Prabowo
or Jokowi for the Jakarta-Papua dialogue?
Budi
Hernawan ; A
postdoctoral research fellow at the Royal Netherlands Institute of Southeast
Asian and Caribbean Studies (KITLV) in the Netherlands
|
JAKARTA
POST, 17 Juni 2014
There
are only two options for the next presidency — Prabowo Subianto or Joko
“Jokowi” Widodo.
They
have been portrayed as opposites. While Prabowo’s campaign speaks of “Saving
Indonesia” (Selamatkan Indonesia), Jokowi’s proclaims “Indonesia the great” (Indonesia
Hebat).
Whereas
Jokowi is well known for his impromptu visits or blusukan, Prabowo is famous
for his rigid instructions and commands.
While
Jokowi has risen from the level of a small-town entrepreneur, Prabowo has
reinvented himself as a populist figure, distancing himself from the
perception of a New Order general with a notorious track record.
Jokowi’s
camp promotes his vision on human rights at length, Prabowo’s vision does not
even mention the word “human rights”.
Both
camps, however, hardly mention anything about the Jakarta-Papua dialogue.
Instead, both are preoccupied with the welfare approach for Papua as if it
was the magic bullet.
That is
why, despite this whirlwind of national politics, many Papuans remain
bewildered. Some of them ask in whom we trust? Some say trust no one.
Some
others, like West Papua National Committee (KNPB) activists, call for
boycotting the presidential election whereas others who are part of the game
work extra hard to secure votes for their candidates.
While
many Papuan activists seem skeptical about the upcoming election, others are
hopeful that Jokowi might be a new entry point for the Jakarta-Papua
dialogue.
Many are
deeply weary of Prabowo due to his legacy in Mapenduma and the human rights
record of the Army’s Special Forces (Kopassus) of which he was the commander.
So will
the new president be true to his promises?
“Promise”
can be a magic but also dirty word in Papuan politics. Papuans feeling
betrayed by failed promises is nothing new. In the 1960s, the Dutch were
clinging onto the territory of Papua, promising to prepare Papuans to govern
their own country, before signing the 1962 New York Agreement as a legal
basis to transfer the territory to the United Nations Temporary Executive
Authority (UNTEA) and then to Indonesia.
Successive
presidents offered different promises but not all paid serious attention to
engaging in meaningful dialogue with Papuans. The most preferable approach is
pursuing economic progress. Sukarno proclaimed his commitment to establishing
a prosperous and fair society when he first arrived in Kotabaru (now
Jayapura) on May 4, 1963. Similarly, Soeharto was well known for his martial
law for Irian Jaya for more than three decades, leaving a legacy of fear.
When BJ
Habibie took the presidency, he invited 100 Papuan representatives to the
Presidential Palace for a national dialogue on Feb. 26, 1999. Instead of
achieving any meaningful negotiations, Papuans were told to go home and
rethink their call for independence. They have never heard any follow-up
since.
It was
Abdurrahman “Gus Dur” Wahid who took an exceptional initiative to engage in
genuine dialogue with Papuans.
He
crafted a space for Papuans to reclaim their names as “Papuans”, not
“Irianese” or any other labels given to them by outsiders.
He was
also supportive of Papuans’ initiatives when they organized their grand
deliberation (Mubes) and congress in 2000.
But when
his then deputy, Megawati Soekarnoputri, took over the presidency, Gus Dur’s
initiatives disappeared.
She
signed a Special Autonomy (Otsus) deal for Papua in 2001, she issued a
presidential decree (Inpres No. 1/2003) to divide Papua into three new
provinces, contradicting the spirit and the letter of the Special Autonomy
Law.
She
insistently promoted the economic development approach while allowing the
military to operate almost independently.
A group
of Kopassus soldiers were convicted and punished for assassinating Papuan
leader Theys Eluay although the court failed to discover Aristoteles Masoka,
the driver. Megawati, of course, is the one promoting Jokowi.
In
President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono’s first term, he was successful in ending
the prolonged armed conflict in Aceh and religious conflicts in Maluku and
Poso, Central Sulawesi. This achievement is internationally acknowledged and
greatly appreciated.
This
credit, however, did not transfer to Papua. During his second term, he
invited the Papuan church leaders twice with a promise of a follow-up for
dialogue between Papua and Jakarta, but it never went anywhere.
While
economic stability and prosperity is a conditio sine qua non for the public
good of any nation, this is not the only criterion to assess how a government
fulfills its constitutional mandate.
Questions
of justice and human security are not inferior to economy. Conversely, these
are paramount for Papua. Gus Dur made it very clear that reconciliatory
gestures are the right approach for Papua.
Another
kind of promise comes from neighboring states. In its 2013 summit communiqué,
the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG) leaders highlighted their concerns over
the worrying human rights condition in Papua.
They
promised to send a mission to visit Jakarta and Papua to have firsthand
information of the situation. Under tight arrangements with Jakarta, the MSG
ministerial mission visited Jayapura for four hours and concluded that there
were no human rights violations in Papua.
Vanuatu,
the only UN member publicly supporting Papuans, dissociated itself from the
visit and went solo. Last March, former Vanuatu prime minister Moana
Carcasses Kalosil rocked the boat of the UN Human Rights Council, requesting
a UN expert for Papua to investigate the situation of human rights in the
territory. We are waiting for the follow-up on this appeal.
What can
Papuans make out of these promises? Perhaps Reverend Socratez Sofyan Yoman
was right when he said that Papuans had to trust themselves.
Instead
of looking for outside assistance, he urged Papuans to rely on themselves in
crafting their own future. While this suggestion is not novel, it reiterates
the need for Papuans to build self-reliance and critical thinking on the most
essential things they have to do for their own future.
We
should not forget, however, that Papuans are entangled in intricate power
relations both domestically and internationally. They do not live in a vacuum
so that they can independently decide and act without taking into account
different power relations that influence and sometimes, determine their fate.
Perhaps
this is the time they have to seize a new opportunity for dialogue with a new
regime, despite the silence of both candidates over the very issue. ●
|
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar