Why
dialogue matters for Papua
Mangadar Situmorang ; The dean of the faculty of social and political sciences
at the Parahyangan Catholic University in Bandung; The coordinator for the Academic
Forum for Peaceful Papua (Forum Akademisi untuk Papua Damai)
|
JAKARTA
POST, 07 Oktober 2014
In his
presidential election campaign, president-elect Joko “Jokowi” Widodo deemed
the problems in Papua to be rooted in the misperceptions of the central
government.
It is
clear, therefore, that dialogue is the most appropriate way to correct them
and to build a common perception to find a solution.
There
are convincing arguments to justify the need for dialogue on Papua, including
the tradition of musyawarah, or deliberation, one of the five principles of
the Pancasila state ideology.
However,
the central government is inconsistent in implementing it when it comes to
the Papua issue, leaving the problem to protract.
While
the government needs to be continuously reminded about its responsibility to
address the issue of Papua, there are at least three reasons to encourage
Jokowi to convene a dialogue about the region.
First,
Jokowi is personally committed to resolving any problem with dignity. Known
to have succeeded in dealing with complex social and economic quagmires when
leading the city of Surakarta and the capital, Jokowi’s personal strategy was
to ask disputing parties to talk and find a common solution.
This is
a strategic approach proposed also by the UN Development Programme (UNDP),
which said “the process is not just about sitting around a table, but
changing the way people talk, think and communicate with one another”.
Recognition of differences and empathy toward one another are essential
elements to generate a productive and constructive dialogue.
Adding
to Jokowi’s commitment is his partner Jusuf Kalla, who has proven he was
capable of bringing peace and reconciliation to the conflict zones of Poso,
Central Sulawesi and Aceh. Apart from his personal political assets and
access, Kalla has shown creativity in seeking a way out in the face of
deadlock. He is known to offer rational choices for disputing parties to
continue dialogue and produce agreements.
Second,
Jokowi’s and Kalla’s victory in the last presidential election was officially
confirmed by both the General Elections Commission (KPU) and the
Constitutional Court (MK), which confirmed the victory of people who support
democratic consolidation in Indonesia.
Although
some voters were still influenced by money politics, mobilization or even
intimidation, many more cast their votes for freedom, fairness and integrity.
Shortly,
the Jokowi-Kalla victory must be perceived as indicative of a growing number
of democratic constituencies.
This
clearly means that, according to democratic principles, all kinds of disputes
and difficulties should be better dealt with peacefully and with dignity.
Third,
the problems in Papua also include historical questions and human rights
violations in the past that could not be overcome merely by economic
development.
To a
large part of Papuans who show resistance and continuously rebel against the
government, the historical problem is of primary and great importance.
The
process of integrating the region into the unitary state was seen not only as
unjust and unfair according to internationally accepted principles, but was
also followed by a series of violent acts undertaken by Indonesian
governments and security agencies against those who questioned and rejected
the 1969 polling result (Pepera).
Besides economic programs, successive
governments applied the security approach by deploying huge numbers of
military forces that were beyond the control of the civilian government in
Jakarta and Jayapura, or of other civil society organizations, including the
press.
Challenges
to dialogue in Papua may come from different corners. First, inner circles
within successive governments have perceived that the historical question of
Papuan integration has been settled and is thus unquestionable.
As such,
any kind of dialogue is seen as useless or would be even viewed as
jeopardizing Indonesia’s long-standing position and territorial integration.
Such a view is totally incorrect and groundless. In contrast, a dialogue has
to be seen as a way to strengthen the legality and legitimacy of Papuan
integration.
Another
more technical argument in questioning the significance of dialogue is due to
the problem of representation within Papua’s widely diverse tribal, cultural
and political associations that don’t have any single hierarchical
leadership.
As shown
in the case of Aceh, this adds to the reluctance and to a lack of confidence
in the effectiveness of a dialogue on the part of the government.
But, the
second and apparently most stiff resistance comes from the military. To many
scholars the Indonesian Military (TNI), after having concluded military and
security operations in Aceh, are now seeing Papua as their main battlefield —
a region very rich with natural resources, but one that is claimed as
presenting the most serious threat to national integration.
The TNI,
to a certain degree, has been successful in keeping Aceh as an integral part
of Indonesia. Their role in maintaining Papua is not in question, but it is
very clear that their positive role should be included in the dialogue
process.
In many
parts of the world, like in Lebanon, Indonesia’s military has played a role
in keeping, making and building peace by winning the hearts and minds of
conflicting parties.
Dialogue in Papua is meant to win the hearts and minds of Papuans and
the TNI is an indispensable party to the process and is necessary to make it
fruitful. ●
|
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar