The UN Secretary-General’s Representative, Ambassador Fernando Ortiz-Sanz ,acknowledged early on that he “. . .was not given any political or administrative authority, not even a supervisory function”. Rather, his role was to “advise, assist and participate in arrangements which are the responsibility of Indonesia for the act of free choice, having in mind the interests and welfare of the people of the territory”. (Article XVII and the preamble. UN doc. A17723, 1969, p. 4.) “Advice” was meant “to express views, offer counsel, make recommendations and suggest ap¬propriate measures to the Government, having in mind the existing prin¬ciples of the Agreement”. (Article XVII and the preamble. UN doc. A17723, 1969, p. 4.). This was to be done through the modality of consultations with the representative councils on procedures and appro¬priate methods to ascertain the will of the people; the formulation of ques¬tions in such a way as to permit the inhabitants to decide whether they wish to remain or sever their ties with Indonesia; and the preparation of a list of persons eligible to participate in the act of free choice.
Although these were not binding, the Government of Indonesia had accepted these suggestions in an earnest effort to facilitate the task entrusted to the Secretary-General. “Assistance” was to be extended as and when needed. The meaning of the term “participation” was not clearly defined in the Agreement but the UN Representative interpreted it to mean UN “ pres¬ence in the territory” in an effort “to improve the democratic conditions of the exercise” of the act of free choice. Thus, the UN staff traveled all over the territory and communicated with the people concerning the political situation and state of public opinion. They were also present at the consul¬tations with the representative councils, during the election of members of the consultative assemblies and when the act of free choice took place.
On its part, the obligations of Indonesia were to make arrange¬ments for these purposes in order to give the people of the territory “the opportunity to exercise freedom of choice” (Article XVII). In this context, Indonesia was expected to take into account the advice of the UN Repre¬sentative, the position taken by the representative councils as well as the rights and freedoms guaranteed to the people of Papua especially the right of free speech, freedom of movement and of assembly and the freely ex¬pressed will of the population.
The efforts to implement the Agreement were jeopardized by Indonesia’s temporary withdrawal from the UN and by the consequent absence of UN staff from IrianJaya. But in a statement issued on 16 August 1968, the Government of Indonesia reaffirmed its belief that “the conduct of free choice will constitute a final solution” of the dispute over West Papua.. This means that we show our good intention to implement an international agreement which we have accepted”. It called upon the UN Representative to “cooperate and help the Government of Indonesia to decide on the most proper technique, which is democratic and in line with the special conditions and situation in West Papua for the implementation of the final phase of the New York Agreement”. Subsequently, the UN Representative confirmed the “positive attitude on the part of the Government of Indonesia.. .in the act of free choice... the Indonesian authorities did their best, in spite of the physical difficulties prevailing in West Papua (West Papua) to facilitate the performance of my mission...”.
The UN Representative has thus tacitly acknowledged the willingness of the Central Government and local authorities to give serious consideration to his suggestions, took every opportunity to spread information about the significance of the act of free choice, and in fact, was present in the territory observing its exercise in various Regencies. The Representative went even so far to conclude, “it can be stated that, with the limitations imposed by the geographical characteristics of the territory and the general political situation in the area, an act of free choice has taken place in West Papua (IrianJaya) in accordance with Indonesian practice, in which the representatives of the people have expressed their wish to remain with Indonesia”.
However, there exists a critical difference between the use of the words “in accordance with Indonesian practice” and the call in the Agreement for an act of free choice “in accordance with international practice”. This was reflected in the reservations expressed in the concluding remarks of the Representative’s Report concerning the implementation of some provisions of the Agreement relating to “the rights, including the rights of free speech, freedom of movement and of assembly, of the inhabitants of the area”. This was an attempt to diffuse Indonesia’s responsibility inherent in the Agreement, deflect attention from the limited role of the UN envisioned therein and belittle the special circumstances prevailing in the territory, deriving mainly from its ruggedness, the difficulties in communication and generally the low level of development of the population. Such a stance ignored the fact that the act of free choice was a delicate political issue in Indonesia, and hence, should be dealt with care and caution. It was also a source of controversy among the politically conscious West Papuans which called for discretion and circumspection. These factors taken together, had internal security implications which could not have been marginalized without jeopardizing the nation’s stability Still, legally organized political groups were allowed to function. Because it was not easy to make people comprehend the complicated nature of the Agreement and the real issues at stake. Freedom of speech to the extent of immunity from prosecution was granted to deputies in all representative councils. Thus, the exercise of basic rights and freedoms which goes along with responsibilities were not denied.
Notwithstanding these formidable obstacles, the Government of Indonesia responded favorably to the UN Representative’s suggestions to provide the inhabitants with information concerning the basic issues involved so that they would be able to decide with an open mind and objectivity whether to maintain or sever ties with Indonesia. This was done through an information paper explaining the New York Agreement and additional information concerning what the Government was doing regarding the act of free choice through newspapers, news sheets and radio broadcasts. Thus, the Government has fulfilled its duty in adequately informing the people of West Papua and explaining at some length the methods to be followed for the act of free choice.
Indonesia was also conscious of its responsibility to ensure - within the framework of law and order, the social and political complexities of the country and democracy as practiced in Indonesia - the basic rights and freedoms which alone will enable the people of the territory to translate their convictions into realities. These were guaranteed by the Indonesian Constitution. It was equally important to satisfy the international community that a fair and truly democratic judgment has been rendered by the people of West Papua. However, the situation was immeasurably complicated by the activities of the so-called “Free Papua Movement” or “Free Papua Organization” which was aided and abetted from abroad and engaged in terrorist methods to achieve its nefarious political aims. They never secured any support from the average West Papuan who preferred to remain loyal to Indonesia. Hence, from the beginning, their intention was to oppose, sabotage and wreck the implementation of the act of free choice.
Continue Part 2
No comments:
Post a Comment