Indonesia S Failure In Papua

Chairullah investigates how the political, social, and economic interests of national and local elites were negotiated in the formulation and early stages of Special Autonomy in Papua Province, Indonesia. The Papuan case lends support to the current conception of elite theory, which considers the influence of actors and dynamics beyond power elites in the decision-making process. The failure of the policy implementation as a conflict reduction strategy in the Papuan case can be attributed to the dynamics of elite configurations during the negotiation and early implementation stages. Chairullah presents two significant new findings for research on Papuan Special Autonomy. Firstly, that secret negotiations were held between Papuan and national elites during Abdurrahman Wahid’s presidency, and these were crucial in reducing separatist sentiment in Papua. Secondly, that the United States, through Freeport McMoRan, strongly influenced the Special Autonomy negotiation process. The actions of national elites in Jakarta led to widespread disappointment about the policy at all levels in Papua and the subsequent escalation of separatist sentiment based on Papuan ethnic identity. An important book for scholars of Indonesian politics and society, and especially those with a particular interest in the Papuan conflict.

The sources of the Papua conflict are grouped into four sets of issues. First, is the problem of the marginalization of indigenous Papuans, and the discriminatory impacts on them resulting from the economic development of, political conflicts in, and mass migrations to Papua since 1970. To respond to this problem, an affirmative policy of recognition must be developed to empower indigenous Papuans. The second issue is the failure of development, particularly in the fields of education, health, and people's economic empowerment. This requires a new paradigm of development, focused on improving public services for the welfare of indigenous Papuans in the villages. The third main problem is the contradictions that exist between Papuan and Jakartan constructions of political identity and history. This problem can only be settled through dialogue, along the lines of the dialogue that was conducted for Aceh. The fourth issue is accountability for past state violence toward Indonesian citizens in Papua. For this, a road to reconciliation must be cleared, on which courts of human rights and the disclosure of the truth are the means of choice for law and justice to be upheld in Papua, for the victims and their families in particular, and all Indonesian citizens of Papua in general. The above four issues and agendas can be woven together to form a mutually interrelated policy strategy for comprehensive long-term resolution of the Papuan conflict. The atmosphere of Reformasi, and the existence of the accommodative Law No. 21/2001 on Special Autonomy (UU Otsus), a responsive central government, as well as the very large size of Papua's budget, lead the LIPI team to have faith that the problems of Papua can be resolved with justice, peace and dignity.

West Papua is the most violent area of Indonesia. Indonesian security forces battle the country's last active separatist insurgency there. The majority of Indonesia's political prisoners are Papuans, and support for independence is widespread. But military repression and indigenous resistance are only one part of a complex topography of insecurity in Papua: vigilantism, clan conflict, and other forms of horizontal violence produce more casualties than the vertical conflict that is often the exclusive focus of international accounts of contemporary Papua. Similarly, Papua's coerced incorporation into Indonesia in 1969 is not unique; it mirrors a pattern of long-term annexation found in other remote and highland areas of South and Southeast Asia. What distinguishes Papua is the near-total absence of the state in indigenous areas. This is the consequence of a morass of policy dysfunction over time that compounds the insecurity that ordinary Papuans face. The author illuminates the diverse and local sources of insecurity that indicate too little state as opposed to too much, challenges common perceptions of insecurity in Papua, and offers a prescription of policy initiatives. These include the reform of a violent and unaccountable security sector as a part of a broader reconciliation process and the urgent need for a comprehensive indigenous-centered development policy.

This book reviews the long guerilla struggle of the 'Organisasi Papua Merdeka' (OPM) for a Free Papua, and traces the rise of a non-violent independence movement alongside it, the Papua Council, following the fall from power of Indonesia’s military dictator, General Suharto, in 1998.

The sources of the Papua conflict are grouped into four sets of issues. First is the issue of the marginalization of indigenous Papuans, and the discriminatory impacts on them resulting from the economic development of, political conflicts in, and mass migrations to Papua since 1970. To respond to this problem, an affirmative policy of recognition must be developed to empower indigenous Papuans. Second is the issue of the failure of development, particularly in the fields of education, health, and economic empowerment. This requires a new paradigm of development, focused on improving public services for the welfare of indigenous Papuans in the villages. Third is the issue of contradictions between Papuan and Jakartan constructions of political identity and history. This problem can only be settled through dialogue, along the lines of the dialogue that was conducted for Aceh.Fourth is the issue of accountability for past state violence toward Indonesian citizens in Papua. For this, a road to reconciliation must be cleared, on which courts of human rights and the disclosure of the truth are the means of choice for law and justice to be upheld in Papua, for the victims and their families in particular, and all Indonesian citizens of Papua in general.The above four issues and agendas can be woven together to form a mutually interrelated policy strategy for comprehensive long-term resolution of the Papuan conflict. (Back cover)

Whether waiting for the train or planning the future city, infrastructure orders—and depends on—multiple urban temporalities. This agenda-setting volume disrupts conventional notions of time through a robust examination of the relations between temporality, infrastructure, and urban society. Conceptually rich and empirically detailed, its interdisciplinary dialogue encompasses infrastructural systems including transportation, energy, and water to bridge often-siloed technical, political-economic and lived perspectives. With global coverage of diverse cities and regions from Berlin to Jayapura, this book is an essential provocation to re-evaluate urban theory, politics, and practice and better account for the temporal complexities that shape our infrastructured worlds.