*Kolom: IBRAHIM ISA *
---------------------------------------------------
Selasa, 11 April 2006
*PENDIRIAN NASION INDONESIA Tentang 'MASALAH PAPUA' *
========================================================================================
Tidak kebetulan bahwa Presiden R.I. sendiri tampil di media untuk
menyatakan pendirian pemerintah Republik Indonesia mengenai "masalah
Papua". Perkembangan ini berkaitan dengan memuncaknya akhir-akhir ini
"sengketa" antara Indonesia dengan Australia. Penyebabnya yang
terpenting a.l. ialah: diberikannya "visa sementara" kepada 42 warga
Indonesia asal Papua yang minta asilum kepada pemerintah Australia.
Kebijaksanaan pemerintah Australia tsb secara implisit dan eksplisit
membenarkan klaim yang diajukan oleh 42 warga Indonesia asal Papua tsb
sekitar "kasus Papua". Suatu perkembangan yang oleh sementara kalangan
di Australia termasuk di mancanegara dimanfaatkan betul untuk
membenarkan politik mereka yang mengarah ke "balkanisasi" Indonesia.
Suatu politik yang sudah lama dan terus mereka praktekkan. Dengan a.l.
memberikan dukungan kepada gerakan-gerakan separatis di Indonesia,
sperti di Aceh, Maluku dan Papua.
Pemberian "visa sementara" oleh pemerintah Australia kepada 42 warga
Indonesia asal Papua, telah memberikan "angin baru", memperkuat dukungan
lagi pada tuntutan untuk suatu "Papua Merdeka" yang lepas dari Republik
Indonesia.
Dalam pernyataannya, Presiden Indonesia Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono
baru-baru ini ---yang boleh juga dibilang sebagai suatu peringatan
dialamatkan pada fihak asing --- , agar JANGAN CAMPUR TANGAN DI PAPUA!
Ini adalah pendirian pemerintah Republik Indonesia. Sekaligus
memanifestasikan pendirian bangsa Indonesia sebagai suatu nasion yang
berdaulat, yang tetap bertekad untuk mempertahankan kesatuan dan
persatuan Negara Republik Indonesia, nasion
Indonesia, dari Sabang sampai Merauke
Maka di bawah ini dikutip berita sekitar pernyataan SBY, dalam bahasa
Inggris.
Di media internet cukup banyak bisa ditemukan tulisan mengenai "kasus"
PAPUA..
Tidak sedikit yang memberikan alasan dan argumentasi membenarkan
berdirinya "Papua merdeka" lepas dari Republk Indonesia. Alasan yang
dikemukakan cukup banyak. Maka dirasakan perlu ada jawaban atau tulisan
yang memadai terhadap pelbagai alasan dan argumentasi tsb.
Masih jelas dalam ingatan kita, bahwa tidak kurang dari seorang
sejarawan Belanda, dr. P.J. Drooglever, yang bekerja atas tugas yang
diberikan oleh Kementerian Luarnegeri Belanda kepada Instituut voor
Nederlandse Geschiedenis (INS). Hasil studinya itu diterbitkan oleh
Lembaga Sejarah Belanda , INS (15 November 2005). Dalam buku yang
dijuluki sebagai buku tentang hak-menentukan nasib sendiri Papua, dr
Drooglever menyimpulkan bahwa terdapat ketidak- beresan dalam referendum
kembalinya Irian Barat ke Republik Indonesia. Bukankah ini sama saja
dengan menyatakan bahwa masuknya kembali Nieuw Guinea <yang ketika itu
masih di bawah pemerintahan kolonial Belanda> , Irian Barat seperti yang
sejak Proklamasi Kemerdekaan Indonesia, 17 Agustus 1945, kita namakan
wilayah Republik Indonesia itu, kedalam Republik Indoneisa, --- sebagai
suatu tindakan yang ''tidak sah''. Kasarnya suatu manipulasi dari
jurusan Republk Indonesia, suatu pembohongan atau suatu rekayasa.
Meskipun bukan suatu karya ilmiah yang merupakan hasil studi yang
mendalam tentang "kasus Papua", namun tulisan M. Wahid Supriyadi, Konsul
Jendral Indonesia di Australia mengenai Papua, dimuat di s.k. The Age,
cukup jelas dan beralasan. Tulisan M. Wahid, mengemukakan alasan dan
argumentasi mengapa dinyatakan bahwa Irian Barat, Papua, adalah bagian
yang tak terpisahkan dari wilayah Republik Indonesia. Itulah sebabnya
tulisan M.W. Suriyadi itu baik untuk dibaca dan dipelajari. Di bawah ini
dikutip tulisan Wahid , menurut teks aslinya dalam bahasa Inggris.
Sehubungan dengan kesewenang-wenangan aparat <polisi dan tentara> di
Papua serta pelanggaran HAM yang berlangsung di Papua di waktu lalu dan
masih berlaku, hal ini tidak berdiri sendiri. Pelanggaran HAM terbesar
oleh fihak penguasa, oleh aparat terhadap warganegara sendiri, sudah
sejak berdirinya Orba <pembantaian masal di bawah kekuasaan fihak
militer Jendral Suharto dalam tahun-tahun 1965-66-67 dst> sampai
jatuhnya Presiden Suharto dan tegaknya perintahan Indonesia sebagi hasil
pemilu, ----- masih belum ditangani dan diurus dengan baik oleh fihak
eksekutif, legeslatif dan judikatif. Pengurusan pelangaran HAM adalah
kewajiban pemerintah dan lembaga judisial Indonesia. Selama hal ini
belum dilakukan oleh pemerintah dan lembaga judisial Indonesia, maka
situasi "impunity" di Indonesia, masih berlangsung terus. Maka belum
bisa dikatakan bahwa Republik Indonesia, benar-benar adalah suatu
rechtsstaat, suatu negara hukum.
Namun hal itu ---- yaitu pelanggaran HAM yang masih belum ditangani dan
diurus secara baik dan tuntas, adalah terlepas dari kasus status Papua
sebagai bagian dari wilayah Republik Indonesia. Sebagimana halnya dengan
Aceh dan Maluku, pelanggaran HAM yang masih belum diurus dimanapun itu
terjadi di wilayah Indonesia, samasekali tidak dibenarkan tindakan dan
kegiatan sementara kalangan mendjadikannya sebagai dalih untuk
melancarkan aksi separatis untuk menggerowoti kedaulatan dan keutuhan
Republik Indonesia, kapanpun dan dimanapun di seluruh wilayah Republik
Indonesia.
Silakan membaca sendiri. kedua bahan yang dibicarakan, yaitu pernyataan
Presiden SBY dan tulisan M. Wahid Supriya, Konsul Jendral Indonesia.
Amsterdam 11 April 2006.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
<Kutipan berita dan tulisan>
*Don't interfere in Papua: Indonesia*
Jakarta
05apr06
INDONESIAN President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has warned foreigners
against interfering over the troubled easternmost province of Papua.
"The problem in Papua is an internal problem of our country. We do not
want outsiders, from wherever they come, to interfere in our internal
affairs," Mr Yudhoyono was quoted as saying by the state Antara news
agency.
"Once again, I want to say that we want to settle the problem in Papua
in a peaceful, just and dignified way," Mr Yudhoyono said during a
one-day visit to Tanah Miring in Papua.
Separatist sentiment has long simmered in the remote province. In a
press conference in the capital on Monday, Yudhoyono also said that
Indonesia would not tolerate any elements, including in Australia,
providing backing to separatists in Papua.
Canberra caused a furore in Indonesia by granting 42 Papuan
asylum-seekers temporary visas last month. Jakarta recalled its
ambassador and called for a review of all co-operation with its southern
neighbour.
The Papuans have accused Indonesia of "genocide" in troubled Papua.
Australian officials were today attempting to verify a report that more
Papuans had landed by boat in the country's remote north.
Papuans have long accused Indonesia's military of violating human rights
there and complained about the bulk of earnings from its rich natural
resources flowing to Jakarta rather than themselves. Indonesia won
sovereignty over Papua, a former Dutch colony, in 1969 after the UN
allowed an integration referendum by about 1000 hand-picked leaders
which was widely regarded as a sham.
http://www.theage.com.au/articles/2006/04/09/1144521206369.html
== WEST PAPUAN ARE HAPPY TO BE INDONESIANS ==
<By M. Wahid Supriyadi>
April 10, 2006
THE granting of temporary protection visas to 42 West Papuans has
given new ammunition to anti-Indonesian activists. Old issues such
as genocide, human rights abuse and the legitimacy of the Act of
Free Choice (whereby West Papua became a part of Indonesia) have
once again reared their heads thanks to the arrival of 43 Papuan
asylum seekers in Australia. Let me set the record straight.
In 1935, the population of West Papua was about 700,000. By 2000,
however, the population was 2,220,034. Between 1980 and 1990 the
average population growth was 3.34 per cent, well above the national
level of 1.74 per cent. From 1990 to 2000, population growth of 3.22
per cent was recorded in West Papua, still well above the national
level of 1.49 per cent for the period. It is true that migrants
account for a significant slice of this increase in population, but
that is the national trend throughout Indonesia.
How can anyone accept claims that genocide has been occurring when
the facts so obviously indicate otherwise? Let alone when we
remember that we are living in the 21st century, in an age of global
communications, when not a single untoward death in West Papua could
possibly go unnoticed by the world's media.
The recent general election in West Papua province was relatively
peaceful. About 1.1 million people, or more than 90 per cent of
those eligible to vote, took part in the election that saw Barnabas
Saebu become Governor-elect with roughly 30 per cent of the vote.
This result indicates that, despite allegations to the contrary, the
vast majority of West Papuans independently choose to exercise their
right to vote without any government or military pressure.
Since the downfall of Soeharto in 1998, Indonesia has been steadily
transforming itself into the world's third-biggest democracy. In
2004 general elections were held in a peaceful and democratic
fashion and, for the first time, the nation directly elected its
president. Since its democratic transformation, Indonesia has
established its own Commission for Human Rights, empowered to ensure
that human rights are upheld throughout Indonesia. Any claims of
human rights abuses by the 43 Papuans recently landed in Australia
could be addressed through this independent body.*
Allegations that the "Act of Free Choice", by which West Papua
became part of the Indonesian nation, was somehow illegitimate are
also without merit. The act was a historic political exercise,
involving a series of consultations with tribal councils over a
period of several months during 1969, whereby 1025 Papuan tribal
chiefs voted for their territory to be reintegrated into Indonesia.
This approach was selected as being the most appropriate given the
logistical difficulties created by the region's geography, and local
political circumstances that dictated that tribal chiefs spoke for
and expressed the will of their native communities. The exercise
drew extra credibility from the fact that it was carried out in
accordance with the New York Agreement struck between Indonesia and
the Netherlands. The final seal of legitimacy, however, came from
the United Nations' decision, based on a report by the UN
Secretary-General, to recognise West Papua as a part of Indonesian
territory.
Accusations that the absence of a "one man, one vote" referendum on
decolonisation made this process of determination invalid are
entirely spurious.
Finally, the inclusion of West Papua into Indonesia also accords
with the principle of international law "uti possidetis juris" that
holds that the boundaries of post-colonial states conform with their
pre-colonial borders.
As to the argument that West Papua's Melanesian population makes it
intrinsically dissimilar to the rest of Indonesia, it is important
to recognise that Indonesia is home to about 12 million Melanesians,
only about 1.4 million of whom live in Papua. Indonesia in fact
boasts the largest Melanesian population of any country in the
world. Moreover, almost all of the world's nations are comprised of
different ethnic groups. Australia is home to people of more than
140 different ethnicities, yet ethnic difference per se does not
generally imply a separate and distinct political identity either
here or in Indonesia.
In response to aspersions that West Papua is the target of a
deliberate policy of Javanisation or Islamisation, I feel it is
imperative to point out that the majority of Papuans still hold to
their traditional beliefs, while Christianity and Islam are both
embraced by significant numbers and have been since before the
republic was established. Religious life in Indonesia has long been
characterised by tolerance, despite the fact that 87 per cent of the
population are Muslim. It is true that West Papua has absorbed
significant numbers of transmigrants, as have other parts of
Indonesia such as Sumatra, Kalimantan and Sulawesi. However not all
these transmigrants have been Javanese, with many originating from
Bali and Sulawesi. And there is nothing sinister about this policy;
Java is a tiny island about a quarter of the size of West Papua, yet
it is home to 140 million people, hence the pressure to move can be
considerable. To look at the question from a different perspective;
significant numbers of those living on Java are not Javanese, yet
there's been no talk of ethnic groups from other islands "invading"
Java.
Given all this information, claims that the people of West Papua are
subject to systematic oppression by the Indonesian Government are
clearly fundamentally without merit, reflecting in certain instances
the political designs of a small, self-serving minority.
THE granting of temporary protection visas to 42 West Papuans has
given new ammunition to anti-Indonesian activists. Old issues such
as genocide, human rights abuse and the legitimacy of the Act of
Free Choice (whereby West Papua became a part of Indonesia) have
once again reared their heads thanks to the arrival of 43 Papuan
asylum seekers in Australia. Let me set the record straight.
In 1935, the population of West Papua was about 700,000. By 2000,
however, the population was 2,220,034. Between 1980 and 1990 the
average population growth was 3.34 per cent, well above the national
level of 1.74 per cent. From 1990 to 2000, population growth of 3.22
per cent was recorded in West Papua, still well above the national
level of 1.49 per cent for the period. It is true that migrants
account for a significant slice of this increase in population, but
that is the national trend throughout Indonesia.
How can anyone accept claims that genocide has been occurring when
the facts so obviously indicate otherwise? Let alone when we
remember that we are living in the 21st century, in an age of global
communications, when not a single untoward death in West Papua could
possibly go unnoticed by the world's media.
The recent general election in West Papua province was relatively
peaceful. About 1.1 million people, or more than 90 per cent of
those eligible to vote, took part in the election that saw Barnabas
Saebu become Governor-elect with roughly 30 per cent of the vote.
This result indicates that, despite allegations to the contrary, the
vast majority of West Papuans independently choose to exercise their
right to vote without any government or military pressure.
Since the downfall of Soeharto in 1998, Indonesia has been steadily
transforming itself into the world's third-biggest democracy. In
2004 general elections were held in a peaceful and democratic
fashion and, for the first time, the nation directly elected its
president. Since its democratic transformation, Indonesia has
established its own Commission for Human Rights, empowered to ensure
that human rights are upheld throughout Indonesia. Any claims of
human rights abuses by the 43 Papuans recently landed in Australia
could be addressed through this independent body.
Allegations that the "Act of Free Choice", by which West Papua
became part of the Indonesian nation, was somehow illegitimate are
also without merit. The act was a historic political exercise,
involving a series of consultations with tribal councils over a
period of several months during 1969, whereby 1025 Papuan tribal
chiefs voted for their territory to be reintegrated into Indonesia.
This approach was selected as being the most appropriate given the
logistical difficulties created by the region's geography, and local
political circumstances that dictated that tribal chiefs spoke for
and expressed the will of their native communities. The exercise
drew extra credibility from the fact that it was carried out in
accordance with the New York Agreement struck between Indonesia and
the Netherlands. The final seal of legitimacy, however, came from
the United Nations' decision, based on a report by the UN
Secretary-General, to recognise West Papua as a part of Indonesian
territory.
Accusations that the absence of a "one man, one vote" referendum on
decolonisation made this process of determination invalid are
entirely spurious.
Finally, the inclusion of West Papua into Indonesia also accords
with the principle of international law "uti possidetis juris" that
holds that the boundaries of post-colonial states conform with their
pre-colonial borders.
As to the argument that West Papua's Melanesian population makes it
intrinsically dissimilar to the rest of Indonesia, it is important
to recognise that Indonesia is home to about 12 million Melanesians,
only about 1.4 million of whom live in Papua. Indonesia in fact
boasts the largest Melanesian population of any country in the
world. Moreover, almost all of the world's nations are comprised of
different ethnic groups. Australia is home to people of more than
140 different ethnicities, yet ethnic difference per se does not
generally imply a separate and distinct political identity either
here or in Indonesia.
In response to aspersions that West Papua is the target of a
deliberate policy of Javanisation or Islamisation, I feel it is
imperative to point out that the majority of Papuans still hold to
their traditional beliefs, while Christianity and Islam are both
embraced by significant numbers and have been since before the
republic was established. Religious life in Indonesia has long been
characterised by tolerance, despite the fact that 87 per cent of the
population are Muslim. It is true that West Papua has absorbed
significant numbers of transmigrants, as have other parts of
Indonesia such as Sumatra, Kalimantan and Sulawesi. However not all
these transmigrants have been Javanese, with many originating from
Bali and Sulawesi. And there is nothing sinister about this policy;
Java is a tiny island about a quarter of the size of West Papua, yet
it is home to 140 million people, hence the pressure to move can be
considerable. To look at the question from a different perspective;
significant numbers of those living on Java are not Javanese, yet
there's been no talk of ethnic groups from other islands "invading"
Java.*
Given all this information, claims that the people of West Papua are
subject to systematic oppression by the Indonesian Government are
clearly fundamentally without merit, reflecting in certain instances
the political designs of a small, self-serving minority.*
M. Wahid Supriyadi is consul-general for Indonesia.
.: Forum Diskusi Budaya Tionghua dan Sejarah Tiongkok :.
.: Kunjungi website global : http://www.budaya-tionghoa.org :.
.: Untuk bergabung : http://groups.yahoo.com/group/budaya_tionghua :.
.: Jaringan pertemanan Friendster : [EMAIL PROTECTED] :.
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/budaya_tionghua/
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
