I have followed with interest the recent development of Papua stand off between Indonesia and Australia. The granting of temporary visas to 42 out of 43 Papuan’s ‘refugees’ have infuriated Jakarta. As a result, it called its ambassador for Australia and sent the diplomatic protest note (this is the first time Indonesia has ever recalled its ambassador). The political furor from this incident is huge and must be contained.
I’m torn in between the issues. As Indonesians, i could understand the Jakarta’s position. In my humble analysis, by granting those visas, the Australia has formally:
- acknowledged that political oppression in an Indonesian territory has happened,
- acknowledged that there are victims as a result of that political oppression are not able to seek recourse from the Indonesian judicial system nor the political system,
- acknowledged its role to protect the victims as a signatory to the UN Convention on Refugees.
In doing so, despite what Howard and Beazley and many other senior Australian politicians said, Australia has made it clear that while it supports the territorial integrity of Indonesia, Australia has ‘the right’ to intervene when it comes to human right issues.
A scan in major Indonesian newspapers’ articles and TV broadcasts will yield condemnation from various Indonesian politicians. The House of Rep supported Jakarta’s decision to recall the ambassador, and in the last meeting before its recess, it urged the government to cut diplomatic relation with Australia! Comments like Australia claiming a moral high ground (typical of any other Western nations), the double standard of Australian foreign policies, Australia’s desire to see the disintegration of Indonesia and many others can be easily found in those news sites.
On the other hand, I have always wondered, who really had betrayed who? Is it the Papuans’ ‘refugees’ who have betrayed their country? Is it Australia who has betrayed Indonesia? Or (which i think is more pragmatic in this instance), the fact that it is Jakarta who has betrayed Papuans, to the extent they have to seek refuge from another country?
Whatever the right question and the right answer should be, this has slapped many Indonesian elites right in the face. Then whatever follow is expected. Mounting with various domestic and economic problems, it is public secret that the only way the government and house of reps can remain popular, is through its nationalistic stance, which sounded well with many ordinary indonesians.
I don’t see Jakarta’s high temper is particularly useful in solving the Papuan issue. Clearly, when your countrymen and women, tried to run away to another country, risking their lives in the seas, in itself is a testament that there is a problem! While you might not want your neighbor to meddle in your internal affair, what can they do, if your household members seek refuge in their house?
After all, it is the Papuans to whom the Jakarta is responsible for and to that extent, all its resources should be channeled to the resolve of such issue.
Being mature politically and accepting what has happened and taking corrective actions acceptable are the only way to move forward. Australia’s reiterative stance on Indonesia’s territorial integrity should be taken at face value and Indonesian politicians and public in general should not try to read between the lines and dwell into unnecessary exercise of figuring Australian’s conspiracy.
Jakarta has to work hard in ensuring that Papuans get what they deserve politically, socially and economically within the territorial framework of NKRI (loose translation: the United Republic of Indonesia).
Otherwise, another East Timor is in the making.