio Channel
External Podcasts
Events
Contact Us
S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies Think Tank and Graduate School Ponder The Improbable Since 1966
Nanyang Technological University Nanyang Technological University
  • About RSIS
      IntroductionBuilding the FoundationsWelcome MessageBoard of GovernorsHonours and Awards for RSIS Staff and StudentsRSIS Endowment FundEndowed ProfessorshipsCareer OpportunitiesGetting to RSIS
      Staff ProfilesExecutive Deputy Chairman’s OfficeDean’s OfficeManagementDistinguished FellowsFaculty and ResearchAssociate Research Fellows, Senior Analysts and Research AnalystsVisiting FellowsAdjunct FellowsAdministrative Staff
  • Research
      Research CentresCentre for Multilateralism Studies (CMS)Centre for Non-Traditional Security Studies (NTS Centre)Centre of Excellence for National SecurityInstitute of Defence and Strategic Studies (IDSS)International Centre for Political Violence and Terrorism Research (ICPVTR)
      Research ProgrammesNational Security Studies Programme (NSSP)Social Cohesion Research Programme (SCRP)Studies in Inter-Religious Relations in Plural Societies (SRP) Programme
      Other ResearchFuture Issues and Technology ClusterResearch@RSISScience and Technology Studies Programme (STSP) (2017-2020)
  • Graduate Education
      Graduate Programmes OfficeExchange Partners and ProgrammesHow to ApplyFinancial AssistanceMeet the Admissions Team: Information Sessions and other eventsRSIS Alumni
  • Outreach
      Global NetworksAbout Global NetworksRSIS Alumni
      Executive EducationAbout Executive EducationSRP Executive ProgrammeTerrorism Analyst Training Course (TATC)
      International ProgrammesAbout International ProgrammesAsia-Pacific Programme for Senior Military Officers (APPSMO)Asia-Pacific Programme for Senior National Security Officers (APPSNO)International Conference on Cohesive Societies (ICCS)International Strategy Forum-Asia (ISF-Asia)
  • Publications
      RSIS PublicationsAnnual ReviewsBooksBulletins and NewslettersRSIS Commentary SeriesCounter Terrorist Trends and AnalysesCommemorative / Event ReportsFuture IssuesIDSS PapersInterreligious RelationsMonographsNTS InsightPolicy ReportsWorking Papers
      External PublicationsAuthored BooksJournal ArticlesEdited BooksChapters in Edited BooksPolicy ReportsWorking PapersOp-Eds
      Glossary of AbbreviationsPolicy-relevant Articles Given RSIS AwardRSIS Publications for the YearExternal Publications for the Year
  • Media
      Cohesive SocietiesSustainable SecurityOther Resource PagesNews ReleasesSpeechesVideo/Audio ChannelExternal Podcasts
  • Events
  • Contact Us
    • Connect with Us

      rsis.ntu
      rsis_ntu
      rsisntu
      rsisvideocast
      school/rsis-ntu
      rsis.sg
      rsissg
      RSIS
      RSS
      Subscribe to RSIS Publications
      Subscribe to RSIS Events

      Getting to RSIS

      Nanyang Technological University
      Block S4, Level B3,
      50 Nanyang Avenue,
      Singapore 639798

      Click here for direction to RSIS

      Get in Touch

    Connect
    Search
    • RSIS
    • Publication
    • RSIS Publications
    • CO06028 | Papuan unity and Australia-Indonesia relations
    • Annual Reviews
    • Books
    • Bulletins and Newsletters
    • RSIS Commentary Series
    • Counter Terrorist Trends and Analyses
    • Commemorative / Event Reports
    • Future Issues
    • IDSS Papers
    • Interreligious Relations
    • Monographs
    • NTS Insight
    • Policy Reports
    • Working Papers

    CO06028 | Papuan unity and Australia-Indonesia relations
    Leonard C. Sebastian

    24 April 2006

    download pdf

    Commentary

    THE decision by Australia to grant Temporary Protection Visas to 43 Papuans due to alleged human rights violations has created yet another diplomatic rift between Australia and Indonesia. In this group of refugees, the most prominent is pro-independence activist Hernan Wainggai, who had served time in jail for treason. His uncle, Tom Wainggai, a leading academic and independence activist, was sentenced to 20 years in jail for organizing a flag- raising event in 1988 and died in Jakarta’s Cipinang prison in 1996.

    The initial fallout saw Indonesia recalling its ambassador and Australia’s embassy in Jakarta targeted by demonstrators. Tension was further exacerbated by the publication of tit-for-tat cartoons in the Rakyat Merdeka and the Weekend Australian. The former depicted Australian Prime Minister John Howard as a dog having sexual relations with Foreign Minister Alexander Downer with the accompanying caption, “I want Papua!” The latter depicted a grinning canine version of President Yudhoyono copulating with a glum-looking Papuan man telling him, “Don’t take this the wrong way!”

    Mr Downer was quick to issue a press release distancing the Australian government from the defamatory cartoon. In the South Sulawesi capital of Makassar, Islamic students threatened to “sweep” any Australian citizens out of the city.

    Indonesia’s exasperation

    Indonesians are exasperated and wonder how the Australian government could offer asylum to the Papuans and still say that it believes in Indonesian sovereignty. President Yudhoyono had given his personal guarantee to Mr Howard that the Papuans would not face harm or be imprisoned if returned. His appeals however have fallen on deaf ears. Is the Australian response not a criticism of the way Indonesia manages that province, further implying that Dr Yudhoyono cannot guarantee that the Papuans will be safe if they go back to Indonesia?

    To be fair, the Australian response is an implicit indication that Jakarta cannot exercise complete authority over the situation in Papua. It remains a military-controlled province. Such views are echoed within Indonesia. Prominent Indonesian political commentator Jusuf Wanandi in a recent Jakarta Post article expressed his lack of confidence in the government’s ability to implement the President’s guarantee.

    Indonesia laid claim to the area in 1963, naming it Irian Jaya, and was granted sovereignty by the United Nations after a much critiqued plebiscite in 1969. Indigenous Papuans were not united in embracing their new Indonesian rulers. Since the 1970s, a low intensity armed insurgency led by a small band of separatist guerrillas, the Organisasi Papua Merdeka, continues to operate near the Papua New Guinea border. The movement was smashed by the Indonesian Army in the 1970s and 1980s but armed struggle, while an irritant, does not pose as great a challenge as the clandestine resistance movement growing in strength within the cities and remote outposts supporting the activities of major mining corporations like Freeport McMoran.

    The resistance movement feeds on local grievances. Papuans have long resented their treatment by the military; the exploitation of their resources by the central government while seeing minimal improvement in their lives; the polluting of their environment by foreign mining companies; and the resettlement of Javanese families in their province through the government’s transmigration policy. The Papuan tribes with their forest-based culture and animist beliefs have little in common with the new settlers, many of them Muslim city dwellers.

    Such resentment has been internationalized with the help of refugees based in Papua New Guinea and other parts of the western world like Australia. The public face of the movement, the Papua Presidium, has gone underground since the murder of its leader Theys Elauy by Indonesian Special Forces (Kopassus) troops but has been successful in placing its members in key roles in regional bodies.

    The Indonesian military, ever vigilant over the threat of separatism, has been reinforcing its troops in the province since 2005. Reports allege that there has been significant disruption in the central highlands region due to military operations with incidences of arson, displacement of civilians and arbitrary detention increasing.

    Less hawkish elements within the government have attempted to address such grievances through a Special Autonomy Law. But implementing the provisions of the law will be difficult unless sufficient Papuans are better educated and trained to ensure that increased revenues enjoyed under special autonomy would not be squandered. Failure in this regard will pave the way for factions within the establishment who would prefer taking the security approach instead.

    Australia, the interested bystander

    Australia will always be an interested bystander for reasons of history and geographical proximity. Australian interest pertains to the eastern half of New Guinea which it administered for a period with the United Nations until that part became the independent state of Papua New Guinea in 1975. The Menzies government in the 1960s did not advocate that West New Guinea (as Papua was then called) should become part of Indonesia. Explanations ranged from ethnic differences between the native-born inhabitants of New Guinea and Indonesia, coupled with fears that a radicalized Indonesia under Sukarno would gain a territory next to Papua New Guinea. The current Australian government supports the position that considerable autonomy for Papua is compatible within the context of Indonesia’s unitary state framework.

    Australia’s acceptance of 43 Papuan asylum seekers however allows the government to placate its domestic constituency. With some justification it has been emphasized that Australian government policy towards Indonesia has often been out of step with the public perception of that country. Anti-Indonesian perspectives are just below the surface and quickly aroused by events like the 1991 Dili killings, the Bali terror attacks, the public outcry over the sentencing of Schapelle Corby and the Bali Nine. Regardless of public perceptions within the country, the government reminded the Australian public to respect Indonesian legal processes.

    Using the same argument, Australia’s leaders have asked the people of Indonesia to understand and respect their different legal traditions and systems. In an interview with Channel 10 Foreign Minister Downer emphasized: “We have our laws and they have their laws, and sometimes their laws impinge on Australians and we have to mutually respect each other laws.” While sending a message to the Indonesian government about the sanctity of the rule of law, the act of granting asylum to the 43 Papuans has the welcome benefit of marginalizing the minority party views of Green Party Senators Nettle and Brown who support independence for Papua.

    On June 26, 1985, five anti-Indonesian Papuans arrived on Thursday Island via Merauke by canoe to claim asylum. If an indiscriminate security approach continues to be applied by the Indonesian military, more of such “canoe people” will arrive on Australia’s shores promising further strains in Australia-Indonesia relations. Domestic pressures make it difficult for both countries to work out an adequate compromise without losing face.

    Such conflicts of interests between these two historically and culturally dissimilar entities will occur from time to time. The best policy option now would be for both countries to initiate a cooling off period, allow the situation to trudge along for a short period of time before gradually rebuilding communications. My expectation is that both countries will do some talking behind the scenes away from the public eye. In the interim Australia will continue to reinforce the point that the granting of refugee status to the 43 Papuans in no way abrogates Australia’s recognition of Indonesia’s sovereignty over Papua.

    About the Author

    Dr Leonard C. Sebastian is Senior Fellow and Coordinator of the Indonesia Programme at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies at the Nanyang Technological University. His book Realpolitik Ideology: Indonesia’s Use of Military Force is soon to be published by the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

    Categories: RSIS Commentary Series / Country and Region Studies / International Politics and Security / Southeast Asia and ASEAN

    Commentary

    THE decision by Australia to grant Temporary Protection Visas to 43 Papuans due to alleged human rights violations has created yet another diplomatic rift between Australia and Indonesia. In this group of refugees, the most prominent is pro-independence activist Hernan Wainggai, who had served time in jail for treason. His uncle, Tom Wainggai, a leading academic and independence activist, was sentenced to 20 years in jail for organizing a flag- raising event in 1988 and died in Jakarta’s Cipinang prison in 1996.

    The initial fallout saw Indonesia recalling its ambassador and Australia’s embassy in Jakarta targeted by demonstrators. Tension was further exacerbated by the publication of tit-for-tat cartoons in the Rakyat Merdeka and the Weekend Australian. The former depicted Australian Prime Minister John Howard as a dog having sexual relations with Foreign Minister Alexander Downer with the accompanying caption, “I want Papua!” The latter depicted a grinning canine version of President Yudhoyono copulating with a glum-looking Papuan man telling him, “Don’t take this the wrong way!”

    Mr Downer was quick to issue a press release distancing the Australian government from the defamatory cartoon. In the South Sulawesi capital of Makassar, Islamic students threatened to “sweep” any Australian citizens out of the city.

    Indonesia’s exasperation

    Indonesians are exasperated and wonder how the Australian government could offer asylum to the Papuans and still say that it believes in Indonesian sovereignty. President Yudhoyono had given his personal guarantee to Mr Howard that the Papuans would not face harm or be imprisoned if returned. His appeals however have fallen on deaf ears. Is the Australian response not a criticism of the way Indonesia manages that province, further implying that Dr Yudhoyono cannot guarantee that the Papuans will be safe if they go back to Indonesia?

    To be fair, the Australian response is an implicit indication that Jakarta cannot exercise complete authority over the situation in Papua. It remains a military-controlled province. Such views are echoed within Indonesia. Prominent Indonesian political commentator Jusuf Wanandi in a recent Jakarta Post article expressed his lack of confidence in the government’s ability to implement the President’s guarantee.

    Indonesia laid claim to the area in 1963, naming it Irian Jaya, and was granted sovereignty by the United Nations after a much critiqued plebiscite in 1969. Indigenous Papuans were not united in embracing their new Indonesian rulers. Since the 1970s, a low intensity armed insurgency led by a small band of separatist guerrillas, the Organisasi Papua Merdeka, continues to operate near the Papua New Guinea border. The movement was smashed by the Indonesian Army in the 1970s and 1980s but armed struggle, while an irritant, does not pose as great a challenge as the clandestine resistance movement growing in strength within the cities and remote outposts supporting the activities of major mining corporations like Freeport McMoran.

    The resistance movement feeds on local grievances. Papuans have long resented their treatment by the military; the exploitation of their resources by the central government while seeing minimal improvement in their lives; the polluting of their environment by foreign mining companies; and the resettlement of Javanese families in their province through the government’s transmigration policy. The Papuan tribes with their forest-based culture and animist beliefs have little in common with the new settlers, many of them Muslim city dwellers.

    Such resentment has been internationalized with the help of refugees based in Papua New Guinea and other parts of the western world like Australia. The public face of the movement, the Papua Presidium, has gone underground since the murder of its leader Theys Elauy by Indonesian Special Forces (Kopassus) troops but has been successful in placing its members in key roles in regional bodies.

    The Indonesian military, ever vigilant over the threat of separatism, has been reinforcing its troops in the province since 2005. Reports allege that there has been significant disruption in the central highlands region due to military operations with incidences of arson, displacement of civilians and arbitrary detention increasing.

    Less hawkish elements within the government have attempted to address such grievances through a Special Autonomy Law. But implementing the provisions of the law will be difficult unless sufficient Papuans are better educated and trained to ensure that increased revenues enjoyed under special autonomy would not be squandered. Failure in this regard will pave the way for factions within the establishment who would prefer taking the security approach instead.

    Australia, the interested bystander

    Australia will always be an interested bystander for reasons of history and geographical proximity. Australian interest pertains to the eastern half of New Guinea which it administered for a period with the United Nations until that part became the independent state of Papua New Guinea in 1975. The Menzies government in the 1960s did not advocate that West New Guinea (as Papua was then called) should become part of Indonesia. Explanations ranged from ethnic differences between the native-born inhabitants of New Guinea and Indonesia, coupled with fears that a radicalized Indonesia under Sukarno would gain a territory next to Papua New Guinea. The current Australian government supports the position that considerable autonomy for Papua is compatible within the context of Indonesia’s unitary state framework.

    Australia’s acceptance of 43 Papuan asylum seekers however allows the government to placate its domestic constituency. With some justification it has been emphasized that Australian government policy towards Indonesia has often been out of step with the public perception of that country. Anti-Indonesian perspectives are just below the surface and quickly aroused by events like the 1991 Dili killings, the Bali terror attacks, the public outcry over the sentencing of Schapelle Corby and the Bali Nine. Regardless of public perceptions within the country, the government reminded the Australian public to respect Indonesian legal processes.

    Using the same argument, Australia’s leaders have asked the people of Indonesia to understand and respect their different legal traditions and systems. In an interview with Channel 10 Foreign Minister Downer emphasized: “We have our laws and they have their laws, and sometimes their laws impinge on Australians and we have to mutually respect each other laws.” While sending a message to the Indonesian government about the sanctity of the rule of law, the act of granting asylum to the 43 Papuans has the welcome benefit of marginalizing the minority party views of Green Party Senators Nettle and Brown who support independence for Papua.

    On June 26, 1985, five anti-Indonesian Papuans arrived on Thursday Island via Merauke by canoe to claim asylum. If an indiscriminate security approach continues to be applied by the Indonesian military, more of such “canoe people” will arrive on Australia’s shores promising further strains in Australia-Indonesia relations. Domestic pressures make it difficult for both countries to work out an adequate compromise without losing face.

    Such conflicts of interests between these two historically and culturally dissimilar entities will occur from time to time. The best policy option now would be for both countries to initiate a cooling off period, allow the situation to trudge along for a short period of time before gradually rebuilding communications. My expectation is that both countries will do some talking behind the scenes away from the public eye. In the interim Australia will continue to reinforce the point that the granting of refugee status to the 43 Papuans in no way abrogates Australia’s recognition of Indonesia’s sovereignty over Papua.

    About the Author

    Dr Leonard C. Sebastian is Senior Fellow and Coordinator of the Indonesia Programme at the Institute of Defence and Strategic Studies at the Nanyang Technological University. His book Realpolitik Ideology: Indonesia’s Use of Military Force is soon to be published by the Institute of Southeast Asian Studies.

    Categories: RSIS Commentary Series / Country and Region Studies / International Politics and Security

    Popular Links

    About RSISResearch ProgrammesGraduate EducationPublicationsEventsAdmissionsCareersVideo/Audio ChannelRSIS Intranet

    Connect with Us

    rsis.ntu
    rsis_ntu
    rsisntu
    rsisvideocast
    school/rsis-ntu
    rsis.sg
    rsissg
    RSIS
    RSS
    Subscribe to RSIS Publications
    Subscribe to RSIS Events

    Getting to RSIS

    Nanyang Technological University
    Block S4, Level B3,
    50 Nanyang Avenue,
    Singapore 639798

    Click here for direction to RSIS

    Get in Touch

      Copyright © S. Rajaratnam School of International Studies. All rights reserved.
      Privacy Statement / Terms of Use
      Help us improve

        Rate your experience with this website
        123456
        Not satisfiedVery satisfied
        What did you like?
        0/255 characters
        What can be improved?
        0/255 characters
        Your email
        Please enter a valid email.
        Thank you for your feedback.
        This site uses cookies to offer you a better browsing experience. By continuing, you are agreeing to the use of cookies on your device as described in our privacy policy. Learn more
        OK
        Latest Book
        more info