From those statements, it is apparent that the United Nations from the outset had a clear understanding that West Papua was a bilateral matter concerning an unresolved issue of decolonization in the territory of the Indonesian Republic. More precisely, the United Nations was aware that the whole process was an effort on behalf of Indonesia to facilitate the exer¬cise of its full control and sovereignty over the last part of what was once the Netherlands East-Indies.
As a consequence of the internationally accepted principle that colonial boundaries constitute the borders of newly independent states, it follows that all the territories, which once were a part of the Netherlands East-Indies, have since been transferred to Indonesia. This fundamental tenet has long been recognized under the principle of “usi possidentis”. Reflecting this new reality, United Nations documents of 1963 show that the issue of West Papua was removed from the agenda of Trust and Non-Self-Governing territories. The question of West Papua has always been a case of an incomplete decolonization process of Indonesia the facts of which have been already been set out in other sections of this publication.
It is a matter of record that this process of transition to independence has not been smooth when states are intent on holding on to their colonies and putting a strong resistance to having these territories seized from them. West Papua offers a striking example. In this case, Indonesia struggled to protect its territorial integrity for over half a decade and that obviously brought home to the international community the importance of ensuring an orderly and peaceful decolonization process.
The adoption by the United Nations General Assembly in 1960 of the historic Declaration on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and People reflected the legitimate aspirations of the vast majority of mankind for freedom and independence. It is significant to note in this context, that the definition of self-determination was qualified in that
Declaration:
“any attempt aimed at the partial or total disruption of the national unity and the territorial integrity of a country is incompatible with the purposes and principles which are the United Nations”.
It is apparent that the aforementioned formulation is aimed towards preventing the fragmentation of a nation and thereby a threat to its national cohesion. The rationale for this position for both newly independent states and the former colonial powers was based on pragmatism.
“The reasoning behind this principle (the sanctity of borders) was quite clear; without it, the newly decolonized states would be condemned to fight each other over the unrealistic borders established by the haphazard nature of the conquests by the colonizers. (Rotund Rich in a paper on Problems of Self-Determination in Central and Eastern Europe delivered at dcc New Dimensions of the Right to Self-Determination : its implications for the World and Australia in the l99O's”, Seminar organized by the Human Rights Council of Australia.)
Finally, the principle of sanctity of borders was reaffirmed in the 1970 Declaration on Principles of International law concerning Friendly Relations and Cooperation among States. This Declaration served to preserve the former boundaries and underpinned the claims of states that internal conflicts fall within the ambit of domestic jurisdiction and are not subject to external scrutiny.
The End
No comments:
Post a Comment