Gestión de Configuración y Control de Cambio

Beanal…asserted that

West Papua had been

independent since 1961

control. During that period, the Dutch and Papuan flags were flown together as the flags of two independent nations, and the two national anthems were sung, alternating, as the flags were raised. According to this document, the independent Papuan state had even issued its own curren-cy, the New Guinea guilder (Alua 2002b: 28–29). Other statements stopped short of asserting that Papua was already independent, while still asserting that independence was being established. For example, when reporting to President Abdurrahman Wahid on the 2000 Papuan Congress’s discussion about Papuan independence, Willy Mandowen, the moderator of the newly formed Presidium, asserted that in the early 1960s there had been an “embryo” state of Papua (Alua 2002c: 123). Ironically, according to the Presidium’s interpretation, Indonesian President Sukarno had himself affirmed the existence of the Papuan state. On December 19, 1961, less than a month after the Papuans had raised the Morning Star flag of independence, Sukarno delivered the Trikora speech, in which he ordered the destruction of the Dutch-created puppet state of Papua. This speech initiated a series of military actions that would annex Papua’s rights of independence and sovereignty (Alua 2002c: 68, 79). In both the FORERI and the Presidium interpretations, the annexation was complet-ed on May 1, 1963 (the day that Indonesia took over the administration from the UN). It was arguments such as these that underlay Tom Beanal’s February 1999 demand that Indonesia recognize and return Papua’s inde-pendence.¹⁴

The argument that Papua was already independent drew on deep racial, cultural, geographic, and historical roots. The Presidium nationalists of 2000 and after asserted that Papuans were racially different from the peoples of Maluku, the Lesser Sunda Islands, Sulawesi, and Java. Papuans had black skin and curly hair just like the peoples of Papua New Guinea (PNG), the Solomon Islands, Vanuatu, and Fiji. Echoing Alfred Russel Wallace, they also argued that the flora and fauna of Papua were different from Indonesia’s (see Wallace 1962: 446–58). Viktor Kaisiepo, a member of the Presidium and the son of one of the Papuan activists of the early 1960s, pushed the argument further by asserting that even West Papua’s natural environment was seen by Papuans as being inherently hostile to Indonesian rule.¹⁵Every animal, plant, and stone, he said, is a member of the OPM (Organisasi Papua Merdeka; the Free Papua Organisation).¹⁶ Geographically, Papua was part of the Pacific, rather than part of the Indonesian archipelago (Alua 2002a: 100).

Given this rhetoric, it might have been expected that Papuans would take out their resentment on the Indonesian settlers who now live among them. Some have indeed done so. However, such instances of violence have been rare, in part because, despite their strong assertions about Papuans’ ethnic differences from Indonesians, the Presidium nationalists have been reluctant to explicitly use “race” as a means of mobilizing sup-port among Papuans. They have also sought to avoid violence against Indonesian settlers. For example, at the 2000 Papuan Congress the Presidium leaders endeavored to reassure Indonesian settlers in Papua that it was not their intention to expel them or consider them as enemies.¹⁷ Later, after an episode of violence in Wamena in October 2000 in which a number of Indonesian settlers were killed, Theys Eluay, one of the Presidium’s leaders, again reassured the settlers that the proponents of independence would not use violence, terror, or intimidation against them. In his statement, he also explicitly recognized the contributions that the Indonesian settlers had made to the development of Papua.¹⁸

The Presidium also asserted that Papuans did not share adat istiadat (customary law) with Indonesians, nor had they shared the Indonesians’

pre-colonial experience of kingdoms and Islamic sultanates. The reason these Indonesian political systems were different from those in Papua was because Papuans were Melanesian while the Indonesians were racially Malay. After the establishment of colonialism, the Papuans’ historical experience had continued to be different, because they had not been involved in Indonesian political developments. In particular, they had not been involved in Indonesia’s struggle for independence, which from the establishment of the first nationalist organization in 1908 to the procla-mation of independence in 1945 had been a struggle of the Indonesian people themselves. In addition to asserting these differences from Indonesians, the Presidium’s argument questioned the process by which Papua had been transferred to Indonesian authority. The argument asserts that Papuans had not participated in the decisions and agreements from 1945 to 1962 that had marked Indonesia’s efforts to acquire the territory.

They had therefore not been able to articulate their national aspirations, because all the decisions were made by others, particularly Indonesia, the Netherlands, the United States, and the United Nations. In this period, Papua and its people had been objects of the political struggle, not partic-ipants in it, and as a consequence they became its victims.¹⁹

Alternative Views

The notion that Papua was already independent was not accepted even by many of the Presidium’s supporters. For example, during the preparations for the Papuan Congress of 2000, the Presidium was under a great deal of pressure from “hardliners”—former political prisoners and those who had been associated with the OPM uprisings—to proclaim independence dur-ing the Congress. Implicitly rejectdur-ing the argument that independence had already been declared nearly 40 years earlier, the “hardliners” saw the Congress as a “golden opportunity” to finally settle Papua’s political status means of a new proclamation (Alua 2002c: 7–8). The same sense of debate about the events of 1961 was evident during the November 2000 prepa-rations to commemorate the anniversary of the 1961 flag raising. At a meeting of the Presidium’s organizing committee, much of the discussion debated the meaning of the event. The principal critic of the Presidium’s position that the flag raising signified independence was Filip Karma, a senior government official and the leader of the July 1998 demonstration in Biak. Echoing the call made by the “hardliners” a few months earlier, Karma advocated that the Presidium should proclaim independence dur-ing the commemoration.

Even some who claimed 1961 as the start of sovereignty acknowl-edged that independence had not actually been declared at that time. One of them was Fritz Kirihio, who like Herman Wayoi was a member of the 1960s generation of nationalists and a former member of PARNA. In a 2003 interview, Kirihio recalled a meeting with Theys Eluay and other FORERI / Presidium leaders in Jayapura prior to the first of the Presidium’s mass meetings, the Musyawarah Besar Papua 2000 (MUBES, Papuan Mass Consultation), which was to be held in February 2000. At that time, Theys Eluay, one of the Presidium’s leaders, had declared that there must be a proclamation of independence at the mass meeting. Kirihio said that this was not necessary, as there had already been a declaration on December 1, 1961, and all the Papuans had to do was ask for their sover-eignty to be returned. If Papua’s demand was formulated in this way, then no policeman or soldier would arrest Theys Eluay.

Like many others who had been involved at the time, Kirihio acknowledged that the 1961 flag raising had not really been a proclama-tion of independence, but was merely an important step in the process of democratization and decolonization that would pave the way to inde-pendence.²⁰Yet he advocated that Papuans date their independence from

that event anyway. There were two factors underlying his thinking. Firstly, there were tactical considerations of how to deal with the “trigger happy”

security forces. Theys Eluay could be the first in line for assassination, and it was silly for him to be sacrificed unnecessarily. Secondly, the Morning Star flag that had been raised in 1961 had recognition value in Papuan society. After having been flown on public buildings from late 1961 until the advent of the UNTEA administration in 1962, the flag’s public display had been an absolute taboo from 1963 until 1998. On the second anniver-sary of its raising the Indonesian government had even organized a public burning at the old New Guinea Council building.²¹However, the flag had not been forgotten by the Papuan people. In November and December 1999, when Theys Eluay drove around Jayapura with the flag, many other flags, seemingly hidden since 1962, began appearing from peoples’ hous-es.²²The tears of joy shed in the streets of Jayapura at the December 1999 anniversary of the first flag raising, a scene captured in the Presidium’s DVD Mengapa Papua ingin Merdeka (Why Papua Wants Independence), would seem to confirm Fritz Kirihio’s assessment of Papuans’ identifica-tion with the flag (see Raweyai and Mandowen 2002).

In adopting 1961 as the starting point of Papuan independence, the nationalist elite’s considerations paralleled those of that earlier period.

None of the political leaders of 1961 had considered the flag raising a proclamation of independence, but they were not unhappy if fellow Papuans thought that it was.²³That perception of the flag’s meaning had persisted to the reformasi period. Now, as a new generation of nationalists saw this popular understanding being expressed in identification with and commitment to the flag, the Papuan elite decided that the popular under-standing of December 1, 1961, as an independence proclamation was suf-ficient motive for asserting that it had been the day that the Papuan nation was founded.

Factors Influencing Choice

December 1, 1961, is not the only date that could have been chosen as the beginning of Papuan independence. Another potential starting point, supported by some of the reformasi nation-alists, was the OPM’s independence proclama-tion of July 1, 1971. Still others favored Tom Wanggai’s proclamaproclama-tion of December 14, 1988. However, the 1961 emblems were considered to have

December 1, 1961, is