Historical myths often are the source of (violent) conflict. West Papua is a case in point. How this works and how these conflicts can be resolved was the subject of a symposium (18 November 2005) and a public debate (19 November 2005) organised by Papua Lobby in cooperation with Dewan Adat Papua.
As a background to the issue we offer you 15 articles as a ‘virtual reader’ on West Papua - Historical Myths and Conflict resolution.

Rectification of history
The history of the integration of West Papua in the Indonesian Republic, has long been and still is a subject of debate and a source of conflict. At the root of this conflict lie divergent views on Papua’s integration into Indonesia. Since the fall of president general Suharto in May 1998, the people in West Papua, openly ask for clarification of Papuan history.
Now, after almost six years of study commissioned by the Dutch ministry of Foreign Affairs, on November 15, 2005 a report will be published on the transfer of power over Papua to Indonesia and the ‘Act of Free Choice’, which was held later in the territory. At the request of Dutch member of parliament Eimert van Middelkoop (ChristenUnie), Foreign Minister Jozias van Aartsen decided in December 1999 to commission historical research into the way the power over West Papua was transferred to Indonesia. The Dutch government asked Professor Pieter Drooglever (Institute for Dutch History) to evaluate the (inter)national events surrounding the Act of Free Choice.
Under Indonesian rule there have been many human rights violations en violent clashes in Papua between the indigenous people and the authorities. Divergent views on the history of Papua play an important role in these clashes. Papuans have a view of their history that is fundamentally different from the view of the central government in Jakarta.
The first four articles on this site describe these different interpretations of the Papuan history: Willy Mandowen and Sam Blay describe the Papuan version, and the Indonesian Embassy in Canberra and Adri Hadi present the Indonesian government’s view.
The next article (the only one in Dutch) describes the Netherlands foreign policy in the 20^th century and the case study of Dutch policy in the transfer of New Guinea to Indonesia. In this book review, Fred Grünfeld writes he was surprised by the fact that the Dutch government provided Indonesia international legitimisation for its handling of the act of free choice.

Special Autonomy Law (SAL)
In 2001 the Indonesian government offered special autonomy to Papua as a means to resolve the call for independence. The European Union, the US and the South Pacific Forum have all welcomed the SAL and pledged support for it. However, the Indonesian government has been reluctant to fully implement it, which increasingly is attracting international criticism. Agus Sumule describes the unwillingness of Jakarta to fully implement the SAL and what President Yudhoyono should do to resolve the question of SAL.
In June this year, the Committee on International Relations at the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill (H.R. 2601 on the State Department Authorization Act for 2006) in which the case of Papua is included. It asks, among other things, for clarification of the history of Papuan integration into Indonesia and on the implementation of SAL. Neles Tebay describes the 10 points in the US bill dealing with Papua.
Indonesian reaction to this US Act was furious. President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono warned the U.S. not to interfere in Indonesia's domestic affairs. He said: ‘I call on all friendly states and the United Nations to respect Indonesia's territorial integrity and let us solve our own problems’. And foreign ministry spokesman Yuri Thamrin said the government would use all diplomatic avenues to block the act. In an editorial, the Jakarta Post criticises the Indonesian government apoplectic reaction to the US bill and its broken promises regarding the special autonomy.
Muridan Wijojo argues that the relations between Jakarta and Papua have worsened since the fall of Suharto, reflected in systematic efforts to block reform and the transition to democracy by dominant political forces, particularly factions within the military.
Indonesia consists of peoples of different races, ethnicities, cultures, languages and faiths. The motto of the Indonesian republic is ‘Unity in Diversity’. Endy M. Bayuni argues that even after Suharto's downfall in 1998, subsequent Indonesian leaders remained obsessed with forging Indonesia's unity, and less with its diversity, and even less with its pluralism. He accuses the subsequent presidents as well as other leaders with ‘their continued obsession with maintaining Indonesia's "territorial integrity" under the concept of Negara Kesatuan Republic Indonesia (NKRI -- the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia)’.

Conflict Resolution
In his article Chris Chapman discusses the reasons why some states resist implementing rights for minorities an indigenous peoples. He mentions ‘inherent suspicion of particular groups, possibly with deep historical roots; in extreme cases, a racist or fundamentalist ideology may be at work’ and 'paranoia caused by ethnic/religious diversity within a territory, leading to a fear that the state will break up.’ He pleads for mechanisms of dialogue for the effective participation of minorities.
Muridan Wijojo also stresses the importance of dialogue and the need for the Indonesian political elite to learn how to negotiate with the leaders of Papua.
In order to have a dialogue there need to be at least two parties representing the conflicting parties. One party is the Indonesian government, but who has the mandate to represent the Papuan peoples? Evelien van den Broek describes the development of a true civic society movement that is democratic and non-violent and has a broad constituency throughout West Papua, the Dewan Adat Papua.
In the past years, several Melanesian countries have seen the outbreak of violent conflicts. Craig Collins observes that ‘traditional social structures and leadership processes are increasingly tested by external pressures, and in many places show gradual weakening. Citizens often find themselves protected by neither the State nor traditional systems, generating a sense of alienation from both’. He concludes that national governments and regional institutions will need to engage with civil society, religious and customary leaders to identify and address the underlying causes of tensions.
The final article in this ‘virtual reader’ is a case study that may provide tools for conflict resolution in Papua. Antony J. Regan desribes how violent conflict developed in Bougainville (1988-1997). He analyses the conflict, the conflict management process, the initiatives for peace and evaluates the conflict management process.

[We] urge the Indonesian parliament and the provincial parliament in Papua (DPRP) to openly and respectfully make immediate efforts to create democratic space to enable clarification of the history of Papua so that Papuans no longer will be victims and be continuously harassed because of the interpretation of the Papuan history.

DAP Declaration 09-08-2005

Amersfoort, October 2005
Evelien van den Broek
Papua Lobby