Pemilu 2009: Akankah Membawa Perbaikan bagi Papua?

Amiruddin Al Rahab
Poengky Indarti


“bahwa penyelenggaraan pemerintahan dan pelaksanaan pembangunan di provinsi Papua selama ini belum sepenuhnya memenuhi rasa keadilan, belum sepenuhnya memungkinkan tercapainya kesejahteraan rakyat, belum sepenuhnya mendukung terwujudnya penegakan hukum, dan belum sepenuhnya menempatkan penghormatan terhadap Hak Asasi Manusia, (pen) khususnya masyarakat Papua.”
(UU Otsus Papua, Menimbang (f))




(Gubernur Papua Bas Suebu)


Pengantar

Dalam hitungan hari, pemilihan anggota Dewan Perwakilan Rakyat akan dilangsungkan di tingkat nasional, provinsi dan kabupaten. Ini adalah pemilu ke-tiga dalam era reformasi. Dari Pemilu ini tentu ada harapan baru, sekaligus kekhawatiran. Harapan merefleksikan akan selalu ada perbaikan, sementara kekhawatiran merefleksikan kehati-hatian dalam melihat perkembangan. Tak terkecuali di Papua. Bagi Papua, pemilu kali ini sangat strategis dalam menentukan arah perkembangan pengelolaan demokratisasi, pembenahan dalam pengelolaan sumber daya alam, institusionalisasi penyelesaian masalah politik dah hak asasi manusia. Lebih mendasar lagi, pemilu 2009 ini merupakan momentum penting untuk membenahi hubungan Pemerintah Indonesia dengan masyarakat Papua.

Untuk memaksimalkan harapan dan sekaligus kehati-hatian tersebut, kami masyarakat yang peduli dan memperhatikan perkembangan ekonomi, politik, sosial, budaya dan hak asasi manusia menggarisbawahi beberapa persoalan mendesak yang harus mendapat perhatian semua pihak, khususnya Pemerintah Indonesia dan pimpinan teras di partai politik peserta pemilu.

Persoalan Pokok Indonesia di Papua

Persoalan pokok di Papua akan kami masukkan ke dalam tiga isu besar, sebagai berikut:

1. Pengelolaan kekayaan alam Papua

Secara garis besar, kekayaan alam Papua sampai saat ini masih dikelola tanpa arah dan tanpa perencanaan. Akibatnya, kekayaan alam Papua dieksploitasi secara besar-besaran hanya untuk memenuhi permintaan pasar dunia, yang pada gilirannya hanya menguntungkan para pemilik modal dan segelintir elit pemburu rente, baik di tingkat internasional, Jakarta maupun Papua.

Multi National Corporations (MNCs) beroperasi di Papua mengembangkan perkebunan besar (sawit, tebu), mengeksploitasi hutan dan kekayaan alam lainnya, serta menyingkirkan masyarakat asli Papua dari tanah mereka tanpa mendapatkan imbalan yang pantas. Bukan itu saja, orang asli Papua yang diusir atas nama pembangunan tersebut di kemudian hari menanggung beban hidup yang jauh lebih berat dan menjadi lebih miskin jika dibandingkan dengan kehidupan mereka pada saat sebelum hadirnya MNCs di Papua. Perempuan adalah kelompok penduduk yang menanggung resiko paling berat dari eksploitasi alam Papua. Selain terusir dari tanahnya dan mengalami pemiskinan sistemik, status kesehatan mereka menurun karena dampak racun limbah industri dan keterputusan hubungan dengan sumber daya alam khususnya air. Realita jual-beli seks di area industri hutan dan tambang menyebabkan perempuan rentan menjadi korban penjualan manusia dan tertular virus HIV/AIDS.

Greenpeace dan FWI mencatat, saat ini ada 137 konsensi perijinan yang memakan lahan hampir 31,89 juta ha dari 42,198 juta ha tanah Papua. Artinya akan dan terus berlangsung ekploitasi kekayaan alam Papua, baik di dalam tanah maupun di atas tanah. Pertanyaan besarnya adalah apa keuntungan yang bisa didapat oleh rakyat Papua dari ekploitasi maha dahsyat itu selain bencana dan tragedi kemanusiaan?

Sebagai pembanding bisa disimak beberapa data berikut ini. Berdasarkan data BPS, Papua sejak tahun 2005 hingga 2008 menduduki peringkat ke-33 dari 33 provinsi di Indonesia dengan indeks pembangunan manusia terendah, di mana tahun 2007 tercatat IPM Papua hanya 63,41. Fransiskan Internasional pada tahun 2008 mengemukakan bahwa di tahun 2004, ada sekitar 80% penduduk pribumi Papua hidup dalam kemiskinan. Hal itu tampak pula dari 25.6% penduduk, buta huruf, 36.1% tidak memiliki akses pada fasilitas kesehatan dan 61,6% belum memiliki akses pada fasilitas air bersih. Hampir 90% desa di Papua tidak memiliki akses bagi pelayanan kesehatan, yang paling sederhana seperti puskesmas pembantu (pustu) dengan mantri dan bidan. Padahal, penduduk Papua secara keseluruhan berjumlah 2,7 juta jiwa. Pada 2000 ada 35% pendatang dan di tahun 2005 diperkirakan penduduk pendatang menjadi 41% dan melonjak menjadi 53,5% pada 2011. Angka pertumbuhan penduduk yang timpang ini, status kesehatan yang rendah termasuk karena angka kematian ibu dan anak yang tinggi, gizi buruk serta penyebaran virus HIV/AIDS adalah faktor-faktor yang diperkirakan berpotensi membuat rakyat Papua akan menjadi “small and dwindling minority” beberapa tahun ke depan.

Dari data di atas tampak bahwa ekploitasi terhadap kekayaan alam Papua yang masif berkorelasi negatif dengan kesejahteraan penduduk asli Papua. Pembenahan dan penataan pengelolaan kekayaan alam Papua agar lebih memberikan dampak positif bagi kesejahteraan penduduk asli Papua tampaknya adalah agenda mendesak yang tak bisa ditunda lagi. Namun perlu dicatat, bahwa Papua sebagai daerah yang berstatus Otonomi Khusus, harus mendapatkan dana perimbangan dari pengelolaan kekayaan alam, yaitu: kehutanan 80%, perikanan 80%, pertambangan umum 80%, pertambangan minyak bumi, 70%, dan pertambangan gas alam 70%. (Pasal 34 UU Otsus)

2. Hak Asasi Manusia dan Keadilan

Pertanggungjawaban atas pelanggaran hak asasi manusia dan agenda keadilan lainnya di Papua dalam tahun 2008 lalu macet total. Salah seorang tokoh Papua menyatakan: menanti keadilan datang dari pemerintah pusat, seperti “merebus batu.” Hal itu tampak dari belum adanya perkembangan yang berarti dalam menangani hasil penylidikan Komnas HAM dalam peristiwa pelanggaran HAM berat di Wamena (2003) dan Wasior (2001). Untuk dua berkas penyelidikan Komnas HAM ini, DPR-RI, DPD, Jaksa Agung dan Presiden serta Komnas HAM membisu. Tidak satupun pimpinan nasional, partai Politik peserta pemilu berani bicara tentang masalah-masalah mendasar di Papua ini.

Di tengah kondisi perlindungan, penegakan dan pemenuhan hak asasi manusia seperti itu, terus pula terjadi beberapa peristiwa kekerasan, termasuk yang bisa diidentifikasi sebagai pelanggaran berat hak asasi manusia Papua. Beberapa bentuk pelanggaran yang diidentifikasi adalah terus digunakannya metode penyiksaan terhadap tahanan di kepolisian, khususnya terhadap mereka yang diberi label oleh Pemerintah sebagai pemimpin gerakan separatis. Pembunuhan kilat terhadap orang asli Papua, seperti yang terjadi di Wamena pada tanggal 9 Agustus 2008 mengakibatkan meninggalnya Opinus Tabuni masih terjadi juga di beberapa tempat di daerah pendalaman, serta masih seringnya intimidasi, teror dan tindakan memata-matai terhadap para Pembela Hak Asasi Manusia yang sedang menjalankan kerja-kerja mereka dalam mempromosikan penghormatan terhadap hak asasi manusia.

Gejala lain yang masif adalah tersumbatnya kebebasan berekspresi. Di tahun 2008 telah terjadi beberapa kali upaya penangkapan dan pemeriksaan sampai dijadikan tersangka pihak-pihak yang mencoba mengibarkan bendera atau pernak-pernik bergambar bendera Bintang Kejora. Upaya pemeriksaan dan sampai menjadikan tersangka terhadap para pihak yang mengibarkan bendera menunjukkan belum berubahnya persepsi terhadap kondisi dan ekspresi politik Papua oleh aparat keamanan dan hukum. Artinya, Otonomi Khusus yang mensyaratkan Papua dapat memiliki bendera, lambang dan lagu sendiri belum bisa diinternalisasi ke dalam politik ke-Indonesia-an sesuai dengan dinamika politik yang berkembang di Papua.

Manifestasi dari belum bisa diinternalisasikannya simbol dan lambang Papua ke dalam ke-Indonesia-an itu adalah dengan diterbitkannya PP No.77/2007. Implikasi dari kegagalan menginternalisasikan simbol dan lambang Papua itu adalah kian terbuka lebarnya ruang terjadinya pelanggaran hak asasi manusia di satu sisi, dan kian mudahnya kekerasan pecah di Papua, di sisi lain. Kekerasan di Papua dilakukan oleh aparat keamanan dan hukum Indonesia maupun oleh kelompok oposisi.

Dalam perkembang seperti itu, korban-korban pelanggaran HAM di Papua terus bertumpuk dan bertambah. Sebagian korban pelanggaran HAM itu saat ini berada dalam situasi ekonomi yang sulit dan trauma yang mendalam. Penanganan korban yang terus ditunda-tunda akan menjadi bumerang bagi upaya berbagai agenda pemerintah di masa datang.

Dalam konteks pelanggaran HAM seperti yang telah diuraikan di atas, terjadi kekerasan dan pelanggaran HAM berbasis gender. Kebijakan teritorial yang militeristik mengakibatkan perempuan Papua mengalami berbagai macam bentuk kekerasan dan eksploitasi seksual aparat keamanan. Perempuan Papua yang menjadi korban tersebut selanjutnya akan mengalami pemiskinan, dikucilkan oleh masyarakat (termasuk anak yang lahir dari eksploitasi seksual) serta menyimpan trauma masa lalu yang berat tanpa sedikitpun akses pada kebenaran, keadilan dan pemulihan yang menjadi hak mereka.


Kemacetan dalam penyelesaian masalah hak asasi manusia di Papua adalah karena lalainya pemerintah pusat dan pemerintah di Papua dalam mengimplementasikan ketentuan UU Otsus, khususnya pasal 45 dan 46.

Pasal 45 secara tegas mewajibkan pemerintah pusat dan provinsi menegakkan, memajukan, melindungi dan menghormati HAM di Papua. Untuk melaksanakan kewajiban itu, pemerintah membentuk Perwakilan Komnas HAM, Pengadilan HAM dan Komisi Kebenaran dan Rekonsiliasi (KKR) di Papua.

Khusus untuk Komisi Kebenaran dan Rekonsiliasi (psl.46) ditegaskan bahwa susunan keanggotaan, kedudukan dan pengaturan pelaksanaan tugas dan pembiayaan diatur dalam Keputusan Presiden setelah mendapat usulan Gubernur. Artinya dalam memproses masalah pelanggaran hak asasi manusia di masa lalu dan klarifikasi sejarah sebagai persiapan menyusun rekonsiliasi, inisiatif Gubernur sangat menentukan. Sayangnya sampai sekarang ini Gubernur belum pernah mengambil langkah untuk ini. Begitu pula DPR Papua dan MRP juga belum pernah mengajukan rancangan kepada Gubernur. Akibatnya, agenda hak asasi manusia yang lainnya, seperti pembentukan pengadilan HAM di Jayapura juga hilang dari perhatian pemerintah dan masyarakat Papua. Sementa kantor Perwakilan Komnas HAM di Jayapura bagaikan “hidup segan mati pun tak mau” karena tidak diurus secara baik oleh Komnas HAM, serta kurang mendapat dukungan dari Pemerintah Provinsi Papua dan DPR Papua.

3. Otsus dan Demokratisasi

Otsus Papua saat ini dalam keadaan sekarat. Beberapa perkembangan yang menunjukkan hal itu:

Pertama, Majelis Rakyat Papua (MRP) dalam dinamika politik Papua tidak mendapatkan porsi yang tepat dan signifikan. Padahal, MRP dirancang untuk keperluan mempercepat terjadinya affirmatif action dalam menangani masalah-msalah krusial di Papua akibat buruknya pembangunan dan pelanggaran HAM yang masif di masa lalu, serta militerisasi yang meluas di era DOM.

Karena MRP tidak mendapatkan peran sesuai dengan porsinya, banyak agenda perbaikan sosial, ekonomi, politik dan hak asasi manusia terhenti. Oleh karena itu, jika MRP terus dibiarkan dalam situasi sekarat seperti ini, maka Otsus dalam beberapa waktu ke depan akan lumpuh total. Dengan demikian, perdasus sebagai instrumen affirmatif action pun kehilangan substansinya.

Kedua, wabah pemekaran yang membebani dan memecah belah rakyat Papua, telah menjadi penyebab yang memicu terjadinya berbagai macam konflik dan kekerasan, baik politik maupun sosial ekonomi, di tingkat publik maupun domestik.

Pemekaran terjadi mulai dari provinsi, kabupaten/kota, distrik (kecamatan) hingga kampung. Pemekaran tanpa kendali dan tanpa kajian yang akurat dengan prosedur yang tepat pula, kini telah menjadi beban besar Pemerintah. Banyak sumberdaya terserap ke arena pemekaran ini, baik anggaran maupun sumber daya manusia. Artinya, akibat pemekaran terjadi pembengkakan birokrasi secara mendadak, yang dengan sendirinya juga menyerap anggaran yang besar.

Implikasinya adalah Pemerintah Provinsi sebagai pengemban Otsus, sama sekali tidak siap dalam menata dan mengatur birokrasi, baik dalam arti mempersiapkan kualitas pejabat maupun menyusun postur pemerintahan daerah. Gejala negatif dari perkembangan ini adalah mulai maraknya korupsi di semua level pemerintahan, tidak adanya infrastruktur pendukung pemerintahan yang memadai di daerah baru, tidak adanya pejabat yang kompeten dalam menjalankan dinas-dinas di kabupaten, dll.

Akibat dari semua itu, terjadi krisis politik yang berimplikasi pada krisis kepemimpin di Papua. Gejalanya adalah para Bupati mengabaikan Gubernur, Gubernur tidak bisa berkordinasi dengan para Bupati, merebaknya isu etnis dan agama serta kolusi untuk mengisi jabatan-jabatan strategis di provinsi dan kabupaten. Yang lebih merusak adalah keterpecahbelahan rakyat Papua karena eksploitasi sentimen primordialisme oleh elit politik Papua maupun Nasional saat mengampanyekan pemekaran.

Dalam situasi pemekaran yang terus bergerak seperti itu, tidak akan pernah bisa disusun rencana pembangunan yang komprehensif untuk bisa membangun fasilitas pelayanan publik. Artinya rencana aksi yang affirmatif tidak akan bisa disiapkan oleh Pemerintah Provinsi untuk mengimplementasikan Otsus. Parahnya, pemekaran ini tidak lepas dari rancangan satuan-satuan intelejen untuk mengontrol rakyat Papua.

Ketiga, menduanya sikap aktor politik di Pusat. Terjadi sikap yang mendua terhadap Otsus Papua di kalangan aktor politik di pusat. Partai-partai politik saat ini gencar mendukung pemekaran, baik provinsi maupun kabupaten. Pemekaran menjadi isu kampanye. Hal ini tampak dari gencarnya, anggota DPR-RI Komisi II mengunjungi rencana daerah pemekaran baru. Megawati ketika berada di Sorong, misalnya, mengkampanyekan bahwa pembentukan Provinsi Papua Barat adalah hasil buah kerja PDI-P. Partai Golkar dan Partai Demokrat ditengarai juga akan mendukung pembentukan provinsi lain di Papua. Saat ini, di DPR RI, telah disiapkan RUU Provinsi Papua Selatan, Papua Barat Daya dan Papua Tengah.

Sementara Pemerintah juga melakukan cara yang sama, yaitu membiarkan, jika tidak dikatakan mendukung proses pengerdilan Otsus dengan mengeluarkan beberapa peraturan baru yang berimplikasi mengamputasi UU Otsus. Sebagai contoh, UU No.35/2008 tentang Pengesahan Perpu No. 1 Tahun 2008 tentang Perubahan UU Otsus menjadi UU, yang memungkinkan Papua Barat memiliki MRP sendiri, menerima DAK dan menghilangkan kesatuan kultural Papua.

Ke-empat, gagalnya demiliterisasi. Otsus secara mendasar ditujukan untuk mendemokratiskan sistem politik di Papua. Salah satu unsur demokratisasi di Papua adalah terjadinya demiliterisasi terhadap kehidupan sosial politik. Artinya aparat militer tidak lagi menjalankan peran sosial-politik dan ekonomi, tetapi lebih fokus pada masalah pertahanan.

Gejala yang terjadi sekarang adalah kian massifnya peranan militer dan satuan-satuan intelejen di Papua, mulai dari pembentukan pos-pos baru, penempatan satuan baru dan pendirian teritorial baru, yaitu Kodim dan Korem baru, antara lain di Merauke dan Pegunungan Tengah.

Demiliterisasi yang gagal ini membuat ruang bagi upaya demokratisasi ruang politik di Papua menjadi sesak. Akibatnya, untuk mendapatkan ruang politik beberapa pihak kembali kepada kebiasaan “tradisional”, yaitu menaikkan bendera sebagai cara untuk menarik perhatian.

Seturut dengan gejala ini adalah selalu ditampiknya upaya untuk menjembatani dialog antar kelompok-kelompok oposisi di Papua dengan pemerintah secara lebih baik.

Penutup dan Rekomendasi

Beranjak dari paparan di atas, diperlukan komitmen baru untuk menyelesaikan berbagai persoalan di Papua, khususnya persoalan hak asasi manusia Papua di bidang EKOSOB dan SIPOL. Di samping itu, setelah tujuh tahun Otsus di implementasikan tampak beberapa hal kelemahan mendasar. Oleh karena itu, diperlukan satu ruang politik untuk membicarakan ulang disain Otsus Papua. Hal ini sangat mendesak karena Papua saat ini telah menjadi 2 provinsi dan potensial menjadi beberapa provinsi baru ke depan.

Oleh karena itu, untuk merancang Otsus baru untuk Papua diperlukan:

1. Koreksi total/menyeluruh atas sikap dan tindakan pemerintah pusat dan Papua, karena ada gejala krusial dalam menjalankan pemerintah di Papua, yaitu dalam menjalankan pemerintahan di Papua, aparat pemerintah masih memperlakukan Papua sama dengan provinsi tanpa status khusus. Jika gejala ini tidak dikoreksi, maka Otsus Papua akan menjadi bumerang.
2. Blue Print baru Otsus Papua yang terdiri dari provinsi per provinsi. Untuk keperluan ini dibutuhkan semacam dialog yang intensif dengan multi stakeholders di Papua dan Jakarta.
3. Untuk mengelola kekayaan alam Papua agar bersinergi dengan tujuan meningkatkan kesejahteraan rakyat Papua dan perlindungan atas lingkungan hidup, diperlukan kebijakan terrpadu yang memerlukan lembaga/badan antar provinsi yang mengelolanya secara mandiri.
4. Dalam bidang hak asasi manusia dan keadilan, Gubernur, DPR-P dan MRP harus bisa duduk bersama untuk merancang insturmen HAM yang melindungi hak hidup orang Papua dan sesuai dengan karakteristik Papua, kemudian mengusulkannya kepada Presiden untuk ditindaklanjuti.
5. Perlunya perlindungan secara khusus kepada Para Pembela HAM di Papua agar situasi HAM di Papua membaik dan berdampak memberikan citra positif pada Pemerintah Indonesia, khususnya di tingkat internasional.
6. Perlu mengkaji kembali penempatan pasukan, satuan teritorial, aparat intelejen yang sangat massif di Papua, karena hal ini berdampak pada semakin buruknya kondisi HAM di Papua dan tidak transparannya anggaran pemerintah.
7. Pemekaran harus dihentikan sampai Pemerintah Provinsi bisa mengatur secara baik seluruh tata kelola birokrasi dan perencanaan anggaran daerah secara komprehensif bersama dengan para bupati yang ada sekarang. Untuk itu semua pihak harus menghentikan operasi pemecahbelahan rakyat Papua melalui tawaran uang dan kekuasaan semua.
8. Seluruh upaya pemajuan, perlindungan dan pemenuhan HAM orang asli Papua yang diperlukan dalam konteks Otonomi Khusus ini harus secara serius dan sungguh-sungguh melibatkan komponen Perempuan Papua, sebab Perempuan Papua bukan hanya paling rentan menjadi korban dari kekerasan dan pelanggaran HAM di tanah Papua, tetapi juga memainkan peran penting di Papua maupun di tingkat Nasional dalam upaya-upaya mengatasi kekerasan dan menegakkan HAM;
9. Kepada semua kekuatan politik (partai politik) perlu memasukkan agenda pemajuan perlindungan dan pemenuhan HAM orang asli Papua dalam program politik mereka dan memperhatikan secara seksama kondisi Papua sekarang ini agar bisa merancang agenda perbaikan ke depan.
10. UU Otsus telah kehilangan roh dan spiritnya. Oleh karena itu, UU Otsus perlu dievaluasi secara menyeluruh bersama-sama dengan Rakyat Papua, dan selanjutnya dilakukan revisi agar sesuai dengan perkembangan dan kebutuhan riil rakyat Papua.

Jakarta, 12 Februari 2009

Imparsial, Elsam, LIPI, Komnas Perempuan, SKP Jayapura, Pokja Papua, JATAM, WALHI, KONTRAS Jakarta, Federasi KONTRAS, INFID, PPRP, ICW, JPIC-MSC, HRWG, PBHI, YLBHI, Foker, Praxis, Demos, ICTJ

Merawat Ke-Indonesiaan

(Foto, anak-anak Papua, www.hampapua.org)

Amiruddin al Rahab
(Pengamat Politik dan HAM)

Buleetin Asasi, ELSAM

Berakhirnya bulan Mei dalam setiap tahun setelah gerakan reformasi terjadi, terasa ada satu hal yang bolong di dalamnya. Yaitu mengkerdilnya ke-Indonesiaan serta menjauhnya perubahan ke arah yang baik.

Dalam situasi seperti itu, apa makna Kebangkitan Nasional yang ke 100 tahun sekarang ini? Kebangkitan Nasional hanya bermakna jika peringatannya tidak ditempatkan pada kenangan, melainkan pada tekad untuk merawat ke-Indonesian 100 tahun ke depan. Gerakan reformasi sesunguhnya adalah upaya terus-menerus untuk merawat ke-Indonesiaan agar keluar dari kehancuran akibat dimangsa otoriterianisme.

Yang diharapkan setelah jatuhnya rezim militer Soeharto adalah terwujudnya ke-Indonesiaan yang menghargai kemanusian dan hak asasi manusia dengan memenuhi keadilan bagi mereka yang menjadi korban, baik korban akibat kedurjanaan politik mau pun akibat struktur ekonomi yang tidak adil. Seiring dengan itu juga memberikan ganjaran yang setimpal kepada mereka yang menjadi penyokong dan penganjur segala bentuk politik kerdujanaan di masa lalu itu. Singkat kata, ke-Indonesian yang baru adalah ke-Indonesian yang menentukan batas antara politik kedurjanaan dengan politik yang menghargai kemanusian dan hak asasi manusia (civility politic).

Akibat tidak pernah jelasnya garis demarkasi antara politik kedurjanaan dengan politik keadaban membuat ke-Indonesian kini kian compang-camping. Hal itu tampak dari mengap-mengapnya rakyat di Sidoarjo yang ditelan lumpur Lapindo, mengigilnya Jamaah Ahmadiah akibat dimangsa oleh egoisme keagamaan, menjeritnya rakyat yang papa akibat dijerat harga BBM yang melambung tinggi. Penjarahan hutan dan bencana alam mendera setiap saat hampir di seantero nusantara. Singkatnya, rakyat dibiarkan terkapar tanpa pangan dan keamanan diri oleh para elit di semua level. Sementara para petinggi partai politik hanya sibuk bersolek dengan beragam iklan menjual diri sambil mengagahi ke-Indonesian sedemikian rupa. Pemimpin-pemimpin di daerah sibuk berternak kabupten/kota baru demi menyulap keuangan negara dan mengobral segala potensi daerah dengan harga murah demi PAD.

Dalam situasi seperti ini, demokrasi yang kini dikembangkan terasa tidak mampu menjadi sarana untuk meneguhkan keadilan. Bahkan banyak pihak yang menilai demokrasi yang kini berkembang justru mempermudah para penyokong rezim lama untuk bersalin rupa menjadi penganjur demokrasi dan sekaligus memperkudanya. Para penyokong rezim lama ini malah dengan gagah berani dan merasa tanpa dosa mengemukakan mari kita melihat ke depan dengan melupakan masa lalu. Singkatnya masalah kekinian jauh lebih mendesak untuk diselesaikan, ketimbang menguak luka lama. Padahal, langkah melupakan begitu saja, akan menjadi preseden buruk bagi politik dan hukum dalam merekonstruksi ke-Indonesiaan yang baru. Artinya, dengan melupakan, pemerintah seakan memberikan sinyal lampu hijau kepada semua pihak yang dulu melakukan dan bertanggung jawab atas politik kedurjanaan untuk terus merasa benar dan bahkan kekerasan boleh dipraktekan kembali dalam menjalankan politik kenegaraan. Toh semuanya bisa dilupakan dan dimaafkan.

Di era Soeharto, ke-Indonesiaan hadir di Aceh menebar maut, di Papua begitu diskriminatif, di Maluku dan Poso memendam segregasi agama, di Kalimantan mengandung prasangka etnis serta di Jawa mengadung kecemburuan kelas sosial yang menajam. Artinya konstruksi ke-Indonesiaan yang dikonstruksikan oleh rezim militer-golkar Soeharto begitu bermasalah bagi ke-Indonesian kita sebagai bangsa. Karena ke-Indonesian rezim militer-golkar Soeharto terlalu pencemburu pada daerah sehingga berwatak menyerang-yerang, terlalu rakus sehingga menyedot semua yang ada di daerah ke pusat, terlalu bengis sehingga mudah memvonis warganya menjadi sesat, ekstrem, separatis, OTB bahkan GPK, serta terlalu suka menggadaikan semua SDA.

Singkatnya, sikap pemerintah dan kekuatan politik yang mendiamkan seluruh kekerasan yang terindikasi secara kuat sebagai pelanggaran HAM dan memiskin rakyat Indonesia secara sistematis, menunjukan bahwa dalam sepuluh tahun ini belum ada perbedaan yang berarti antara karakter politik pemerintahan masa lalu dengan masa kini. Maknanya adalah elit-elit politik, partai politik dan pemerintah gagal merawat ke-Indonesiaan dalam sepuluh tahun ini. Akibatnya aksi-aksi kekerasan terus terjadi, kemiskinan tetap menjerat leher rakyat Indonesia dan SDA Indonesia diobral muruh kepada pihak asing demi rente.

Beranjak dari fenomen-fenomen seperti itu, sesunguhnya pengungkapan kebenaran akan watak rezim masa lalu dalam bidang ekonomi dan politik sunguh harus kita pikirkan matang sekarang ini sebagai cara kita merawat ke-Indonesiaan secara baru demi 100 tahun ke depan. Indonesia 100 tahun kedepan adalah Indonesia yang bisa menjadi taman sari bagi kehidupan bersama yang lebih baik.

Kalau dipertanyakan mengapa ke-Indonesia perlu dirawat? Jawabannya adalah untuk mencegah disintegrasi bangsa. Mengapa bangsa terancam disintegrasi? Sebenarnya jawaban yang mendasar adalah karena tidak ada ruang bagi kehidupan bersama yang lebih baik. Namun, elite Negara sering menyembunyikan atau tak cukup kesatria untuk mengakui adanya sikap yang mengancam kehidupan bersama itu dalam mengelola negara. Oleh karena itu, segala watak ke-Indonesiaan yang dibangun oleh rezim Soeharto, mesti kita ubah jika ingin Indonesia masih ada 100 tahun lagi.

Oleh karena itu merawat ke-Indonesia demi 100 tahun ke depan, perlu diambil langkah-langkah yang memberikan kepastian akan dipenuhinya hak warga negara untuk tahu tentang apa yang terjadi di masa lalu (right to know) dan hak atas keadilan (right to justice) serta hak untuk berpartisipasi secara politik (right to participate) dan hak atas informasi (right to information) .

Atau dalam ungkapan para ahli hukum rule of law harus ditegakan. Sebab tanpa rule of law, komitmen untuk memperbaiki akibat dari kedurjanaan politik atau kesalahan pengelolaan ekonomi negara tidak akan ada.

Atau bagaimana saat ini kita memaknai ke-Indonesiaan kita tanpa adanya pengakuan akan kebenaran di masa lalu yang telah mengoyahkan seluruh sendi-sendi pondasi kebangsaan dan kenegaraan yang bernama Indonesia ini? Atau apa makna menjadi Indonesia saat ini, ketika kita terpencar ke dalam puak-puak etnis dan agama begitu mudah, bahkan saling membunuh dalam ikatan ke-Indonesiaan? Maka dari itu merawat ke-Indonesiaan, berarti merawat kemanusian kita. Semoga.

Janji Pembentukan KKR Papua Terlupakan

(foto: download. google.com)

Berita Sinar Harapan, 7 April 2007

Jakarta-Undang-undang Otonomi Khusus (Otsus) Papua sudah berlaku lebih dari lima tahun. Namun, pembentukan Komisi Kebenaran dan Rekonsiliasi (KKR) yang dijanjikan dalam UU tersebut hingga kini tak juga terwujud. Bahkan, janji untuk itu sepertinya kian terlupakan dari agenda nasional maupun daerah.

Menurut Amiruddin al Rahab dari Lembaga Studi dan Advokasi Masyarakat (Elsam), terlupakannya agenda KKR Papua dari pemerintah pusat tidak terlepas dari lalainya unsur pemerintah di Papua. DPRP dan Majelis Rakyat Papua (MRP), serta Gubernur Papua seharusnya segera mengusulkan kepada Presiden Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono agar mengeluarkan Keputusan Presiden (Keppres).

Ini sesuai Pasal 46 Ayat (3) UU No 21 Tahun 2001 yang menyebutkan susunan keanggotaan, kedudukan, pengaturan pelaksanaan tugas, dan pembiayaan KKR diatur dengan Keppres setelah mendapat usulan dari Gubernur. “Tanpa ada usul dari Papua maka Presiden akan terus kesulitan memulainya,” kata Amiruddin saat menjadi pembicara dalam bedah buku berjudul Trust Building dan Rekonsiliasi di Papua, Kamis (5/4). Buku tersebut berisi hasil penelitian Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia (LIPI) mengenai rekonsiliasi di Papua.

Amiruddin menambahkan, pembentukan KKR sangat penting untuk memberikan kepastian titik pijak bagi rencana perubahan sosial, politik, ekonomi, dan budaya di Papua. Pasalnya, hasil kerja KKR yang disusun dari kesaksian korban. Dari sisi sejarah pun, KKR di Papua dapat digunakan untuk merehabilitasi sejarah meng-Indonesia-nya Papua.
“Untuk itu klarifikasi mutlak dilakukan oleh kedua belah pihak dengan mempertimbangkan secara saksama setiap fakta dan argumen yang diajukan.” Paparnya.

Bangun Kepercayaan

Sementara itu, Adriana Elisabeth, peneliti LIPI yang menjadi penulis utama dalam buku itu mengatakan, pembentukan KKR diperlukan untuk membangun kepercayaan antarsemua kelompok di Papua. Kepercayaan merupakan faktor yang sangat penting mengingat masyarakat Papua umumnya saling menaruh curiga satu dengan yang lainnya. Kecurigaan ternyata bukan hanya antara rakyat dan pemerintah, tetapi juga antarsuku.
Permasalahan di Papua pun mencakup tiga bidang, yakni sejarah politik bergabungnya Papua dengan Indonesia, militerisasi dan kekerasan, serta kemiskinan. Namun sayangnya, pemerintah hanya menjawab permasalahan tersebut dari sisi kemiskinan.
Dengan demikian kebijakan yang diambil cenderung mencari jalan untuk meningkatkan pembangunan dan kesejahteraan. Sedangkan, dua masalah lainnya selalu ditolak oleh pemerintah dan dianggap sudah tuntas.

Di samping itu, kebijakan pemerintah daerah (Pemda) Papua juga tidak mencakup upaya rekonsiliasi. Pada masa Papua di bawah Gubernur Freddy Numberi, ide yang dikeluarkan adalah ide pemekaran. Namun, ide pemekaran ini selanjutnya ditentang Gubernur JP Solosa. Kini Gubernur Barnabas Suebu menyelesaikan masalah Papua melalui pendekatan pembangunan dan kesejahteraan.
(tutut herlina/
daniel tagukawi)

Aura Magis di Tiang Sampari

Robin Osborne, Kibaran Sampari: Gerakan Pembebasan OPM dan Perang Rahasia Indonesia di Papua Barat, ELSAM, 2001, (Penyuting, Amiruddin dan Agung Yudhawiranata)

TUNTUTAN merdeka yang mengema di Papua sepanjang tahun 2000 ini telah mengundang banyak perhatian. Baik di luar maupun di dalam Indonesia. Media massa luar dan dalam Indonesia juga mulai bergairah memberitakan berbagai soal yang kini terjadi di bumi cendrawasih itu. Hampir setiap hari sekarang ini kita bisa menyaksikan dan membaca berita mengenai Papua di media massa baik cetak maupun elektronik. Masalah Papua kembali menjadi pembicaraan dalam sidang-sidang DPR maupun dalam rapat-rapat kabinet. Dari gejala itu secara politik telah menunjukan loncatan perhatian yang cukup berarti yaitu dari sekedar masalah urusan militer menjadi urusan politik nasional secara menyeluruh.

Di tengah gairah perhatian terhadap Papua yang sedang tumbuh itu, ELSAM ingin memperkenalkan buku karya Robin Osborne, KIBARAN SAMPARI: Gerakan Pembebasan OPM dan Perang Rahasia Indonesia di Papua Barat. Buku yang masuk ke dalam daftar buku terlarang dibaca oleh publik Indonesia di masa Rezim militer Orba ini pada awalnya diterbitkan dalam bahasa Inggris tahun 1984. Meski pun telah di terbitkan 16 tahun yang lalu masih sangat relevan dibaca dalam situasi Papua sekarang.

Robin Osborne dengan cara bertutur menguraikan sepak terjang OPM dalam membela dan mewujudkan Papua Merdeka. Dengan jeli seluruh kegiatan dan gerak OPM dicatat dalam buku ini. Begitu pula mengenai perselisihan antar pemimpin OPM dalam memilih taktik dan strategi perjuangan. Di samping itu juga mengulas bagaimana dunia internasional mengapresiasi perjuangan OPM itu. Mulai dari keterlibatan PBB melalui UNTEA sampai ke keterlibatan Australia dan Amerika dalam menyikapi perubahan-perubahan status wilayah itu ke dalam RI dari Belanda. Masalah lain yang sangat kaya diulas Robin adalah keterlibatan PNG dalam masalah Papua ini. PNG yang menjadi tetangga terdekat Papua sangat kerepotan dalam menghadapi diplomasi Indonesia, terutama kebijakan militernya. Dalam buku ini diuraikan pula bagaimana militer Indonesia sering kali melakukan provokasi di perbatasan PNG untuk memancing OPM.

Namun masalah inti dalam buku Robin ini adalah perang rahasia militer Indonesia yang berlangsung sekitar tahun 1969 �setelah Pepera sampai tahun 1980-an dalam menghadapi sepak terjang kelompok-kelompok bersenjata di Papua yang disebut gerakan pengacau keamanan. Menurut Osborne antara tahun itulah perang rahasia itu begitu mengganas dan menelan korban jiwa ribuan. Perang itu dirahasiakan oleh para petinggi militer terhadap publik Indonesia di luar Papua. Perang rahasia Indonesia di Papua itu terungkap ke permukaan di tahun 1980-an ketika mengalirnya ribuan pengungsi ke PNG. Gelombang pengungsian yang tiada henti sepanjang tahun 1984 itu telah mengundang perhatian dunia. Namun Indonesia tak mengubris itu dan tetap melancarkan berbagai masalah operasi militer. Akibat operasi yang begitu hebat dan telah mendatangkan penderitaan bagi rakyat di Papua akhirnya gerakan OPM itu surut dan terpecah-pecah. Bahkan akhirnya OPM kehilangan resonansinya akibat tak pernah lagi bisa menemukan titik temu di antara mereka. Meskipun begitu OPM tetap saja mengibarkan bendera Sampari-nya berulang kali di tengah-tengah hutan belantara Papua yang begitu menakjubkan itu.

Kini, Bendera Sampari itu kembali berkibar di hampir seluruh pelosok Papua. Namun pengibarannya menimbulkan sekian banyak interpretasi dan juga menimbulkan sekian banyak masalah. Baik di kalangan orang Papua sendiri, maupun di kalangan orang Indonesia lainnya. Untuk memahami pengibaran Bendera Sampari yang magis itu tak ada jalan lain selain menelusuri sejarahnya. Buku Robin ini merekam seluruh sejarah pengibaran Sampari itu dan usaha militer Indonesia dalam menurunkannya. Maka dari itu untuk menyimak lebih dalam bagaimana kibaran Sampari yang penuh magis tepat kiranya Anda membaca buku ini. Selamat membaca. ¤

ULAMA, DENDAM DAN KEBENARAN

Amiruddin al Rahab
Anggota Aceh Working Group, Analis Politik di ELSAM, Jakarta)
(24 September 2007, www.acehinstitute.org)

Banyak ulama yang kehilangan jati diri dan kedaulatannya sebagai personifikasi keluhuran nilai agama setelah mereka asik masuk dengan kekuasaan.









(foto:Pertemuan ulama dayah se Aceh, 202.152.32.84. dari google)

ONFLIK bersenjata yang panjang selalu meninggalkan luka di wajah dan jiwa sebuah masyarakat. Tidak terkecuali di Aceh. Maka dari itu, setelah perdamaian terjadi, persoalan besar yang dihadapi adalah dimana dan bagaimana menempatkan pengalaman korban untuk menjaga perdamaian itu? Salah menempatkan pengalaman korban, perdamaian akan guncang. Salah satu bentuknya adalah membiaknya dendam, serta tergodanya kembali semua pihak mengacungkan kapak perang.

Dalam pertemuan dengan para Ulama se Aceh di Balai Teuku Umar, Makodam IM, Pangdam IM TNI Mayjen Supiadin AS meminta para Ulama berperan aktif untuk mengajak para anak-anak dari korban konflik agar tidak memupuk dendam. Para Ulama itu diminta oleh Pangdam mencegah berkembangnya dendam melalui “kegiatan pengajian, ceramah-ceramah dan khutbah.” (Serambi Indonesia, 5/9/07)

Sayangnya himbauan Pangdam itu tidak menembatkan peran para Ulama Aceh sebagai reformator yang mendatangkan harapan baru bagi anak-anak korban, melainkan masih menempatkan peran para Ulama sesuai peran tadisionalnya selama konflik yaitu sekedar pembawa pesan dari pihak militer. Peran pembawa pesan ini secara politik disebut kolaborator.

Ulama Reformator
Peran sebagai kolaborator kekuasaan itu oleh Tim Kell dalam The Root of Acehnese Rebellions 1989-1992 (1995) digambarkan sebagai agen yang selalu mendukung kebijakan pemerintah. Sejak itu posisi ulama Aceh sebagai panutan telah dilucuti oleh pemerintah berkat kian merasuknya kekuasaan sampai ke kampung-kampung berkat penyeragamam bentuk pemerintahan desa. Akibatnya legitimasi para ulama yang kolaborator ini rendah di masyarakat.

Peneguhan ulama sebagai kolaborator kekuasaan itu terkandung dalam penyatuaan semua ulama Aceh kedalam MUI. Tim Kell mengemukan fungsi MUI adalah “as a means of mobilising Muslim support for the goverment’s development policies” atau dalam istilah Menteri Agama kala itu fungsi para Ulama adalah “to translate goverment policy into language that the ummah (muslim community) understands.”(49-50) Dalam konteks Aceh, kebijakan pembangunan yang dimaksudkan sepanjang tahun 1980-1990-an tentu saja kebijakan operasi militer. Tim Kell menyebutnya “in the late 1980-an the MUI in Aceh once again fulfilled a security role, assisting the army in its counterinsurgenscy campaign against Achenese rebels.” (p.51)

Dengan posisi para ulama selama DOM seperti itu tentu akan sulit bagi para ulama untuk menyakinkan para anak-anak korban konflik untuk tidak menyimpan konflik. Sebab para ulama itu sendiri adalah bagian dari konflik. Implikasinya adalah peran baru Ulama sebagaimana yang diharapankan Pangdam IM tidak akan mudah mendatangkan keperpercayaan dikalangan para keluarga korban dan anak-anaknya. Akibatnya apa yang hendak dituju oleh Pandam juga akan sulit dijangkau.

Agar himbauan Pangdam itu menjadi bermakna dan produktif, ada beberapa hal yang perlu diperhatikan dan dikerjakan; Pertama Ulama se Aceh harus mentransformasikan dirinya dari peran tradisional yang kolaborator menjadi reformator. Untuk memasuki peran sebagai reformator ini langkah pertama yang harus dilakoni oleh para Ulama adalah menjaga jarak dengan kekuasaan. Menjaga jarak di sini bisa dimulai dengan tidak mendatangi markas-markas militer. Dengan kata lain seharusnya para komandan militerlah yang harus lebih banyak mendatangi ulama yang berada di tengah-tengah umatnya. Dengan demikian sang ulama akan bisa langsung mengkomunikasikan kepada umatnya mengenai niat dan maksud para komandan militer tersebut. Langkah ini akan membuat legitimasi para ulama membaik perlahan-lahan.

Langkah menjaga jarak seperti itu memiliki akar maqalah yang berbunyi; “seburuk-buruknya ulama adalah dia yang sering bertandang ke istana, dan sebaik-baiknya umara adalah dia yang meminta pertimbangan ulama dalam menjalankan kekuasaannya.” Ungkapan ini pantas untuk direnungkan karena banyak ulama yang kehilangan jati diri dan kedaulatannya sebagai personifikasi keluhuran nilai agama setelah mereka asik masuk dengan kekuasaan. Singkatnya, menjaga jarak dengan kekuasaan juga akan membuat para ulama terhindari dari olok-olok politik yang kerap mengatakan bahwa kehadirannya diistana kekuasaan sekedar menjadi stempel karet kebijakan penguasa.

Dengan adanya jarak yang terjaga maka para Ulama Aceh akan menjelma menjadi reformator atau pembaharu bagi masa depan masyarakat Aceh. Oleh karena itu sebagai reformator para ualama dalam menangani konflik dan korban konflik harus mengambil posisi sebagai penjaga dan pewarta kebenaran. Para ulama harus berdiri diposisi mereka yang menjadi korban serta bersama dengan korban untuk memperjuangkan hak-hak korban, baik hak sosial-ekonomi maupun sipil dan politik. Dalam peran seperti ini Ulama tidak lagi menjadi pihak yang membantah, menyingkirkan dan menistakan pengalaman para korban dan keluarganya.

Kebenaran yang harus dibela oleh para Ulama Aceh terkait dengan konflik adalah kebenaran yang faktual, yaitu kebenaran mengenai siapa, apa, kapan dan bagaimana sebuah perlakuan tak manusiawi terjadi. Singkatnya adalah kebenaran tentang pengalaman seseorang dan atau komunitas menghadapi tindakan kekerasan yang tidak manusiawi selama konflik bersenjata meledak.

Untuk mengambil posisi bersama dengan korban itu, rumusan dari Pelapor Khusus PBB Prof. M. Cherif Bassiouni tentang korban bisa membantu. Bassiouni mendefinisikan korban dalam kerangka hak asasi manusia adalah “seseorang dikatakan sebagai ‘seorang korban’ dalam hal ia menderita akibat dari tindakan atau perbuatan yang dinyatakan sebagai kekerasan oleh norma HAM internasional dan hukum humaniter. Artinya orang tersebut baik secara individual maupun kolektif mengalami penderitaan yang mencakup kerusakan fisik dan mental, emosional, kerugian ekonomi, atau hak-hak legal fundamentalnya terabaikan sama sekali.”

Jika rumusan dari Bassiouni dioperasionalkan maka para Ulama akan menjadi soko guru bagi bangkitnya semangat korban untuk mengapai asa baru. Sejalur dengan itu, para Ulama se Aceh juga akan menjadi pihak pertama yang akan memulihkan kepercayaan korban dan para anak-anaknya kepada semua pihak di Aceh dan Indoensia. Dengan posisi itu pula para Ulama di Aceh akan bisa pula memulihkan posisi sosial dan legitimasi moralnya di tengah masyarakat Aceh telah terlunta-lunta menjadi korban kekerasan.

Kebenaran dan Keadilan
Kedua, dendam hanya bisa luruh ketika dihadapan dengan kebenaran. Martha Minow (1998) dalam bukunya Between Vengeance and Forgiveness, mengungkapkan dendam hanya akan meluruh jika terjadi “restoring dignity to victim.” Oleh karena itu “prosecutions and amnesties” belum cukup untuk menghilangkan dendam. Maka dari itu Matha Minow menegaskan perlu ditempuh langkah-langkah lainnya, yaitu:
“commission of inquiry into the facts; opening access to secret police files; removing prior political and military officials and civil servants from theirs post and from the rolls for public benefits; publicizing names of offenders and name of victim; securing reparations and apologies for victim; devising and making available appropriate therapeutic services for any affected by the horrors, devising art and memorials to mark what happened, to honor the victim, and to communicate the aspiration of “never again”; and advancing public educational programs to convey what happen and to sterengthen participatory democracy and human rights.” (p. 23)

Dalam prasyarat yang dikemukan Martha Minow di atas maka kebenaran bermakna sebagai pengakuan atas seluruh pengalaman getir yang dirasakan korban melalui suatu mekanisme yang jelas dan teruji. Hal ini diperlukan karena “vengeance is the impulse to retaliate when wrongs are done.” Maka dari itu mengakui kebenaran pengalaman para korban menjadi langkah pertama menuju pemulihan harkat diri para korban dan keluarganya. Berkat turutan pengalaman korban itu semua pihak kelak akan bisa belajar, termasuk para ulama untuk mengkoreksi peran mereka selama konflik terjadi.

Untuk mekanisme itu para cendekia Aceh dalam MoU (Ps.2 (3) dan UU PA (Ps. 229) telah menyatakan Komisi Kebenaran dan Rekonsiliasi (KKR) adalah sarananya. Dengan sarana KKR ini, seluruh pengalaman korban akan diuji dan ditelusuri kebenarannya dengan meminta keterangan dan kesaksian semua pihak. Agar sesuai dengan harapan Pangdam IM, para Ulama perlu menempatkan perannya sebagai pendukung utama untuk membentuk KKR di Aceh.

Dengan kata lain, melalui proses pencarian kebenaran itulah kemudian keadilan mendekat kepada korban dan anak-anaknya. Agenda keadilan disini tentu bukan sebagai upaya untuk menutup mulut atau menakut-nakuti korban dan anak-anaknya, melainkan satu upaya untuk membawa kembali para korban berserta anak-anaknya ke pentas umum dengan tujuan harga diri dan martabatnya pulih. Singkatnya agenda keadilan berupaya menumbuhkan percaya diri dari para anak-anak korban sehingga mereka tidak lagi merasa dan menjadi warga yang diasingkan dari komunitasnya, sehingga keadilan melenyapkan stigma, yang pada gilirannya akan mengikis dendam.

Dalam mengikis dendam itu pendekatan yang bisa dipakai adalah pendekatan survivor’s justice (keadilan dari mereka yang survive). Artinya disini bukanlah pembalasan dari mereka yang merasa menang yang menjadi ukuran keadilan. Mahmood Mamdani dalam bukunya yang sangat terkenal When Victim Become Killer: Colonialism, Nativisms, and the Genocide in Rwanda (2001) mengemukan survivor’s justice lebih menitikberatkan pada rekonsiliasi. Makna dari rekonsiliasi di sini adalah mereka yang survive dari amuk senjata dan kekerasan selama konflik berupaya untuk kembali membangun dirinya bersama dengan kelompok-kelompok lainnya. Kesalahan tidak ditumpukan pada pundak individu-individu, melainkan pada sistem yang memungkinkan seluruh tindakan yang tak manusiawi itu terjadi. Kata kuncinya adalah pengakuan terhadap seluruh pengalaman korban dan segera melakukan perombakan terhadap seluruh institusi yang mendukung kekerasan terjadi di masa lalu. Langkah ini ditujukan untuk mencegah terulangnya pengalaman buruk dimasa lalu kembali hadir di masa kini.

Ketiga, korban berserta keluarganya dalam konteks menjaga kerberlanjutan perdamaian Aceh harus didekati sebagai dunia dan diri Aceh saat ini. Korban berserta keluarganya bukanlah dunia asing atau diluar masyarakat Aceh. KKR dengan sokongan para Ulama berperan penting untuk mengejawantahkan pendekatan ini. Jika korban dan keluarganya didekati sebagai dunia yang asing, maka Aceh tidak akan bisa bercermin dan tidak akan mengenal masa lalunya. Dengan sendirinya juga tidak akan bisa melangkah ke masa depan, karena tidak tahu wajah pembanding bagi masa depan yang didengung-dengungkan. Pengalaman anak-anak korban inilah bertumpu masa depan Aceh . Tanpa mengakui kebenaran dari para korban dan anak-anaknya, perdamaian di Aceh akan menjadi banal.

Beranjak dari tiga hal yang tepapar di atas dapat dikatakan masalah dendam setelah konflik berlalu bukanlah masalah perseorangan, melainkan masalah kolektif. Hal itu terjadi karena kekerasan di dalam konflik adalah pengalaman kolektif yang terjalin dalam tempo yang panjang. Oleh karena itu tidak ada tempat bagi melupakan atau lupa. Tempat yang tersedia adalah mengingat dan kemudian mentranformasikan ingatan itu menjadi suatu yang produktif yaitu menjadi ruang sembuh. Kesembuhan disini tentu bermakna sosial, yaitu kesembuhan Aceh sebagai komunitas.

Jika kembali pada himbauan Pangdam IM, agar generasai baru Aceh tidak memupuk dendam, maka langkahnya adalah peyembuhan bukan melupakan. Penyembuhan dalam konteks memori kolektif tentu tidak dapat dicapai dengan pengajian atau kotbah moral, melainkan dengan mewujudkan keadilan. Dari sudut prinsip, al-Quran menyatakan, “Wahai orang-orang beriman, tegakan keadilan dan jadilah saksi-saksi bagi Allah, walau pun mengenai diri kalian sendiri,” (QS al-Nisa (4):135). Prinsip inilah yang seharus menjadi pengangan dalam membasuh luka korban untuk menegakan harga dirinya kembali. Ulama mestilah menjadi motor bagi pewujudan dari keadilan itu dalam seluruh tindakannya. Bukan sekedar pembawa pesan dari Makodam. Semoga.(Drs. Amiruddin al Rahab, MSi.| www.acehinstitute.org)

PAPUA ROAD MAP: Negotiating the Past, Improving the Present and Securing the Future

(Kontras di Jalanan Wamena, foto njiswold.wordpress.com)


Lembaga Ilmu Pengetahuan Indonesia (LIPI)
The Indonesian Institute of Sciences.


Dr. Muridan S. Wijadjojo
Amiruddin al Rahab, MSi
Dr. Adriana Elisabeth
Cahyo Pamungkas, MSi
Rosita Dewi. SIP


ABSTRACT

The sources of the Papuan conflict are grouped together in four issues.

The first is the marginalisation and discriminatory impact on native Papuan people of economic development, political conflict and mass migration into Papua since 1970. In order to address this problem, an affirmative policy of recognition needs to be evolved in order to empower the Papuan people.

The second issue is the failure of development, in particular in the field of education and health for native Papuans and the failure to empower the people’s economy. This requires a new paradigm of development which focuses on improving public services and welfare for Papuan people living in the kampungs.

The third key issue is the contradiction between Papua and Jakarta about history and political identity. This issue can only be resolved by means of dialogue along the lines of the dialogue that occurred in Aceh.

The fourth issue is accountability for past state violence against Indonesian citizens in Papua. For this, reconciliation is needed, the convening of human rights courts and revelation of the truth for Papua, in particular for the victims, their families and Indonesian citizens in Papua in general.

These four issues and agendas can be drawn together as an inter-connected policy strategy to resolve the Papuan conflict comprehensively in the long term.

The reformasi atmosphere, the accommodative Law No. 21/2001 on Special Autonomy (OTSUS Law), a responsive central government and a very large budget for Papua leads the LIPI Team to feel optimistic that the Papuan problem can be resolved with justice, peace and dignity.


INTRODUCTION

After conducting three years of research (2004 – 2006) into the conflict in Papua, the LIPI Team was charged with drawing up a PAPUA ROAD MAP (referred to hereinafter as PR) on the construction of a model to achieve a comprehensive and fundamental resolution to the Papuan Conflict The results of the three-year research are the starting point for the draft road map. This draft will be further enhanced through interviews, discussions or seminars involving a variety of sources, individuals as well as state and civil society institutions. Besides focussing on the latest situation of the Papuan Conflict, it also focuses on the Special Autonomy Law No 21/2001, known as OTSUS.

It should be understood that the problems and causes of the conflict in Papua are, to a great extent, the consequence of a web of events from earlier regimes. Unfortunately, in the shifts and turns of the causes of the conflict and efforts to resolve the conflict, later regimes have tended to pursue policies and adopt measures in political and legal affairs that are transitional and ad hoc in nature, that are inconsistent and have failed to show any appreciation of the wishes of the Papuan people. At the same time, Papuan leaders, including those within the state institutions as well as in civil society do not enjoy the necessary bargaining power to be able to strategically influence the forms and direction of the policies pursued in Jakarta. The political atmosphere has been dominated by unhealthy relations between Indonesian nationalists who promote the idea of ‘NKRI harga mati’ [NKRI, Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia is immutable’] while Papuan nationalists also insist that ‘Papua Merdeka’ or ‘Free Papua’ is immutable. As a result, efforts and resources in Jakarta as well as in Papua have been wasted in pursuit of political measures that are reactionary in nature.

Nevertheless, the LIPI Team is optimistic that the atmosphere of reform and democratic advances has provided the space to break the vicious circle of the Papuan Conflict. President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono himself said in his state address on 16 August 2005 that the government would resolve the Papua Conflict peacefully, justly and with dignity by stressing the approach of dialogue and persuasion. Dialogue and persuasion were successful in resolving the Aceh problem. Borne up by this optimism, the LIPI Team has identified four key agendas and a choice of policies or agendas which can be pursued by state institutions and civil society at home and abroad. The four agenda are: 1) recognition, 2) a new paradigm of development, 3) dialogue, and 4) reconciliation.

In the course of this presentation, the Team will endeavour to analyse the positive and negative aspects of these four choices on offer, also taking into account the capabilities and limitations of the government as well as of the civil society organisations involved. Bearing in mind the interests of both sides, it is highly likely that as between the several choices of policy available, the government on the one hand and civil society organisations on the other, will be more inclined towards one option rather than another.

The aim of PR is to ensure that the ones who taking take decisions within the various state institutions and activists in non-governmental organisations will gain a comprehensive insight of the Papuan Conflict. Hopefully, with the benefit of such insight, there will be a moderation in the position adopted by the political elite in Jakarta, in particular members of the DPR (Parliament) and within the government, and that the strategically-placed Papuan elite, both those within government circles and in the relevant NGOs will display a willingness to take new steps to resolve the basic issues in Papua.

The issues raised in PR are not new. The four agendas raised in this paper have already been discussed by many experts and human rights activists around the world as well as in Indonesia. For instance, the question of dialogue was discussed by Theo van den Broek , Phil Erari , Timo Kivimaki, John Ondowame , and others, each in a variety of formats. The issues of reconciliation and human rights courts have also been discussed by a number of NGOs in Jakarta and Jayapura such as Pokja Papua (Papua Working Group), Kontras (Commission for the Disappeared ad Victims of Violence), Imparsial, ELSAM (Institute for Social Study and Advocacy, ALDP (Alliance for Democracy for Papua), SKP (the Justice and Peace Secretariat of the Diocese of Jayapura) and others.

On the question of Recognition, Benny Giay and Neles Tebay have been the leading spokespersons although their ideas differ in some respects from those of the LIPI Team. The issue of failed development has also been highlighted on a number of occasions, including by researchers working with the Department of the Interior and Polhukkam (Political, Legal and Social Affairs Coordinating Department). Taking all this into account, the LIPI Team has endeavoured to deal with these matters in a more integrated and comprehensive manner. The results take the form of an indirect ‘dialogue’ with various groups and take the form of an ‘inter-textual’ work.

I. MAPPING AND THE SOURCES OF CONFLICT IN PAPUA

As a result of the mapping of the conflict undertaken by the LIPI Team in 2004 and its analysis of the conflict in Papua in 2005 and 2006, two aspects emerged: first, a mapping of the participants who play a role and have strategic interests; second, the complexities of the source of the conflict with all its historical, cultural, political and social-economic dimensions.

The participants and the sources of the conflict have to be understood within the historical and political context of the period in question. For instance, the complex process of the decolonisation of Papua (Dutch New Guinea), the Act of Free Choice (Pepera) in 1969, the policies of the New Order (1967–1998), and the political dynamics during the period of the transition to democracy up to the present day (1998–2008) all of which happened within a variety of very different contexts. The period of reform (known as reformasi) and democracy in Indonesia has the potential for providing greater space to reach a resolution of Papuan problems.

Following the murder of Theys Eluay in 2001 and the crackdown against political activities by Papuan nationalists, the Papuan pro-independence movement at home became very weak. Some leaders lost their roles while others were co-opted by the state. As a result, a complexity of discussions, participants and confused political orientations occurred between the two political camps. The paradoxes between the two sides and actions taken by those involved have deepened the complexities in mapping the individuals, their roles and interests in the Papuan Conflict. More recently, pragmatic and opportunistic considerations of the participants have resulted in the Papuan Conflict being narrowed down to two issues, OTSUS and the creation of separate provinces.

If we try to map the participants simply from the perspective of the extremist camps, it becomes clear that there are two camps. The Indonesian nationalists consist of the Department of the Interior, the State Intelligence Agency BIN, the Papua Desk at the office of the Coordinator of Political, Legal and Security Affairs, fractions in Parliament (DPR), the Indonesian armed forces TNI, and the Indonesian Police, Polri, as well as other state organs. Besides the state bodies, there is the paramilitary Satgas which is associated with certain religious organisations and/or certain military units. On the side of the Papuan nationalists, there is the group called the National Liberation Army/Papuan Freedom Movement TPN/OPM, as well as the Papuan Presidium Council, PDP and its panels, and other nationalist Papuan groups at home and abroad. Then there are action committees which organise demonstrations such as the United Front of Struggle of the West Papua People which is an alliance of several organisations of Papuan students and youth in various parts of Indonesia, supported by like-minded groups in Australia and the UK.

In between are the Dewan Adat Papua, DAP, the Papuan Customary Council, various religious institutions (Catholic and Protestant as well as other religious groups), NGOs, political parties, mass organisations and tribal groups in Papua. If you add the Papuan political elite to all this, the complexities become even more apparent. All this points to the involvement of many participants with grey political areas. In order to simplify matters, the Indonesian nationalists refer to all the (opposing) groups as being part of the ‘separatist movement’; using the same logic and for quite different political objectives, the Papuan nationalists tend to suspect the other side as being ‘pro-Jakarta’.

A mapping of the roles and interests of international groups involved in the Papuan Conflict adds further dynamism. In the view of the State forces which are involved, international support for the Papuan freedom movement is regarded as ‘virtually non-existent’. Formally speaking, they say, Papua is recognised as a legitimate part of Indonesia. The concern of the international community at present is focused on the lack of seriousness of the Indonesian Government in consistently implementing the OTSUS (Special Autonomy) law and improving enforcement of human rights in Papua. There are also a number of individuals and non-governmental organisations as well as members of Parliament in other countries who are actively expressing their concern about the status of Papua at the United Nations and who are pushing for a review of the politically-enforced 1969 Act of Free Choice as well as abuses of human rights in Papua. However, these manoeuvres have not yet been able to alter the map of the problem.

Regarding the anxieties of Indonesian nationalists in Jakarta, it is not true to say that all intellectuals and international bodies support the movement for a Free Papua. Some Indonesianists who are able exert a degree of influence on the policies of major governments have adopted a neutral position and in fact tend to be positive. To repeat the point, the ebb and flow of sympathy and international support for the Indonesian Government depends to a great extent on how OTSUS is being implemented, particularly with regard to the enforcement of human rights. A survey of the role, interests and the international political agenda must also consider the local, national and international context. The central government in Jakarta does not have a blueprint for the resolution of the Papuan Conflict. As for civil society, shifts in its role, interests and political agenda are frequently determined by political developments at home and abroad.

The agendas and political orientation of those involved in the Papuan Conflict cannot always be simplified by attaching black-and-white labels to the contradiction between Indonesian nationalists who regard the Unitary State of the Republic of Indonesia (NKRI) as a matter of principle and the final political format versus the Papuan nationalists who hold the view that the integration of Papua into Indonesia was unlawful because ‘the Papuan nation and state was established and came into being on 1 December 1961’ and therefore demand ‘the restoration of Papuan sovereignty and independence’. The enactment of OTSUS Law No 21/2001, the creation of the province of Irian Jaya Barat (West Papua) and the publication in January 2008 of a Draft Law (RUU) which provides for the creation of three new provinces (Papua Barat Daya –Southwest Papua, Papua Tengah – Central Papua, and Papua Selatan – South Papua) has further added to the complexities of the mapping of those involved and their interests in the Papuan Conflict.

The LIPI Team has come to the conclusion that the sources of the Papuan Conflict can be grouped under four main headings: First, marginalisation of, and discrimination against, the native Papuan people as a result of economic development, cultural policies and mass migration into Papua from 1970 to the present day. In response to this problem, affirmative policies such as recognition (rekognisi) should be devised. The second problem is the failure of development; this requires a new paradigm, Papuan development. The third main issue is the contradiction between Papua and Jakarta regarding their respective views of the history of integration and the construction of a Papuan political identity. The LIPI Team believes it is necessary to consider the possibility of dialogue on this question. The fourth question is the prolonged experience of the history of political violence in Papua, perpetrated primarily by state actors against Indonesian citizens in Papua. On this matter, reconciliation and human rights courts along with revelation of the truth are the possible choices in order to create a sense of justice in the Papuan community, in particular among victims, their families and native Papuan Indonesian citizens in general.

Arising out of these four PR agenda points, the LIPI Team has, since the start identified the four sub-themes outlined above as the strategic policy framework of mutually-related issues for resolving the Papuan conflict comprehensively.

The LIPI Team is well aware that these four agendas will not be easily acceptable to the all parties to the conflict, bearing in mind that a number of persons and interests are likely to be disturbed, in Jakarta as well as in Papua. However, the LIPI Team believes that the spirit of reform and democratisation and the commitment to upholding the spirit of Indonesia in accordance with the principles of peace, justice and dignity will provide the necessary understanding and motivation for the central government, and in particular the President and Vice-President, to take creative and courageous steps which are both long-term and all-encompassing. The Papuan question has been a complex cycle of conflict for decades, which is why there is no easy or cost-free way, except by means of hard work involving a lot of sweat, a high-risk strategy for all sides, in particular for the central and provincial governments.

II. MODEL FOR A LONG-TERM SOLUTION

The model which is offered here is called the Papua Road Map (PR) because it sets out the map for the way forward starting from the earliest beginnings [hulu]; while concepts differ, all want to move towards ‘a New Papua that is more peaceful and just’. As is the case with social reconciliation in the broadest sense, it is hoped that these four agendas will break the vicious circle and lead to an Indonesia-with-Papua-inside entering upon a new, constructive and progressive phase. This identification of the problems attempts to incorporate all the key issues, including the most sensitive ones as well as those which are less sensitive for the central government. This road mapping will, it is hoped, be able to provide a more comprehensive and honest appreciation of the sources of the Papuan conflict and assist those who are in a position to take decisions to answer the vast majority of the problems in Papua within a period of ten to twenty years.

[Diagram to be added here]

2.1 RECOGNITION
A major theme in Irianese thinking was that their fate was being decided by others without them being consulted…..

For native Papuans, recognition is the term that portrays a social process where the concepts of Papua and Papuan identity represent the central issue for which they are aiming. Recognition of the native Papuans is defined as a social process in which the agendas side with and focus on Papuans and their identity. This includes a social strategy of positive affirmation which is aimed at helping the Papuans in the protection of their resources, so that Papuans are in a position to negotiate and have the necessary resources to negotiate in readiness for a procession of rapid social change while enjoying just benefits for their livelihood and prosperity.

From the cultural perspective, it is hoped that papuanisation will provide the space for movement and respect, and recognition of their social and cultural identity. It is hoped that the State will openly accommodate the symbols and other cultural expressions of the Papuans and treat them as part of the richness of Indonesian culture. The incorporation of cultural elements into the life and social-cultural processes is an important factor to enable the Papuans to feel that they have their own arena in the diversified home of Indonesia. In this way, the process of cultural inter-action will not only occur along parallel lines where elements of Indonesian-ness penetrate into Papuan society but, the reverse will also happen, that elements of Papuan identity will enrich the newer-ending process of true Indonesianisation.

The process of social recognition is the response to a number of pressing problems for the Papuans in presence within Indonesia. In the first place, quantitatively speaking, Papuans have encountered a radical demographic change which has caused them dislocation and displacement. In 1959, the percentage of the population who were immigrants was less than 2 per cent; it became 4 per cent in 1971 and rose to more than 35 percent in 2000. In 2005 the immigrant population was estimated to account for 41 percent of the population, and this will jump to 53.5 percent in 2011. It will not be long before native Papuans have become a minority in the land of Papua. This will mean that the political position of the Papuans will get weaker because their votes will be less than the votes of the immigrants in forthcoming general elections or in local elections for heads of districts. It is quite certain that in future local elections for district heads or mayors, particularly in urban areas, the immigrants will replace the Papuan district chiefs or mayors.

Before the immigrants accounted for such a large proportion as now, these immigrants (transmigrants and spontaneous migrants) had already in qualitative terms overtaken the native Papuans who were already being marginalized. In the field of agriculture, the transmigrants and spontaneous migrants had already become more productive and had gained control of the markets. In commerce and in the markets, Papuans traders were represented by mama-mama (women) who sold their garden products on the fringes of the markets who made a very small turnover and the likelihood of eviction. Similar examples can be taken from the services industry and other sectors which are dominated by the migrants. The majority of migrants are relatively more experienced and better-educated than native Papuans. Their inability to compete and their marginalisation contribute to a collective sense among Papuans that their existence as masters in the land of Papua is seriously threatened. In the ranks of the elite, these facts are sharpened by a dramatic sense that Papuans face ruination or even slow-motion genocide.

With regard to cultural affairs, many Papuans think that any expression of their culture is suspected of being a manifestation of separatism. Cultural conflict occurs at a symbolic level when traditional songs and other cultural forms used by Papuans are regarded as an expression of their identity on the one hand while on the other hand, the security forces suspect them of being a form of symbolic resistance to State symbols. The treatment of Arnold Ap in the 1980s was a bitter experience for Papuans because Papuan artistic activities were regarded as a symbolic form of resistance by Papuans against Indonesian rule. There have been many instances where Papuans have had dealings with the military because of the symbols and cultural expressions they use. The introduction of PP 77/2008 which prohibits the use of certain cultural symbols was a sharp reminder of the central government’s suspicions towards Papuan cultural expression.

The need for recognition for native Papuans is inspired by those occasions in their history when they were not involved in decisions that were decisive for their future. Ever since the critical events surrounding the decolonisation of Papua from Dutch hands, the 1969 Act of Free Choice and the New Order era, as described in the statement by Chauvel quoted above, Papuans have always felt that they are never involved in the political processes that are of decisive significance for their future. In response to these concerns, Deputy Governor of Papua R.G. Djopari spoke in 2000 about need for papuanisation, to ensure that ‘the Papuan people are capable of handling their own affairs and have the freedom to control and develop their territory themselves’. This aspiration was strengthened with the enactment of the OTSUS Law, 21/2001 which emphasised the need to empower the ‘native’ population.

‘Affirmative policies’ of leadership within the government bureaucracy both at the provincial as well as at district and city levels means giving preference to native Papuans for jobs in the bureaucracy and is also understood among Papuan bureaucrats as being within the framework of recognition. Recognition at these levels means taking jobs away from immigrant officials and giving them to native Papuans, as well as recruiting more Papuans into the civil service (PNS). In 2002, about 40 percent of PNS employees were native Papuans in the Province of Papua while at higher levels, it rose to 70 percent, reaching 80 percent in 2003. Within the police force, there were only 1,300 native Papuans out of a total of 8,700 members. In 2008, an additional 1,500 Papuan candidate police officers were recruited and were being trained for the community police force, funded by the OTSUS budget.

The result of the papuanisation of the bureaucracy is that non-Papuans will be removed from their posts and could possibly starting working for NGOs, return home or get jobs in regional administrations elsewhere in the country. Papuanisation and the reconstruction of the bureaucracy since the OTSUS law was passed has led to 4,242 civil servants losing their jobs in structural or non-structural sectors. There were no transitional arrangements in place during the rapid papuanisation process that has been underway since 1998. The results has been that the transfer of jobs has been done without regard for regulations on the employment of civil servants and careerprospects, and with no regard for competence. Incompetence in the bureaucracy has resulted in a decline in the quality of services to the public, less supervision of the administration and a greater level of corruption . The irony is that recognition for Papuans has only benefited the Papuan elite while bringing nothing beneficial at all for Papuans in at the lower levels of society.

There are several cases in the decisions to split Papua into several provinces which have also resulted in a different kind of recognition for the Papuan people. Inter-tribal rivalry between Papuans along ‘narrow ethno-centrist’ lines has become more acute. This has not only caused divisions between coastal and mountain people but even between groups within smaller traditional social units. The sense of a Papuan identity as was evident in 1999 and 2000 seems to have disappeared. In their everyday practices, Papuan officials tend to behave not as part of a modern bureaucracy whose duty it is to serve the public interests but more as big men or patrons who use state funds to retain the loyalty of constituents of the same tribe or who happen to be their clients. The aim in splitting the territory into smaller units so as to improve the level of service to the public has simply become a smoke-screen for serving the narrow interests of people who want to gain control over political resources and the local bureaucracy, all of which undermines the function of the bureaucracy which is to serve society.

One important move towards recognition of the native Papuans was the establishment of a unique body, the Majelis Rakyat Papua (MRP) – (Papuan People’s Council). The members were chosen exclusively from the ranks of native Papuans, from traditional institutions, religious groups and women. The purpose of the body is to protect the basic rights of native Papuan people and to give a voice to their interests in relation to customary rights, traditional land rights, religion and empowerment of the women (Article 23, OTSUS Law 21/2001). The MRP also has the important task of ensuring that the identity and culture of the Papuans becomes the defining factor in all political, economic and social-cultural products, so as to make sure that changes in Papua will involve the Papuan people in significant ways, taking into consideration Papuan ideas and methods. However, since its establishment in 2005 up to the present day, the MRP has not significantly shown its ability to fulfil the hopes expected of it as described above.

Recognition for native Papuans basically means adopting a policy of identity normally referred to as positive discrimination usually pursued on behalf of marginalized groups who have little or no resources such as capital for instance with which to fight for their interests other than their ethnic identity. In the competition for control of resources, Papuans have been the victims of injustice because of their structural and cultural conditions, lacking as they do the ability to engage in competition from a position of equality. It is very unfair for the Papuans to be excluded from this kind of competition. This is why a policy of positive discrimination based on their ethnicity is necessary, so as to protect the Papuans from having to compete in circumstances which they barely understand, and to empower them to be able to compete, and in the process, their standing (privilese?) based on ethnicity will gradually disappear.

Papuanisation should be regarded as a social process for individuals and for the local institutions, so as to ensure that more and more Papuans are capable of representing and protecting their own interests in the struggle for control over the resources they need. Recognition means providing the Papuans with a level of education that will ensure the creation of a class of well-educated Papuans who at least reach the national standard in Indonesia. In economic affairs, recognition means providing the necessary training and education to create a new class of Papuans able of becoming businessmen. Government policy should provide the necessary bridge between preparing Papuans to compete independently and raising level of prosperity for the majority of native Papuans.

2.2 A NEW DEVELOPMENT PARADIGM

A new paradigm for development in Papua is necessary in order to strengthen the policy of recognition of Papuans in the sense of raising the quality of life of Papuans to the level of other Indonesian citizens. Development programmes must be able to meet the basic needs and rights of Papuans in education, health and economic welfare. In any development programme the resources and participatory abilities of the Papuans should be improved so that Papuans feel themselves as a part of the project as the subject of development and social changes in Papua. This will ensure that Indonesia and Indonesian-ness is a part and parcel of public services and social phenomena which will gradually help Papuans to feel comfortable in and proud of being a part of Indonesia.

A new development paradigm for Papua is needed because the Papuan people have not yet enjoyed optimal benefits from being part of the Indonesian state in terms of the public services in education, health, the infrastructure and empowerment of the people. Furthermore, it has failed because of the contrast between the culture of the Papuan people and the state apparatus, the business world and the immigrants who pre-dominate over the changes taking place in their land. Nothing has been done yet to create inter-cultural links that would make it possible for Papuans to understand what is happening and prepare themselves to participate actively in various developmental activities and be a part of the changes taking place that have an impact on their social and economic conditions. The social-cultural interaction is mutually foreign, stereo-typical and replete with stigmas and misunderstandings that are frequently fatal.

The national development strategy pursued during and after the New Order was aimed at modernising the lives of Papuan society and re-enforcing national integration. If national development in Papua is judged in terms of public services, then it can be said to have been a failure because qualitatively speaking, it has failed as yet to preserve national integrity in Papua which continues to be dominated by militaristic policies from ‘Jakarta’ such as military operations and intelligence operations that cannot the justified publicly. As a result, the presence of ‘Indonesia’ is represented by the military and their acts of violence (Rumbiak and Manning, 1989), not by a civil apparatus that is capable of providing public services. It is indeed possible to maintain national integrity but, the legitimacy of the integrity project has become much weaker with the result that the aspirations of the Papuan people to secede from Indonesia have become much strong.

Up to the present, national economic development in Papua has concentrated on the exploitation of its natural resources. This is regarded as having ignored the wishes and the rights of the native population to their traditional land. Taking people’s land for economic programmes has led to conflicts between the owners of the land and the companies as well as the government. When these conflicts occur, the security forces (TNI and the police force) always defend the interests of the companies or the government. The security forces which get involved in these conflicts use violence and the stigma of separatism, on the grounds of the need to preserve the territorial integrity of NKRI. Such violent conflicts are one of the major causes of the human rights violations that have occurred in Papua.

There has been no preparation ahead of this exploitation of the natural resources, creating markets and other economic activities to involve Papuans as participants and to ensure that they enjoy the benefits of the development. In the absence of a policy of positive discrimination on the part of the government, it is not possible for Papuans to compete with the immigrants. The development programmes and the economic opportunities opened up provide far great possibilities of jobs for workers coming from outside Papua, with the result that the disparities between Papuans and non-Papuans have become wider. Dissatisfaction within the local communities regarding the exploitation of their natural resources and the dominance of the immigrants is one of the main issues that has triggered Papuan demands for independence.

Indonesian state organs after the New Order have admitted that development in Papua has failed. This is stated in point (f) of the Preamble of Law 21/2001 on Special Autonomy. This means that the political objective of the OTSUS law first and foremost was to quell Papuan demands for independence. But more important that that is the objective of creating a space within the development paradigm that focuses on the needs and basic rights of the Papuan people.

Although OTSUS has been in force for more than five years in Papua, it failed to bring about any significance changes. The development programme is proceeding very slowly especially in the four sectors which have been prioritised by the central government. OTSUS has a budget of around Rp. 1.3-1.5 trillion per year. In 2005, this increased to Rp. 1.775 trillion (Yan Pieter Rumbiak, 2005: 182). The money being paid out by the central government to the regional government has not benefited the vast majority of Papuans. In fact, what has happened is that these funds have been used to cover the needs of officials in the civil administration (executive) and for members of the local legislative assembly (legislature), most of which has been used for operational activities by the bureaucracy (Yan Pieter Rumbiak, 2005: 182)OTSUS funds have not yet brought any benefits to the main targets, education, health, and the creation of an infrastructure or public utilities.

The quality of education in Papua is far below the national standard. Even though education has been identified at a top priority in the Medium-Term Development Programme (RPJM) and the Regional Government’s Working Programme (RKPD), it has not been treated as a priority in the Regional Budget (APBD). In 2008, education was allocated a mere 4.19% of the total budget. This inadequate allocation for education will automatically have a damaging effect on efforts to comply with the rights of society in the field of education, namely the provision of good-quality education. Good-quality education needs large amounts of money and is it the responsibility of the local government to allocate the necessary funds in the budget, particularly to fund the necessary infrastructure for education and equipment that needs to be purchased, and also pays attention to the welfare of the teaching staff. Even so, demands about the amount of money in the budget allocated to education will not automatically improve the quality of education in Papua. Not only the government but also others believe that the low level of education in Papua is caused by the inadequacy of the infrastructure, neglecting the cultural values that exist within Papua society. Improving the quality of education in Papua will only succeed if the government devotes attention in its development programme and in the provision of education facilities to local wisdom.

The provision of medical facilities is also a matter of great concern. Facilities at most of the clinics (puskesmas) in Papua are at a very low level and are well below standard for a health service because of the paucity of doctors and medicines. 65% of Papuans visit the nearest clinics when they are ill and need medicine. Conditions at auxiliary clinics are also a matter for concern. This is despite the fact that many serious diseases such as HIV/AIDS are prevalent among Papuans and already for a long time have reached epidemic proportions. (Around 68% of Papuans are suffering from HIVS/AIDS while 77% have malaria.) Tuberculosis is also widespread. Infant mortality is also serious because of the poor nutritional condition of mothers during pregnancy. Even so, the regional government allocates only 8% of the budget (30 billion rupiahs) to health. This points to a lack of consistency on the part of the regional government which has described health as a priority. The allocation of funds for health fails to reflect this.

The other big problem ias the lack of any integrated planning that takes account of the geographic conditions and the fact that the population is spread very widely, or of the cultural values of the Papuan people. Nor is there any transparency with the budget. As long as these problems are not addressed, any budget however large will not make any difference. These problems are the result of the fact that the bureaucrats within the local government are quite incapable of running the bureaucracy. Governments at both the provincial and district or town levels have failed to manage OTSUS funds properly and the result is that the targets set for OTSUS have not been achieved. Rather, what has happened is that OTSUS money has been corrupted by the local elite in Papua.


2.3 DIALOGUE

Relations between the central government (Jakarta) and the Papuan people are blocked by the ‘high wall’ of a different political construction about history and the political status of Papua. The differing constructions betweenthe Indonesian nationalist and Papuan nationalists has never been discussed and stigmatisation and mistrust between the two sides has deepened. In a number of cases, the mistrust between State elements on the one hand andcivil society in Jakarta and in Papua, as well as within the Papuan community has tended to intensify. Mistrust and even ‘rejection’ to recognise the authority of Jakarta is based among other things on a contradiction in the history of Papua’s decolonisation and tensions in the appreciation of Papuan and Indonesian identities.

On the question of history, there is conflict over the understanding of the history of Papua’s integration into NKRI, in particular with regard to the New York Agreement (NYA) 1962 and Pepera (Act of Free Choice) in 1969. On the question of identity, there is a contradiction in construction of the understanding of Indonesian-ness and Papuan-ness. According to Papuan nationalists, the Papuans were not involved in the NYA and Pepera took place under duress and trickery through the unjust election of the 1,025 representatives of the Papuan people. For NKRI in principle, Papua automatically became part of NKRI ever since the Proclamation of Indonesian Independence in 1945 because the territory of Papua was previously part of the Dutch East Indies – from Merauke to Sabang – all of which became the territory of the Republic of Indonesia.

Papuan-ness is a political identity formed by the perception of experiences during the colonial era and after is constructed as the antithesis of Indonesian-ness. In many respects, Papuan-ness is focused on racial differences between Melanesians and Malays, between Christians and Muslims, between physical characteristics such as fuzzy hair with ‘black’ skin and brown skin. In contrast with Papuan nationalist, Indonesian nationalists take the view that, according to Pancasila and the 1945 Constitution, racial and cultural differences between Papuans and Indonesians is not a problem because Indonesia was constructed as a supra-ethnic nation-state that exceeds ethnic and racial differences.

Up to now, the conflicting parties stand firmly by their respective opinions. The fact that there has been no dialogue on these matters has placed the political situation in status quo as a result of which those opposed to the government are prevented from participating in formal politics while at the same time the government’s polic lacks legitimacy.

President B.J. Habibie and Papuan leaders in the Team of 100 were intending to hold a National Dialogue in February 1999. The meeting was restricted to discussing the demand by Team 100 for secession from the Republic of Indonesia. Although this dialogue initially led to vague expectations among Papuans, it failed to reach a compromise. The Second Papuan Congress in 2000 also represented a form of internal dialogue among Papuans, and resulted in the foundation of the PDP (Papuan Presidium Council) and calls for secession from Indonesia. This was a dialogue within one side of the conflict and was opposed by the central government. (???) No positive steps towards any compromise were taken following this Congress.

The drafting of Law No. 21, 2001 on Special Autonomy (UTSUS) also involved ‘dialogue’. During this process, leading intellectuals from Papua (native Papuans as well as immigrants), provincial government officials, and leaders of the DPRP Papua held substantive talks with elite strategists from the central government and the legislature, along with Indonesia’s MPR (Supreme Legislative Assembly). This resulted in a law which accommodated most of the agenda of the Papuan people that had been drawn up at the Second Papuan Congress, but excluded a clause about separation from Indonesia. However, this ‘dialogue’ did not include Papuan leaders who were in opposition to the central government, in particular the PDP and the OPM. The Special Autonomy Law is still problematic as regards to the degree of involvement of Papuan leaders in the drafting process, and subsequently regarding its implementation.

The term ‘dialogue’ within the context of the Papuan Conflict has several different connotations and tends to be seen as pejorative because of the previous experiences of the two sides. Among Papuans, ‘dialogue’ is frequently not seen as something within the framework of reaching a resolution but in terms of the objectives, which is Free Papua. The incident that occurred during the National Dialogue held in the State Palace in February 1999 to which reference has been made above is an example of Papuan misunderstanding of the meaning of ‘dialogue’. Because of their limited experience and deep suspicions of the Papuan leadership, the government side frequently sees the demand for dialogue as being identical with Freedom. Still worse, if the work dialogue is followed by the work ‘international’, this will immediately be understood as leading towards Freedom for Papua. Thus, use of the word ‘dialogue’ invites a variety of misunderstandings and mistaken reactions.

‘Dialogue’ must be restored to its true meaning. It must be understood as being the framework for reaching agreement on issues and problems, followed by negotiations and finally reaching compromise. Differences and similarities over understandings and interests can be resolved through dialogue aimed at finding points of compromise, making concessions that are acceptable, opening the way to reconciliation between two or more sides to a conflict. Dialogue is the strategic peaceful approach aimed at ending such a chronic political stalemate and cycle of violence as the Papuan conflict. In addition, dialogue is also aimed at reaching mutual trust between Jakarta and Papua, bearing in mind the fact that the differences over understandings and interests of the two side have created dispute, tension and mistrust which have become increasingly difficult to resolve.

In the Papuan case, dialogue can e conducted at several levels, either in stages or simultaneously. The dialogue about the Aceh conflict which succeeded in putting an end to the armed conflict between Gerakan Aceh Merdeka (GAM) and the TNI is proof that the Indonesian government has the will to strive for a similar dialogue in Papua. By learning from the Aceh case, there can also be a dialogue for Papua. The Indonesian government can adopt a personal approach (appointing ‘an actor behind the screen’), and pursue second-track diplomacy by involving a third party (or unofficial actor) actin as a mediator or negotiator as did the Henri Dunant Centre (HDC) and the Crisis Management Initiative (CMI). These two approaches were aimed at opening up a line of communications and creating trust within GAM of the Indonesian government and vice versa. The successful outcome of Aceh dialogue and the peace process was determined by two factors: 1) the political commitment of the Indonesian government (SBY-JK) to abandon military methods to resolve the conflict in Aceh; 2) natural causes, the tsunami in December 2004 was also decisive and in fact accelerated the conclusion of a peace accord in Aceh.

Bearing in mind that there is a difference in the perception of dialogue between the Indonesian government and the Papuan community, the challenge is how to persuade the parties in the conflict with regard to the significance of dialogue, at the local as well as the national level, with or without international mediation. Learning from the success of the dialogue between the Indonesian government and GAM, international mediation was proven to be important in preserving the feelings of confidence the decision to engage in negotiations involving several parties. It is important to ponder over the fact that both on the side of NKRI and Free Papua there was a sense of ‘immutaility’ that dialogue was a process of moderation and compromise, the substance of which was at all times open to negotiation. If it was possible to negotiate on the substance of the Aceh conflict , then it should also be possible to negotiate on Papua.

The strategic agendas to be put forward in dialogue fully represent agreement between Papua and Indonesia. The LILI Team suggests that the agenda should not only include the diametrically opposed views of the Jakarta and Papua nationalists regarding the history and political status of Papua but also the substance of the OTSUS law, particularly with regard to the questions of violence and human rights abuses, the failure of development and the marginalisation of the native Papuans. It is hoped that these critical agendas will, at the final stage or at each stage of dialogue will be worked into a compensation and a joint policy plan that is acceptable to both sides.

Another difficult question is deciding on the team of negotiators that are acceptable and who truly represent the Papua people. There must be allowance for time for preliminary internal dialogue among the Papuans. Learning from the experience of the Team 100 in 1999 and the Second Papuan Congress, Papuan representatives should not only be accompanied bypro-independence groups but also by several moderate Papuans. There should be between seven and eleven negotiators from Papua for the purposes of dialogue. The large number of people as in Team 100 will not be effective in conducting intensive dialogue. Learning from the Aceh success, it is suggested that the two side should select a team of experts who can help by giving useful advice.

It ia also necessary to identify factors which could obstruct dialogue so as to make way for the possibilities and opportunities that would enable dialogue to be held. The chief obstacle is the bargaining position of the Papuans which has become much weaker since 2002. The formal Papuan leaders at the level of the Provinces of Papua and West Papua, the Majelis Rakyat Papua and the DPRP-Papua have not yet shown the synergy and cooperation for taking action to resolve the Papuan Conflict. These leaders have not yet entered into any significant political communication with elements and groups outside the state sector. Apart from that, the four agendas mentioned above have hardly been touched upon, apart from technical and administration problems and development. The issues of dialogue, human rights abuses and recognition of the native Papuans have only be raised by marginal groups out on the streets.

The lack of unanimity among Papuans leaders could be overcome if the President and Vice-President were to show their good will bing encourage internal dialogue among the Papuan leadership. Learning the lessons from the Aceh experience, a strong sign from state leaders can turn a non-conducive situation into something more conducive for dialogue. Constructive intelligence activities to help condition the Papuan leaders from various groups and political orientations to be ready for dialogue is a very decisive factor in opening up the necessary space. This intelligence function was performed very well by Fuad Hussein who was given that task ahead of the Aceh peace dialogue by Vice-President Jusuf Kalla.

The involvement of a well-respected third party as mediator from international circles would also help, as was shown in the successful Aceh dialogue. Paranoia about the involvement of foreigners because of so-called ‘nationalism’ should be discarded. Since the start of the Papuan problem, foreigners or international mediators have been involved. The New York Agreement did not come about as the result of direct negotiations between Indonesia and the Dutch or between Papua and Indonesia, but was the result of mediation by the US. The presence of a mediator will act as a guarantee that the two sides are being watched by a third party, to ensure that they are honest and remain committed to a just process of dialogue and carry out any agreements that have been reached.


2.4 THE PATH OF RECONCILIATION

A number of reports have been published about violence by the state apparatus against Papuan civil society which has occurred since the 1960s. The armed clashes between ABRI troops and OPM guerrillas as well as acts of violence against the civilian population never became public, nor was there any accountability. It was not until the mid 1980s that these violent practices entered into the public domain. As the pro-democracy movement strengthened in Indonesia in the 1990s, cases of human rights violations began to be made public, following the Tembagapura case in 1994-95 and the 1997 Bella Alama case.

Following the downfall of Suharto in 1998 and the collapse of political reformasi, acts of violence by the State apparatus did not stop. At that time, Papuan demands for independence became more widespread and were made openly. These actions triggered repression which also intensified. The years from 1998 till 2006 were dominated by political violence primarily perpetrated by the security forces, both the TNI and the police. A number of human rights NGOs and the National Human Rights Commission, Komnas HAM, tried to have these violations brought before the human rights court; for instance, Abepura 2000 which went to court but which failed to convict the perpetrators. The Wasior and Wamena cases are still stuck at the Attorney General’s office.

Military operations in Papua from 1965 till 1998 were aimed at putting an end the OPM’s armed struggle in the forests and in the interior. During the 1980s, there were a number of operations in Jayapura in an attempt to eliminate the OPM network in the towns. Instead of destroying the OPM, many victims of this violence were local civilians. Since 1998, repressive actions by both the TNI and the police have occurred in urban areas because demands for independence have been made with the hoisting of flags in the towns in Papua. But it should also be pointed out that during the years before and after 1990, acts of violence against the civilian population were also perpetrated by the OPM.

Estimates of the number of victims of violence since 1963 have been given in a number of publications but they are still speculative, varying from 100,000 to 500,000. In other countries, for example, Yale University in the US and Sydney University in Australia go so far as to claim that violence in Papua can be classified as genocide. These claims which are based on weak data were easily denied by the International Crisis Group (ICG), and Indonesianists Rodd McGibbon and Edward Aspinall. Unfortunate, there has as yet been no baseline survey of the violence against the Papuan civilian population, in particular repression against political groups which who are seen as a threat to, or enemies of, the state (Indonesia). Neither the central government nor the provincial government in Papua has made any official response to accusations of human rights abuse or crimes against humanity in Papua from the 1960s up to the present day.

The neglect of human rights violations during the New Order was because of the fact that the governmental apparatus in Papua was dominated by the military bureaucracy, with the result that the civilian administration was subjected to limitations not only with regard to human rights violations but also regarding development. In fact, when the reformasi period began and the Law on Special Autonomy no. 21/2001, OTSUS , was promulgated, neither the central government in Jakarta nor the provincial government in Papua was willing to or capable of addressing the question of human rights, particularly with regarding to putting a stop to the violence and the human rights violations.

This situation is what is known as impunity, the inability either de jure or de facto to bring the perpetrators of human right violations to account – either before criminal, civil, administrative or disciplinary courts – because (the authorities) fail to comply with investigative mechanisms that would identify them as suspects, or to arrest them and bring them to trial and if found guilty, to impose the appropriate penalty as well as giving reparations to the victims. When placed within the context of the responsibility of the state, impunity means the failure of the state to carry out its obligation to resolve the problem of human rights abuses, to pay attention to the victims and to ensure that these crimes are not committed again.

It is the responsibility of the state’s judiciary to take legal measures against those who are thought to have been the perpetrators and to be made accountable for acts of violence and human rights violations. One of the main indicators is to deal with past crimes so as to ensure that the cycle of impunity can be broken. Another obligation is to take measures to restore the rights of the victims and to restore the confidence of the victims (Papuan society) in the government. In the absence of legal action against the perpetrators and the failure to restore the rights of the victims, the very least that should be done is to reveal the truth as an initial strategy for taking the path of reconciliation.
There are three reasons why reconciliation is important. The first is that demands for independence from Indonesia are seen as a threat to the territorial integrity of the Republic of Indonesia., placing the Indonesian government in the position of having to confront the people of Papua (separatists) as the ‘enemy’. Such a situation opens the way to further political violence. The second reason is the polarisation in Papuan society between those who are loyal to Jakarta and those who persistently call for independence. Between these two positions there are grey areas. The result is that the social and political cohesion of society is damaged and a situation of mutual mistrust develops. If this lack of cohesion is not dealt with, rivalries within Papua itself can lead to splits and the possibility of violent conflict. Society’s energies for development will be exhausted in order to deal with conflict and violence.

The third reason is that as a result of the prolonged conflict, there is trauma along with bitter memories (memoria passionis), in particular, deep feelings of revenge. Such social-psychological conditions cannot lead to positive relations between the state and society. Trauma and revenge, even when they are below the surface, can erupt at any time, whenever the right momentum and factors occur. The assault against the police station in Abepura by ‘unidentified persons’ in December 2000 and violence against the state apparatus in 2006 are examples of what results from trauma and feelings of revenge, relating to the political unrest in 1977 among the younger generation of Papuans who come from the mountains.

Reconciliation can be implemented in two ways. The first is by prosecutions, presenting evidence before a court of law (Human Rights Court). This presumes that all past incidents of violence can be identified as crimes for which there is enough material proof to justify being taken to court. This is limited in scope because just a few persons are involved and everything depends on the lawyer, the prosecutor and the judge. This method is only about individuals because it would only involve the perpetrator, witnesses and the victim. This would provide little opportunity for examining the context, while the framework of the violent incident, the motives and context is very limited. Another risk is that the case could not succeed in securing punishment for the perpetrator for a number of reasons, such as happened with the 2000 Abepura case.

A prosecution is also very time-consuming. In the context of Papua, the process could go on for decades because of the large number of violent incidents that have occurred. The greatest impediment is that the acts of violence occurred many years ago and much of the material evidence is likely to have been lost or damaged, while many of the witnesses may already be dead. There is reason to fear that stipulations regarding evidence in court would not be met. As a result, the perpetrators could be acquitted, not because he/she did not commit the crime but because of the lack of witnesses and the necessary evidence to prove guilt in a court of law.

By going ahead with a prosecution, those who were in power in the past or those forces which were dominant in the past are the accused. This could certainly come up against a mighty ‘brick wall’ because the fight-back from these former dominant elements is likely to be much fiercer because they fear that these changes? (sic) will victimise them (the meaning here is not clear to me CB). If such resistance is very strong, changes for the better could stagnate or lead to a dead end because the forces which were dominant in former days still occupy a strategic position. Besides all this, it would point to failure for the new actors (political reformers) to give expression to their political interests and forces in pressing for an agenda of justice for the victims.

The second way is by revealing the truth. This pays greater attention to the experiences and testimony of the victim. It is the voice of the victim that will provide the basis for exposing the pattern, motive and the extent of the crime. In addition, the truth that is revealed is then accepted and recognised as being mistakes committed by all those involved, especially the political powers and the actors who were dominant in the past and who still retain some influence in the present. The first step is for agreement to be reached between all groups or individuals to pursue the path of democracy and provide space for participation by a broader section of the community. Giving a signal that the path of reconciliation is going to reveal the truth would mean preventing stigmatisation of the victim.

Martha Minov is convinced that revealing the truth through the experiences of the victim will restore the dignity of the victim. For this to happen, the truth must be revealed and recognised by all sides. The proposals she makes include forming commissions to investigate the facts, providing access to secret archives from the past, removing civilian and military officials who were involved in past state violence, publishing the names of the perpetrators and the victims, making provision for reparations (restitution), apologising to, and providing therapy for, the victims, putting up monuments as memorials to the victims, and issuing joint statements of determination that such acts of violence will never happen again. In the end, reconciliation strengthens participatory democracy and reinforces basic human rights.

Among the pre-conditions proposed by Minov, truth is in essence the recognition of all the bitterness experienced by the victim by means of a transparent and well-tested mechanism. According to the OTSUS Law, a Truth Commission is the mechanism that should be established by law to disclose the truth. The revelation of the truth will in turn be the basis for establishing the infrastructure and a new approach in political and governmental affairs, as well as in social development. Successfully revealing the truth can also be the basis for drawing up an agenda for a much deeper kind of dialogue to resolve the Papuan problem and provide the basis for improving the administration and development in Papua.

III. CONCLUDING REMARKS

Underlying the four key issues in the Papuan conflict set forth above is the question of the relationship between Indonesian nationalist ideology and the way Indonesia is perceived in Papua. As things stand at present, Indonesia is identified with the arrival of migrants from outside Papua and the marginalisation of the native population of Papua. Both in the interior and in urban areas, Indonesia is not associated with the provision of public services such as decent health facilities and education but much more in the form of military posts, military operations and acts of violence against the civilian Papuan population. Indonesia is also associated with the seizure of customary land and the exploitation of Papua’s natural resources without any compensation in the form of welfare and prosperity for the local population. Subjectively speaking, it is perceived as the opposition to the Papuan identity, in other words, everything that oppresses and is harmful to the interests and identity of the Papuan people.

The face of Indonesian nationalism in Papua is dominated by militaristic interpretations and practices. Nationalism is reified and trivialised in the form of showing respect for symbols such as the red-and-white flag, the national anthem and other symbols. Because of this powerful symbolic nationalistic orientation, Papua’s symbolic opposition, flying the Morning Star flag, singing the Papuan anthem, Hai Tanahku Papua and other symbols are repressed on a grand scale, the result being that these symbols of resistance becoming even more ‘sacred’ to those to whom they belong. Symbolic resistance should be understood as being something very significant, the representation of a social-political and economic and cultural reality. These symbols cannot be killed by physically repressing those who own them. They should be handled wisely by attaching importance to improving the existing social reality that weakens or de-sanctifies these symbols.

The symbols and significance of both Indonesian and Papuan identities which have ideological force at present are the result of a social construct which can become permanent and be reinforced is nothing changes in the social reality. But they can also be temporary and change if things happen differently. The two symbolic groups of the ‘duo’ of nationalisms which confront each other in opposition can change into being mutually complementary if the basis and roots of the social and political realities also change. The faces of Indonesian and Papuan identities can also change if the four agendas identified above are sincerely implemented and become the representation of a new Indonesian identity that becomes dominant in Papua. Indonesian identity can exist as something that concretely brings prosperity, guarantees justice and a sense of peace and optimism, as well as providing within it a comfortable space for the Papuan identity.