Many Papuans are concerned about what the impact will be
of the current president’s so-called “gift” to the province, ‘special autonomy
plus’ or 'Otsus plus'.
Indonesia’s easternmost province Papua has long been the
scene of political discontent. Former President Abdurahman “Gus Dur” Wahid
restored the name, Papua, in place of ‘Irian Jaya’, the name chosen by former
longstanding ruler, Suharto. His successor, Megawati Soekarnoputri passed what
is known as the 2001 Special Autonomy Law No.21 (Otsus) as part of his plan to
improve the welfare of the Papuans. Otsus is meant to transfer political,
economic and cultural authority to the Papuans, the majority of whom however,
regard Otsus at best as the pouring of an abundance of cash into the province.
What will be the legacy of President Susilo Bambang
Yudhoyono (SBY) for the Papuan people? Given the fact that SBY will remain in
power for only less than a year, many Papuans are concerned about what his
so-called “gift” to the province, ‘special autonomy plus’ or Otsus plus.
It is his gift because this regulation was proposed following a meeting between
local leaders and President SBY on April 2013 in Jakarta. This regulation would
modify previous policy dealing
with Papuan issues in the political and security spheres.
During his 10 years in office, SBY has been undertaking a
number of policies to solve Papuan problems ranging from poverty, education,
health, and corruption to security. In 2011, in order to calm the growing
distrust among Papuans toward the central government, SBY launched The Unit for
the Acceleration of Development in Papua and West Papua (UP4PB). UP4PB’s
main duty is to build a basis for sustainable development, in line with the
aspirations of local communities, leading toward social integration. Another
high profile programme is The Merauke Integrated Food and
Energy Estate (MIFEE), initially aimed at providing sufficient food and energy
for Indonesians. These two programmes have been amplified by a vast amount of
money per year.
Such programes and extensive funding have so far been
ineffective when it comes to tackling Papuans’ basic problems, in particular,
the aspiration for independence from Indonesia. Otsus plus was
widely rejected by the Papuans themselves as one way to silence their
aspirations for Merdeka (freedom), as can be seen from a rising number of
social and student protests.
Internationally, the Free West Papua Campaign conducted by
leading figures, such as Benny Wenda and Timothy Mote, have succeeded in
raising concern about what is happening in Papua. On the local side, the
Papuans regularly launch protests against the central government, but have been
continuously muffled by the government’s security apparatus. This activity has
been exacerbated by the central government’s tight censorship of international
media over Papuan issues.
One crucial demand by Papuans is to set up a dialogue
between Papuans and the central government. There are many contesting factions
in Papua, but they share one ambition: the need for a constructive dialogue.
Central government, however, will not accept the referendum which would be the
logical end result of such a dialogue. The central government knows full well
that its every single policy initiative in Papua has to be assessed according
to the effect it has on separatist feeling. So, late in his tenure, SBY is
trying to give Papuans more authority to manage their daily activities.
However, the majority of Papuans suspect that this is yet
another trick to suppress the idea of independence. They have witnessed the
fact that so far, implementation of special autonomy amounts to no more than
the handing over of vast amounts of money that ironically end up in the hands
of corrupt local political leaders, bureaucrats, and their cronies. In
addition, Papuans see in Otsus plus an attempt to divide
Papuans into several provinces, regions, districts and villages, without a
strong political will from the central government to amplify the local capacity
to govern.
Otsus plus is also seen as a covert method of further increasing the massive militarization of Papua. After the military operation zone (DOM) in Papua was dismantled in 1998, the hope was that the level of militarisation would slowly decrease. However, the military presence in Papua has steadily increased.
By imposing Otsus plus,
Papua would be divided into three more provinces, giving the military the
excuse to put more combat troops into each. This would in line with Indonesian
army structural command. The army is able to maintain a presence and
administrative structure that parallels the civil administration, from the
provincial all the way down to the sub district and village levels – a presence
extending deep into very isolated areas in Papua.
The estimated combat troops in Papua are already roughly
12,000 under the Trikora Military Command (Davies, 2007 & Imparsial, 2011).
With the enforcement of Otsus plus, each new region automatically
gains its own military and policy company, and each further province gains
their own battalions of military and police. Even today, military soldiers are
more frequently to be seen in remote areas than the presence of teachers,
doctors, and nurses. Deliberately or not, this fact will steadily lead to
increasing clashes between the military and civilians. In addition, as is well
known, the military in Papua has been associated with human rights violations.
The growing distrust among Papuans cannot be solved merely
by extending the current policy. Otsus plus should be
reconsidered. If the central government wants to build trust, there are two
feasible solutions worth immediate consideration. First, imposing a
moratorium on pouring money into local governments until people’s
representatives can control the use of the money. The second solution is to
reduce the number of military troops in Papua. In doing so, the central
government will create the basis for a mutual trust which is essential for a
successful modification and implementation of the current special autonomy
regulation.
by: Hipolitus Yolisandry Ringgi Wangge
published at open democracy and republished at Scoop media
No comments:
Post a Comment