Briefing A

SUFFICIENT PROOFS INDICATE
WEST PAPUA’S INTEGRATION INTO INDONESIA AS

MORALLY, LEGALLY & DEMOCRATICALLY
FRAUDULENT & UNJUSTIFIABLE
Background and Progress Report:

On the Campaign for ‘A UN Internal Review Of Its Conduct’ in the Act of Free
Choice 1969 in West Papua
The West Papuan Peoples’ Representative Office (WPPRO)

Port Vila, The Republic of Vanuatu
December 2004
WPPRO Paper on the Campaign for the UN Internal Review of Its Conduct in AFC 1969, December 2004. -2-
Executive Summary
The persistent resistance of the Papuans since 1961 faced with human rights violations by
Indonesia has fallen into the category of genocide. 1 Besides, Indonesia has apparently failed to
properly resolve the conflict democratically and peacefully, particularly the Special Autonomy (Otsus) i
policy. When the internationally community continuously kept silent and ignored the plight and
suffering of West Papuan peoples, current revelations of West Papua’s coercive integration into
Indonesia 2 have given clear signals to the democratic and civilised world that they should act take
proactive measures to resolving the political conflicts between Indonesia and West Papua.
There are three parties who have roles to play in West Papua. The international
community has an interest for peace in West Papua as the peoples have so far
declared in territory as a Zone of Peace. However, Indonesia becomes restless when
being forced to walk into peaceful path. Its military approach so far has damaged its
reputation as a civilised or democratic nation. Therefore, West Papua is appealing to
the world for a helping hand, as she is aware now that the UN supervised UN Act of
Free Choice 1969 (AFC) in West Papua was a total fraud.
Three choices are on the table now: First, for Indonesia, to unconditionally and
immediately, as well as fully and comprehensively implement the Otsus. Or another
choice for the international community is to help Indonesia in creating space for
peaceful conflict resolution. While both are preparing the paths to peace, the Papuan
peoples are already on the way forward, hand-in-hand with supporters: activists,
support groups, NGOs, Parliamentarians, Senators, Ministers, Chiefs, Melanesian
sisters and brothers, Governments, Churches and Bishops, Political Parties around
the world, demanding an internal review of the UN Conduct in the AFC 1969.
1 Indonesian Human Rights Abuses in West Papua: Application of the Law of Genocide to the History of Indonesian
Control - A paper prepared for the Indonesia Human Rights Network, By the Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights
Clinic, Yale Law School, by Elizabeth Brundige, Winter King, Priyneha Vahali, Stephen Vladeck and Xiang Yuan, April 2004
[http://www.westpapua.net/cases/hr/report3/yale-wphr.pdf]
2 Annex 15. PRESS RELEASE: British Government admits West Papua 'coerced' into joining Indonesia, p3.
Choices and roles to play are already clear now. However, the victory of each
depends pretty much on who is proactive and progressive and who is flexible and
genuinely committed to defending the legal supremacy, human rights and democracy.
Our globalised, democratic and civilised society today requires peaceful and
democratic paths to reveal the truth, as, there is, of course, no other option available
than to follow this proposition.
The time is ripe right now to do just that, as the truth always prevails, and can
never be defeated when it gets to the right momentum, in any way by anyone at any
time whatsoever.
Recommendations
This paper proposes the following recommendations as a reply to Baroness Symons’ statement at
the House of Lords debate on Foreign Affairs on 13 December 2004, "The question is what should
happen now" 3 in regard to the revelations that the AFC 1969 in West Papua was a sham. 4
The West Papuan Peoples’ Representative Office (WPPRO) takes a win-win solution principle,
but taking the position by looking into the most possible solutions to resolve the problems and to
reveal the truth of the AFC 1969.
1. For the International Community

• The International Community to encourage Indonesia to immediately establish the Truth and
Reconciliation Commission, the Provincial Office for National Human Rights Commission and
Provincial Human Rights Court, as a fulfilment of the Otsus Bill Chapter, Articles….
• Her Majesty’s Government of the Kingdom of Great Britain has the extensive experience and
expertise in advising and pioneering the paths.
• the matter of fact the Act of Free Choice There is a need to request the UN Secretary-General to
Review the UN Conduct of the so-called Act of Free Choice (AFC) 1969 in West Papua;
For Her Majesty’s Government of the Kingdom of Great Britain to:
3Ibid.
4Annex 2. Indonesia's 1969 Takeover of West Papua Not by "Free Choice" - Document Release Marks 35th
Anniversary of Controversial Vote and Annexation.
2. For Indonesia
3. For West Papuan Peoples
4. For NGOs
Annex 15. PRESS RELEASE: British Government admits West Papua 'coerced' into joining
Indonesia.
By WPNews, Dec 20, 2004, 08:59 (Oxford, UK, 14th December 2004),
http://www.westpapuanews.com/articles/publish/printer_1663.shtml
Until yesterday, no major country has ever admitted that that the people of West Papua were forced into Indonesia against their
will. Yesterday (13.12.04) at Foreign Office Questions in the House of Lords something very significant happened which may one
day be seen as a milestone on the long road to peace in Papua.
West Papuans are welcoming what they see as a helpful and important step forward taken by the British Government in the
search for a peaceful and just resolution to the West Papua conflict.
Baroness Symons, Foreign Office Minister and spokesperson for the Government on foreign affairs in the House of Lords,
replied to a question from the Bishop of Oxford, the Rt Revd Richard Harries, a long time friend of the Papuan people. Baroness
Symons fully agreed with the Bishop's analysis of what had happened in 1969 when Suharto's Indonesia went through the motions
of consulting the Papuan people about their choice for the future - independence or Indonesia:
"He[ the Bishop] is right to say that there were 1,000 handpicked representatives and that they were largely coerced into
declaring for inclusion in Indonesia."
For over 35 years, the people of West Papua have been trying to tell the rest of the World that they want independence from
Indonesia. In fact, they have been saying that they never wanted to be part of Indonesia in the first place ... and if in 1969 they had
had a proper chance to exercise their right to self-determination they would have been able to tell the World just that.
Until now the Papuans' voice has been ignored. In the world of realpolitik, it has been all too easy for big powers to ignore a
mere million Melanesians. Thankfully now here in Britain, the tide appears to be changing.
Next year, the West Papuans' eastern neighbours in Papua New Guinea will be celebrating the 30th Anniversary of their
independence from Britain and Australia. However, on the western side of the straight line colonial border which arbitrarily divides
the Melanesian people of New Guinea into two halves, the West Papuans have nothing to celebrate. Their lot in the 'accident of
history' is not to celebrate but to commemorate --- to try to keep alive the memory of over 100,000 of their sons, daughters, mothers
and fathers who have been killed since the Indonesian military arrived to occupy their land in 1963.
The Papuans trusted that when their former colonial rulers, the Dutch, promised that they would be allowed a one-person, one
vote referendum to choose between independence or Indonesia, that would be exactly what they would get, especially as the
promise was supported by the USA and guaranteed by the United Nations. Ever since 1969 the Papuans have been telling anyone
who'll listen that the cruelly-named "Act of Free Choice" which was supposed to fulfill their promise of a democratic referendum, was
anything but free. In fact, 1,025 handpicked Papuans were forced at gun-point to "vote" 100% for incorporation into Suharto's
Indonesia, with the UN and the rest of the World looking on, but doing nothing.
In her reply to the Bishop of Oxford, Baroness Symons went on to say:
"The question is what should happen now."
The Papuans of course have the same question. Their answer is to find a way forward towards peace, not through
confrontation with Indonesia, but through peaceful all-inclusive dialogue between Papuan leaders and the Indonesian Government,
supported along the way by the international community. Papuans are pleading that violence must never again be seen as the way
to settle the dispute. (Tragically, violence seems to be the Indonesian military's method of choice at this very moment in the Puncak
Jaya region of the Papuan highlands.) Just like the Northern Ireland and Israel/Palestine conflicts, West Papua desperately needs a
genuine internationally sponsored peace process in which the British Government could play a prominent and very constructive role.
Perhaps in years to come, 13th December 2004 will be remembered by future generations of West Papuans as a significant
date in their history in a West Papua at peace and in which the Papuan people have something to celebrate at last. END
See Also: Annex 1. UK House of Lords on Act of Free Choice: Lord Bishop of Oxford asked Her Majesty's
Table of Contents
TITLE…………………….…….…………………………………………………………………..1
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY.....................................................................................................................2
TABLE OF CONTENTS ......................................................................................................................4
LIST OF ANNEXES..............................................................................................................................5
A. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................................6
B. THE FACTS OF WEST PAPUA INDEPENDENCE MOVEMENT .............................................7
1. Continuous Resistance as a Matter of Fact ........................................................................................................... 8
2. Indonesian Failures to Resolve Core Problems ................................................................................................... 9
3. Otsus Complicates the Existing Problems.......................................................................................................... 11
C. CREDIBILITY OF THE AFC 1969: CURRENT REVELATIONS............................................... 18
1. News Reports on the AFC 1969........................................................................................................................... 18
2. Witnesses Accounts Regarding the AFC 1969 ................................................................................................... 19
3. Research Findings on the AFC 1969 ................................................................................................................... 20
D. THREE ROOT CAUSES OF THE FRAUDULENT AFC 1969 .................................................... 21
1. West Papua, Cold War and War on Terror......................................................................................................... 22
2. West Papua’s Rich Natural Resources ................................................................................................................. 23
3. Indonesia’s Dutch East Indies as the New Indonesia? ..................................................................................... 24
4. West Papua Development as the Reason of Hand-Over ................................................................................. 26
5. Conclusion................................................................................................................................................................ 27
E. PROOFS OF THE VIOLATION OF THE RIGHTS OF PAPUAN PEOPLES ...........................28
1. Violation of the Provisions of the New York Agreement of 15 August 1961.............................................. 28
2. Violation of the UN Declaration & Resolution on Granting Independence to Colonised Peoples and
Territories........................................................................................................................................................................... 29
3. Violation of Democratic Principles in the AFC 1969 ....................................................................................... 29
F. PARTIES ACCOUNTABLE FOR THE ASSASSINATION OF WEST PAPUA AS A STATE AND A
PEOPLE ......................................................................................................................................... 31
1. The United Nations ................................................................................................................................................ 31
2. The Netherlands ...................................................................................................................................................... 32
3. Indonesia................................................................................................................................................................... 33
4. The United States .................................................................................................................................................... 33
5. The Democratic and Civilised World Community ............................................................................................ 34
G. CAMPAIGN FOR ‘A UN INTERNAL REVIEW OF ITS CONDUCT’ OF THE AFC 1969 IN WEST
PAPUA ............................................................................................................................................35
1. International Support.............................................................................................................................................. 35
2. Support from Bishops and Religious Organisations ......................................................................................... 36
3. Support from Indonesia ......................................................................................................................................... 36
4. Support from Politicians (Parliamentarians, Senators, Government Ministers) ........................................... 37
5. Support from Melanesian Sister Countries ......................................................................................................... 37
6. Support from West Papua ..................................................................................................................................... 38
H. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS.........................................................................38
1. General Conclusion ................................................................................................................................................ 38
2. General Recommendations ................................................................................................................................... 39
ANNEXES: .......................................................................................................................................... 41
ENDNOTES:.......................................................................................................................................58
List of Annexes
Annex 1. UK House of Lords on Act of Free Choice: Lord Bishop of Oxford asked Her Majesty's:............... 41
Annex 2. Indonesia's 1969 Takeover of West Papua Not by "Free Choice" - Document Release Marks 35th
Anniversary of Controversial Vote and Annexation................................................................................ 42
Annex 3. Human Rights Champion Lord Frank Judd calls for UN Review........................................................... 44
Annex 4. Sope reaffirms Vanuatu support for West Papua ....................................................................................... 45
Annex 5. Greens senate motion on West Papua.......................................................................................................... 46
Annex 6. WEST PAPUA - Another recent UK Government Minister backs UN Review campaign ............... 46
Annex 7. Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South, LDem), Foreign & Commonwealth Affairs - West Papua ........ 48
Annex 8. Motion by the Australian Labor Party (A.L.P) - UN Review on West Papua ....................................... 48
Annex 9. DEGREE OF CONSISTENCY IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW YORK
AGREEMENT 1962 IN WEST PAPUA ................................................................................................. 49
Annex 10. The 88 US Senators Letter to the UN Secretary-General ....................................................................... 50
Annex 11. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: MAJORITY OF TDS CHALLENGE SHAM VOTE IN WEST
PAPUA ............................................................................................................................................................ 52
Annex 12. STATEMENT BY ARCHBISHOP DESMOND TUTU, SOUTH AFRICA .................................. 53
Annex 13. Speech by Vanuatu Delegate to the UNGA 59th Session, 2004............................................................54
Annex 14. Early Day Motion 475 tabled at British Houses of Parliament by Jeremy Corbyn, 06.03.00........... 57
Annex 15. PRESS RELEASE: British Government admits West Papua 'coerced' into joining Indonesia.,
WPNews 14 Dec. 2004 ................................................................................................................................... 3
***
This Briefing Paper is also available at:
http://www.westpapua.net/docs/papers/paper11/briefing04a.doc
To Know More About Our Independence Campaigns:

News Updates in English: http://www.westpapuanews.com
News Updates in Malay: http://www.papuapost.com/Mambo/
Documents and Information about our Campaigns: http://www.westpapua.net
Information about our Organisations: http://www.melanesianews.org
To Know About Us: Emails: koteka@westpapua.net, amole@wp.minihub.org
Other Useful Websites: http://www.freewestpapua.org, http://www.freewestpapua.com,

http://www.westpapua.org, http://www.eco-actin.org/opm, http://www.fpcn-global.org
***
A. Background
Indonesian claim is based on the Dutch colonial map. While, West Papua’s interests is merely on revisiting the
history of the annexation of West Papua into Indonesia: whether it was democratic or not; and whether it was
carried out according to the provisions in the New York Agreement 1962 as well as other internationally accepted
norms and principles or not.
Almost a half a century ago (1969), West Papua was forcefully incorporated into Indonesia, against the
wish and aspiration of the people in West Papua. Ever since, the resistance of the people in West Papua
began, and still continue today. According to the determination of all people of West Papua, the struggle will
continue, until no single person is left on Papua soil, and if that happens, Indonesia can occupy the land
freely and lastingly. The struggle for independence based on the aspiration of the people in West Papua is,
thus, democratically justified as fundamental and inalienable rights of Papuan peoples and therefore
unchangeable.
On one side, Indonesia claims that the occupation of the territory was according to the international law
and recognised by the United Nations and its member-states, based on the Dutch East Indies colonial map
and therefore, the fate and future of West Papua is final and undisputable.
On the other hand, the people of West Papua argue that the process of the handing over of West Papua
through the United Nations Temporary Executive Administration (UNTEA) during 1963-1969 was morally,
legally and democratically fraud and unjustifiable.
The two contradictive standings have caused continuous political conflicts between Indonesia and West
Papua since 1960s. Many people have lost their lives, many have been beaten up, arbitrarily arrested and
imprisoned, many women have been raped and many disappeared without anyone knowing their
5
whereabouts.
Meanwhile, the International community have done nothing about the obvious violations of the
internationally accepted laws and democratic principles during the Act of Free Choice (AFC) 1969 in West
Papua. Similarly, they have said or done nothing about humanitarian catastrophes in the hands of the mighty
Indonesian military as well as militia groups against innocent and unarmed tribal peoples who are speaking
out for their rights, according to the right of free speech as guaranteed under the United Nations Charter.
Only after almost a half century, the Truth is gaining victory, and the demand of the people in West
Papua for a UN Review of its Conduct during the AFC 1969 is getting responses and support from various
parties in the world.
Contro, op.cit.
There is a need now to answer some of the questions below to assess what each party can do:
• Why is there a continuous resistance movement in West Papua?
• Why did not the UN, USA, the Netherlands, Indonesia and other democratic worlds pay any attention or
closed their eyes on the matter of fact that the AFC 1969 in West Papua was flawed? Why did all civilised
world community who respect and claim themselves to be the champions of human rights and democracy
ignored humanitarian catastrophes that began in 1960s and still continue today in West Papua due to the
presence of Indonesian army and government? Whose interests are behind the prolonged ignorance of the
plight as well as current revelations of the Truth?
• Does Indonesia act responsibly in a democratic as well as civilised way to address various socio-political,
and socio-economic issues related to West Papua? Is Indonesia doing well as the occupying power over
West Papua territory?
• What are the Papuans doing in response to the continuous ignorance and silence by the international
community and gross violations of human rights, Indonesia policies that accumulate problems rather than
solving the existing problems, as well as the revelation that the Act of Free Choice 1969 was a sham?
• What is the future of the Pacific Islands in particular and Oceania in general if no one is interested in
resolving the prolonged conflicts in West Papua?
• What should Indonesia, West Papua and the international community do to bring these problems to an end
peacefully and democratically?
This paper is particularly written in response to the current acknowledgement by the British
Government that the AFC 1969 in West Papua was a sham, as well as support from the international
community that a UN review on its conduct during AFC 1969 in West Papua 6 is a prerequisite towards
resolving the conflicts peacefully and democratically.
B. The Facts of West Papua Independence Movement

Truth is the Truth, it has never been defeated, and it has never required or asked anyone to proof it; as It always
wins, sooner or later, but surely it has never been defeated.
The voice of the peoples in West Papua regarding their refusal of Indonesian occupation has been
ignored for 43 years now. Even though all knew that the process and method of annexation of West Papua
by Indonesia were undemocratic and legally as well as morally fraud, not one had ever been honest to speak
out the truth.
The credibility of Indonesia’s claim that the inclusion of West Papua into Indonesia (or it refers to as
complete de-colonisation of Dutch East Indies or the return of Irian Jaya to the motherland) is final and
complete is now becoming questionable for, among others, three major reasons: First, the continuing
resistance of the Papuan peoples since 1963 sends a clear message to the world that in fact the people of
West Papua never accepted to be included into Indonesia. Their aspiration during the AFC 1969 was to
become independent from both the Netherlands and Indonesia.
Secondly, the apparent failure of Indonesia to comply with its own commitments and laws that regulate
the paths to resolving conflicts peacefully and democratically. This reality has direct impacts on the
6 Annex 1. UK House of Lords on Act of Free Choice: Lord Bishop of Oxford asked Her Majesty's and Annex 15.
PRESS RELEASE: British Government admits West Papua 'coerced' into joining Indonesia.
security and peace across the Pacific Islands and Oceania. Even though Indonesia has been given the
responsibility to carry out development activities in West Papua, and even though there was already
sufficient funding made available by the USA and the Netherlands through the World Bank, UN as well as
ADB 7 , it has failed to do so. What it has done is a series of human rights violations, massive exploitation of
natural resources, military build-up and full military operations against innocent civilians 8 as well as setting
ups of militia groups that are directly connected to both Jemaah Islamiyah (JI) and Laskar Pembela Islam
(LPI). Both Islamic groups 9 are potentially dangerous for the security all over the Pacific.
Finally, and more importantly current revelations by either UN officials (who were in charge of the
AFC 1963-1969 in West Papua) and academic findings as well as confessions of those involved in the AFC
itself give us clear indications that the AFC 1969 in West Papua was a sham and therefore it is morally,
legally and democratically unjustifiable.
1. Continuous Resistance as the Matter of Fact

If the peoples of West Papua have ever accepted, if not fully, then let us say only at certain degrees, the outcome
of the AFC 1969 in West Papua, then why have there been continuous resistance and fights against the
Indonesians’ presence in West Papua?
“…and if in 1969 they had a proper chance to exercise their right to self-determination they would have been able
to tell the world just that.” 10
It does not require a detailed study to show that in fact the peoples of West Papua have never accepted
Indonesia’s occupation over their territory. The obvious reason is that the rights to self-determination as
stated in the UNGA Resolutions 1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960, the Declaration of the Granting of
Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples as well as the principles of the New York Agreement of 15
August 1961 to execute the AFC 1969 were both heavily violated. 11 In other words, the peoples of West
Papua totally believe that they were not properly given the opportunity to be involved in the AFC 1969 and
that the international provisions regarding decolonisation and declaration of the granting of independence to
colonial countries and peoples were all heavily violated during the so-called fraudulent AFC 1969.
The refusal of the peoples was not only when the UN officials were present in West Papua in 1969, 12
7 Joint Statement Following the Discussions Held Between the Netherlands Minister of Foreign Affairs Mr. Luns and
the Netherlands Minister for Development Cooperation Mr. Udink with the Indonesian Minister for Foreign Affairs Mr. Malik
in Rome on 20th and 21st May, 1969 [http://www.westpapua.net/docs/nya.htm]
8 Some of the reports on Human Rights Violations in West Papua are at http://www.westpapua.net/cases/hr/. One sample
report is available at http://www.westpapua.net/cases/hr/report1/index.htm]

9 Visit http://www.westpapua.net/about/smp/ to read more about Indonesian and Islam militia activities in West Papua today.
10 PRESS RELEASE: “British Government admits West Papua ‘coerced’ into joining Indonesia” Oxford Papuan Rights
Campaign (OPRC, 14th December 2004. [http://www.westpapuanews.com/articles/publish/printer_1663.shtml]

11 Annex 9. Degree of Consistency in the Implementation of the New York Agreement 1962 in West Papua, p.52
12 This view was expressed privately at the time by members of Ortiz Sanz’s own team and the British Foreign Office noted:
“Privately, however, we recognise that the people of West Irian have no desire to be ruled by the Indonesians who are of an alien
(Javanese) race, and that the process of consultation did not allow a genuinely free choice to be made.” [PRO: FCO 24/449
(FWD1/4). FCO briefing on West Irian prepared for the UK delegation to the UNGA, 10 September 1969]
but also it has continued and will continue until Indonesia is out from West Papua or until a proper and
democratic act of self-determination is carried out in West Papua. 13
All Papuan peoples are aware today the reality that:
1. Those who cast their votes in AFC 1969 were handpicked Papuans, not democratically elected
representatives of the peoples;
2. The AFC 1969 in West Papua did not involve all Papuan peoples, but only a handful of handpicked
Papuans, who were mostly pro-Indonesians (or Indonesian militia members). The number of those
who participated in the AFC 1969 was only 1,025, which does not qualify, either proportionally or
representatively, the whole population of West Papua at that time;
3. There was no option available to the voters either to join Indonesia or to vote in favour of an
independent West Papua. Voters who are still alive are witnessing to the world today that all of the
voters were drilled and forced to vote in favour of Indonesia (refer to eyewitness account);
4. The AFC 1969 in West Papua was carried out with full of intimidation, acts of terror and gross
violations of human rights (refer to news report by Hugh Lunn).
These reasons are enough to justify the continued resistance against Indonesian occupation. They are all
aware and convinced that this fight is a struggle in defending the truth and justice against lies and injustices.
It is the proof that justifies to our democratic and civilised world that in fact the Papuan peoples, based
on their democratic, fundamental and inalienable rights, have never accepted and will never in any way
whatsoever accept the matter of fact that the AFC 1969 in West Papua was a final solution. The peoples of
West Papua are totally convinced that this issue is a just and a morally, legally and democratically justified.
Therefore, they will continue to resist, until the time the Truth prevails.
2. Indonesian Failures to Resolve Core Problems

“Why does Indonesia still call West Papua as a under-developed territory and her peoples as primitives after
more than 25 years of development activities fully funded by international donor countries? or “How far can
Indonesia be accountable for its tasks to develop West Papuan peoples and the territory, according to the tasks
given to Indonesia based on the Rome Joint Agreement?” 14
According to the Rome Joint Statement, Indonesia was given the responsibility to develop West Papua,
based on economic potentials available in the territory:
On economic cooperation, it was agreed that the Netherlands would provide the funds for the UN FUNDWI
Projects. Projects on air, coast and river transportation should be made a priority. Both countries would forthwith
13 The People's Assembly at Sentani Indah Hotel, Sentani, 26 February 2000 and The Papua National Congress II 2000, May
29 - June 4, 2000. [http://www.melanesianews.org/pdp/congress/].
14 The Rome Joint Statement - Text of the Joint Statement Following the Discussions Held Between the Netherlands
Minister of Foreign Affairs Mr. Luns and the Netherlands Minister for Development Cooperation Mr. Udink with the
Indonesian Minister for Foreign Affairs Mr. Malik in Rome on 20th and 21st May, 1969. [http://www.westpapua.net/docs/rome-
agreement.htm]
convey a technical assistance project proposal to the Asian Development Bank in the form of a list of the territory's
economic potentials. 15
This statement shows the responsibility on the Indonesia side to provide a list of the territory’s
economic potentials, which has further implications to develop those economic potentials. Thus, there is
nothing stated about Indonesia’s rights to kill the Papuans or to occupy West Papua.
After more than 42 years, West Papua is still regarded as under-developed province. Even though the
province has contributed more than 20% of the Indonesian national budget, the province itself has received
nothing other than humiliation and ridicule that Papuan peoples are lazy and incapable of competing with the
development activities all over Indonesia.
This Rome Joint Statement was a follow up of yet another meeting called the Rome Agreement on 30th
September 1962, just six weeks after the signing of the New York Agreement on 15 August 1962. 16
According to the record, the Rome (Secret) Agreement provides some provisions, among others:
The USA to make investment through Indonesia state-owned companies for the exploitation of Natural Resources
in West Papua.
USA guaranteed Asian Development Bank US$ 30 Million to UNDP for the development of West Papua for 25
years.
USA to guarantee the World Bank plan and implement Transmigration of Indonesians to West Papua. 17
This agreement sets a light into the time limit of the responsibility of Indonesia to carry out
development activities in West Papua, i.e., 25 years since 1 May 1963. However, what have been happening
since Indonesian occupation over West Papua do not justify anything but gross violations of human rights.
In relation to above provisions, the state-owned US giant Freeport MacMoRan Copper & Gold, Inc.
signed an agreement on 10th January 1967, followed by the signing of the First Contract of Work (CoW I) on
7th April 1967, i.e., two years ahead of the AFC 1969 18 . The CoW I is connected directly to the back-door
lobbies by the US political engineer, Mr. Elsworth Bunker, who proposed the draft of the New York
Agreement 1962 and the Rome Joint Statement (1962, 1969), in which the US was given full rights to
extract West Papua’s natural resources without any limit in terms of time or amount of the resources to be
extracted.
The mining operations have victimised the habitats around the area but have never been questioned due
to the mighty power of the USA. Even though Freeport has been contributing significant revenue to the
national government, Papuans received nothing from it. In other words, mining operations in West Papua do
not bring about development, but destruction and suffering.
15 Ibid.
16 Agreement Between the Republic of Indonesia and the Kingdom of the Netherlands Concerning West New Guinea
(West Irian), Signed at the Headquarters of the United Nations, New York, on 15 August 1962.
[http://www.westpapua.net/docs/nya.htm]
17 WEST PAPUA: From Colonisation to Re-colonisation, Otto J. Rumaseuw, X 1414 - GF990/402 - The WestPaC, 1999.
[http://www.westpapua.net/docs/books/book1/part03.htm] and [http://www.westpapua.net/docs/books/book2/part06.htm]

18 Ibid. [http://www.westpapua.net/docs/books/book1/part04.htm]
Whereas the transporting of Javanese from Indonesia to West Papua (transmigration) programme was
terminated in mid 1990s due to criticisms from the world community.
Logically, if Indonesia claimed West Papua as integral part of Indonesia, it should not treat West Papua
as a colonised territory. Continuous human rights violations, declaration of West Papua as Military
Operation Zone and threatening to declare martial law, militia activities, military build-up, and such are clear
indications that Indonesia treats West Papua as a colony.
The ongoing human rights violations will clearly generate more violence across the Pacific Islands, and
especially Melanesian countries are aware of the circumstances. They will not, of course, continuously
ignore the matter of fact that their fellow Melanesians are being wiped out from their own land. The
outcome of such a rationale is predictable, i.e., instability across the Pacific Islands.
Indonesia has failed to:
1. Promote and protect human rights of Papuan peoples,
2. Recognise and respect the rights of native inhabitants of the territory,
3. Fully implement its obligation according to the Rome Joint Statement;
4. Prevent and obliterate militia activities in the names of Red-and-White militias, who stand up
defending Indonesian Muslim nationalism against pro-Independence Papuan-Christians;
5. Bring to justice all perpetrators of human rights violations, and
6. Behave as the colonising power.
One might argue, that the current regime in Indonesia should be given the opportunity to implement
Special Autonomy (Otsus) as Otsus is the final solution to the political conflicts. Some Melanesian and
Pacific Island countries also believe that Otsus is the most acceptable way forward for the sake of peace and
security across the Pacific Island states. However, it is important for us to look into what that “Otsus” is
doing for West Papua today, which has direct and indirect impacts to the peace and security across the South
Pacific and Oceania.
3. Otsus: Solution or just an Illusion?

Special autonomy is a solution or an addition to the existing complexity of problems? 19
There can be some answers from Indonesia related to concerns over the failures of Indonesia as the
occupying power over West Papua that the failures and human rights violations were committed by Suharto
regime, and therefore, current government is doing its best to restore peace and protect human rights in West
Papua. Albert Matondang, Indonesian Ambassador to Fiji once stated, “We do acknowledge there was some
19"SPECIAL AUTONOMY" FOR INDONESIA’S WEST PAPUA: Its Threats to Pluralism and Development (in
Democracy, Human Rights, Law Enforcement and Economic Activities) According to Papuans’ Experience- A Position
Paper Submitted to the Foreign Office of the British Government in London, on 23 February 2004. By Sem Karoba, Koteka Tribal
Assembly for Truth, Justice and Peace in West Papua, West Papua, 12 February 2004
mistakes in the past, wrongdoings, human rights abuse. But the new government, the present government are
willing to correct that and to bring justice those who violated that.” 20
It can also claim that Otsus for West Papua is the best and final solution to the conflict. However, recent
events should give us objective and comprehensive indication to justify Mr. Matondang’s statement.
Current assessments regarding the Otsus indicate that Indonesia is failing to fully and comprehensively
implement the Otsus. Just like the New York Agreement 1962 and The Rome Joint Statement in 1962 and
1969, this Otsus fails to address the core issues for three major reasons: from human rights, democracy and
legal perspectives, that can be reviewed by looking into policies in processing, inputting, and output as well
as the implementation of the Otsus Bill. ii
If the idea of Otsus came as an answer to the demand for independence in West Papua, then it is not
genuinely to develop West Papua or to resolve political conflicts in the region. Likewise, if no Papuans were
represented or involved in the drafting to the finalisation of the Bill, then the Bill has no use for bringing
conflicts in West Papua to an end. Also, if Papuans have no access to influencing or implementing the Bill,
then Special Autonomy is just another New York Agreement or the other name of the Secret Rome
Agreement and Rome Joint Statement. They are all useless for West Papua. 21
1) The Inputting and Processing of the Otsus Bill

Even though there was consultation with Papuan elites during the inputting and processing of the Otsus
Bill, the real and direct representatives of the Papuan peoples iii were totally excluded. The members of
Assistance Team set up by the government were all government officials. Thus, the team that assisted the
drafting of the Bill were government officials and university lecturers. This reality is actually enough to
conclude that Otsus is not a final solution, but it is in fact an addition to the existing problems:
All of this suggests that special autonomy, in and of itself, does not represent a solution to separatist conflict.
Rather, the concessions that are offered under special autonomy must be part of a broad process of bargaining
and negotiation. In the absence of official negotiation with popular elements, autonomy arrangements typically fail
to generate widespread support. In this context, central governments, which have many incentives to roll back
autonomy, incur few costs in doing so. As this study illustrates, the provincial elites and national parliamentarians
that formulated and enacted special autonomy in Indonesia did so largely in isolation from popular elements in
both provinces. Special autonomy represented a unilateral concession on the part of Jakarta that lacked any links
to the main political forces advocating independence in either province. What has been missing to date is a
systematic bargaining process between Jakarta and the regions—one that links concessions granted under the
laws with a wide-ranging dialogue involving key elements of Papuan and Acehnese society. 22
20 West Papua Independence – the Pacific Campaign, Radio Programme by Joana Olsson, JN202, Students from Naurul;
prepared for broadcast on Radio Pasifik 88.8FM & for distribution to regional station as part of the series – “Concrete Jungle – aid,
development & sovereignty in the Pacific” in Year Book 2003, USP Journalism Programme, pp.62-64.
21 PAPUA MENGGUGAT: Politik Otonomisasi NKRI di Papua Barat (Buku I), watchPAPUA, by Sem Karoba, dkk., Galang
Press Yogyakarta, 2004.

22 Secessionist Challenges in Aceh and Papua: Is Special Autonomy the Solution?, by Rodd McGibbon, Policy Studies,
No. 10, [http://www.eastwestcenter.org/res-rp-publicationdetails.asp?pub_ID=1523]

West Papuan peoples are well aware that this is not more than just a resumed round of the old New
York Agreement game, an outcome of conspiracy between foreign advisers’ interests with national as well
as local government officials. The interests of the Papuan peoples were totally ignored just as it happened
during the AFC and Rome Joint Agreement.
The exclusion of West Papuan representatives as well as the undemocratic procedures in inputting and
processing the Otsus Law clearly indicate yet another manipulation of the peoples’ aspiration. 23 It is out of
ignorance to claim that the Bill was intended to bring the political conflicts in West Papua to an end. It rather
appears that the Bill is just another manipulation of Agreement, but this time, the agreement is between
Jakarta elites and Papuan elites, by yet sacrificing the genuine aspiration of the peoples of territory.
This is why, from the beginning, no representatives (such as Demmak 24 , PDP, TPN/OPM, 25 and
WPGNC 26 ) or the peoples of West Papua ever accepted the offer, as it was imposed by force, violated
democratic and human rights principles. The PDP Chair, the Late Theys Eluay said,
Theys Hiu Eluay, Ketua PDP, mengatakan persoalan Papua tidak akan selesai dengan hanya pemberian otonomi
khusus itu, kecuali Pemerintah Pusat ingin langsung mengadakan dialog dengan rakyat, kata Thaha.
Ia menyatakan PDP kini tengah mengirim dua orang anggotanya ke Jakarta untuk bergabung dengan masyarakat
Irian Jaya lainnya yang menolak UU otonomi khusus itu. (koridor) [Theys Hiu Eluay, Chairperson of PDP, said the
problems in West Papua will not be solved only by giving that Otsus, except Central Government is willing to hold
a direct dialogue with the people, said Thaha. He said right now PDP is sending two persons to Jakarta to join Irian
Jaya peoples to refuse the Otsus Bill.] 27
2) The Otsus Bill vs. Partition of the Province
The government’s inconsistency in fully and comprehensively implementing the Otsus Law indicates the mater of
fact that there is absence of good political will from Jakarta.
Pemekaran: The Politics of Divide and Rule
As an outcome of manipulative inputting (drafting) between central and provincial government

officials, a draft of the bill was presented to Jakarta early 2001. 28 It took almost a year to pass the law (on
23 PAPUA MENGGUGAT: Politik Otonomisasi NKRI di Papua Barat (Buku I, Buku II and Buku II), watchPAPUA, by Sem
Karoba, dkk., Galang Press Yogyakarta, 2004 present details of the inputting, processing, output and implementation of the Otsus
Bill, and concludes that Otsus was not a solution to the problems, but as an addition to the existing problems.
24 DEMMAK and AMP Statement on Special Autonomy, 2001. [http://www.campeace.org/WParchive/demmak_and.htm]
25 PRESS RELEASE: OTSUS DAN PEMBAGIAN PROVINSI DI PAPUA BARAT TIDAK ADA DALAM MANDAT KRP II
2000, Minggu, 16 February, 2003. [http://www.melanesianews.org/tpnopm/press/060203-otsus.htm]

26 The West Papua New Guinea National Congress (WPNGNC) and the armed West Papuan resistance Reject Special
Autonomy, 17.11.2004. [http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php?id=99115&region=2]

27 Thaha Al-Hami: Otsus Dianggap belum Penuhi Aspirasi Rakyat (Otsus is Regarded Not Fulfilling the Aspiration of
Papuan People). [http://www.hamline.edu/apakabar/basisdata/2001/10/24/0052.html]

28 Special autonomy bill on Papua submitted to parliament, 27 September 2001.
[http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0WDQ/is_2001_Oct_1/ai_79581026]
Monday 22nd October 2001 at 23:30PM). And even worse, most of the contents of the law proposed by
Papuan elites were excluded in the final draft (the Bill). 29
A year after launching Otsus, a Presidential Decree was issued on January 2003 30 to allow the province
to be divided into three. This is an obvious example of Jakarta’s inconsistent and counter productive
policies, even against the Otsus Bill itself. This Presidential Decree No.01/2003 regarding the partition of
Papua province, was not a follow up of the Otsus Bill No.21/2001, but in fact as a as a follow up of Partition
Bill No. 45/1999, which was nullified when the Otsus Bill was passed.
Many people refused the move, 31 including ordinary peoples, 32 youth, 33 PDP, 34 and provincial
parliament in West Papua. 35 The chair of Papuan Parliament challenged the Decree by suing the central
government at the Constitutional Court in Jakarta. However, the Court itself was in fact not independent
from political interference, where the final verdict in one side invalidated the formation of new provinces,
but on the other side, acknowledged that the Irian Jaya Barat province still valid. As stated below, the court
decision was ambiguous for anyone to understand what the verdict actually meant to real-politik in West
Papua.
The Court ruled on Nov. 11 that Law No. 45/1999 on the establishment of Central and West Irian Jaya provinces
violated the Constitution, but at the same time it recognized the existence of West Papua province since it had
already established its own provincial legislature and elected its representatives in the House of
Representatives. 36
On November 11th, 2004, the Constitutional Court eventually announced its ruling concerning the application for
judicial review of Law No. 45/1999 on the Establishment of the Province Central Irian Jaya, the Province West
Irian Jaya, the Regency Paniai, the Regency Mimika, the Regency Puncak Jaya and the Municipality Sorong.
The Court declared Law 45/1999 unconstitutional and thus invalid as of the date of the verdict. However, in its
legal considerations the Court states it is of the opinion that the Province of West Irian Jaya, which had been
established based on Law 45/1999 and the corresponding implementing legislation, is valid, unless the Court
29 To see the comparison between the Proposed Bill by Papuan elites and revised version by Jakarta, please visit
http://www.westpapua.net/cases/autonm/uuotsus.htm of the final version and http://www.westpapua.net/cases/autonm/otsusbe.htm

of the draft proposed by Papuan elites.
30 Kepress RI Nomor 1 2003, tanggal 27 January 2003, tentang Pembagian Provinsi Papua Menjadi Tiga Provinsi dan
Penambahan Kabupaten, (Presidential Decree No. 1/2003, dated 27 January 2003, Regarding the Partition of Papua Province into
Three.) [http://www.westpapua.net/cases/autonm/kepres/index.htm]
31 PAPUAN PEOPLE AGAINST THE PARTITION OF CENTRAL IRIAN JAYA PROVINCE IN TIMIKA, MIMIKA REGENCY
OF WEST PAPUA, PRESS STATEMENT, Timika, 08 September 2003. [http://www.westpapua.net/docs/press/03/090903-

negro.doc]
32 Resistance against division of Papua, By WPNews, Oct 29,2003,
[http://www.westpapuanews.com/articles/publish/printer_47.shtml]
33 Generasi Muda Papua Tolak Pemekaran Papua (Papuan Youths Refuse Pemekaran), Tuesday, 11 February
2003.[http://www.mediaindo.co.id/cetak/berita.asp?id=2003021109415610]
34 Tom Beanal : Rakyat Papua Menolak Pemekaran, (Tom Beanal: Papuan Peoples Refuse Pemekaran) Wednesday, 27
August 2003.
[http://infopapua.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=920&mode=mode=thread&order=0
&thold=0]
35 Is Papua autonomy a myth? by Neles Tebay, Pontifical, University of Urbaniana, Rome, The Jakarta Post August 21,
2003. [http://www.indonesia-house.org/focus/Papua/082103Papua_myth.htm]
36 Papua likely to seek referendum over MRP, by Ridwan Max Sijabat, The Jakarta Post/Jakarta
Dec 7, 2004, 15:54 [http://www.westpapuanews.com/articles/publish/article_1562.shtml]

decides otherwise. The verdict has been characterised as ambiguous and provoked mixed reactions. 37
Indonesian is obviously trying to divide the peoples in West Papua in order to easily
manipulate the genuine aspiration. However, this policy is a strong sign of Indonesia being
uncertain of what to do to calm down the independence movement. It does show the incapability of
properly addressing the existing problems. The partition did not help to reach the goal, but in fact
what is happening is against what Indonesia wanted to achieve.
Lawrence Sullivan: Otsus Law and Partition Law
Lawrence Sullivan, in his paper on Otsus and Pemekaran (partition) argues that according to the legal
principles of lex superiori derogat legi inferior (a superior regulation nullifies an inferior regulation), lex
posterior derogat legi prior (a new law sets aside a conflicting older law), and lex specialis derogat legi
generali (in the context of a difference in the normative rules between regulations of the same rank or
degree, norms which are special set aside norms which are general). The Bill No.45/1999 was defeated,
nullified and automatically invalidated when Otsus Bill was passed. 38 However, Indonesia seems determined
to execute both Otsus Bill and Pemekaran Bill at the same time, when they are clearly contradictive and
counter-productive in principle.
Indonesian government declared Irian Jaya Barat Province with Manokwari as the capital, and Irian
Jaya Tengah with Timika as the capital. The later one had caused the death of at least five Papuans, and
others were hospitalised in Timika, West Papua. 39 The issue of full implementation of Otsus by invalidating
Pemekaran, or carry out Pemekaran by revising Otsus Bill, or both are implemented hand-in-hand are the
remaining questions, and it will never be resolved unless the international community assists in giving
assistance at technical and or operational levels, not just at the strategic or national level.
What is happening as an outcome of the Otsus vs. Pemekaran is yet another proof that Indonesia is
incapable of handling the political conflicts in West Papua.
3) The Implementation of Otsus for West Papua Today
The implementation of the Otsus Bill is still unclear, incomplete and not a genuine one, and therefore it is failing
to resolve the problems. Jakarta is sending mixed-signals as it tries to force West Papua peoples to accept Otsus
at whatever price, but at the same time, it does not consistently; comprehensively and fully implement the Otsus
Bill.
37 Constitutional Court's ruling on the partition of Papua, by Watch Indonesia - WPNews

Nov 26, 2004, 13:52. [http://www.westpapuanews.com/articles/publish/article_1502.shtml]
38 Papua's Special Autonomy Law and the Issues of Division, by Lawrence Sullivan. 10 September 2002.
[http://www.westpapua.net/docs/papers/paper7/otsus-sullivan.htm]
39 Fatal Split: The government has postponed the establishment of the Central Irian Jaya Province after five people
died in as many days of clashes, Tempo Magazine (via Joyo Indonesia News), September 02 - 08, 2003.
In other words, the already revised version of the Bill is not working in West Papua today. The
international community, through various events and times have been asking Indonesia to implement the
Otsus, 40 but Indonesia seems failing to do so.
When Indonesia was forcing West Papuan peoples to accept Otsus without any question, it presented
some changes in policies as follows:
1. The government will bring all those responsible to gross human rights violations to justice, without
discrimination and prejudice. (The outcome is, no single person has ever been punished, let alone
questioned or arrested for clarification of their acts of terror since 1961 until today)
2. A scheme will be in place that will gave the province widespread authority in managing its own
affairs and, most important of all, a larger share of the revenue from its own natural resources.
(Nothing happened in this sense, even the Otsus money was never been given fully. Jakarta drops
some amount only when the governor of Papua repeatedly demands for it, not because they wanted
to give it.)
3. The rights (especially customary land rights and indigenous rights) will be fully protected in this
Otsus. (What the peoples in West Papua have seen so far is more killings, more exploitation of
natural resources, more acts of terror and intimidation, more arbitrary arrests and detention and more
unjust and unfair punishment and imprisonment)
4. There is obvious inability to enact secondary regulations under Otsus. This is the major blocking
towards a full and comprehensive implementation of the Otsus Bill. Regulations in the form of
Provincial Regional Regulations (PERDASI) and Special Regional Regulations (PERDASUS),
which are the operational basis of Otsus, do not yet exist. The delay in enacting PERDASI and
PERDASUS is because the institutions with the competence to enact these two types of regulations
are not yet in existence
5. Non-existence of the Majelis Rakyat Papua (MRP) or Papuan Peoples' Assembly. The Central
Government has not yet made the Regulation establishing the MRP. The non-existence of the MRP
was (until the pemekaran) the core problem facing Otsus. This is in violation to Article 72(1)] of
Otsus Bill.
6. The acknowledgement of Morning Star Flag symbolising Melanesian race in West Papua as well as
the national anthem and regulations to allow the formation of local political parties are totally
abandoned. Events on the Flag Raising ceremonies since 2002 until today are faced by might
Indonesian police and armed forces. Many have been killed, arbitrarily arrested, badly tortured and
imprisoned without trial. This is in violation to Chapter II, Article 2 (2) of the Otsus Bill.
These examples are enough for anyone to believe that the Otsus for West Papua is not going anywhere,
40 Press Release: Council Commission Urges Immediate implementation of Special Autonomy Plan by Indonesian
Government, By CFR-WPNews, May 7, 2003, 05:41. [http://www.westpapuanews.com/articles/publish/article_1462.shtml]

because the good political will is not there in Jakarta, as well as commitment, consistency and dedication to
bring the prolonged conflicts to an end is absent in Jakarta’s moves. 41
On the contrary to the promises made, what Indonesia is doing to implement the Otsus Bill are, among
others:
1. Deployment of more troops, which is on the contrary to the declaration of the Papuan peoples that
West Papua is a Zone of Peace. 42 Also the establishment of more regional and local military bases,
including addition of three army battalions (for Wamena, Maroke and Timika in addition to the
existing three battalions in Manokwari, Jayapura and Nabire).
2. With the assistance of Russian government, Indonesia is also building Eastern Indonesia air base in
Biak Island, and navy base in Jayapura.
3. Indonesia is also launching massive military campaigns, especially across the highlands of West
Papua (Puncak Jaya, Yahukimo, Pegunungan Bintang, Timika, Nabire, Paniai and Jayawijaya
regencies). Current Indonesian President calls this as “a shock therapy” to calm down the
independence movement.
4. Indonesia has started killing many Papuan leaders, including the late Ondofolo (Paramount Chief)
Theys Hiyo Eluay, Chief Yafeth Yelemaken of Wamena, Chief Yusuf Tanawani of Serui, Rev. John
Mambor, Yustinus Murib and his 8 members, William Onde, Simon Alom, Adam Mbait, and other
names.
5. Indonesia launched various arbitrary arrests, including Rev. Obed Komba in Abepura prison, Mr.
Benny Wenda in Abepura prison. iv
6. Militia organisations under the names of Pemuda Pancasila, Laskar Jihad, 43 and the Red-and-White
Militia have waged various activities (training, equipping, and steering up conflicts) across West
Papua, and more across the border between West Papua and PNG. In Papua version, they are
connected to the Indonesian Special Forces (Kopassus) who implicated various murderous missions,
including the killing of Theys Eluay and other Papuan leaders as well as the ambush at Freeport
Mining Site (Mile 62-3) on 30th August 2002 44 and other ambushes in Wutung (border between
West Papua and PNG) against Indonesian ambassador to PNG and the family members of ELSHAM
director. 45
41 Papuan leaders meet legislators, The Jakarta Post, Dec 4, 2004, 14:39
[http://www.westpapuanews.com/articles/publish/article_1541.shtml]
42 Should The U.S. Resume Military Ties With Indonesia? - Reflections From A Papuan Perspective
by John Rumbiak, Supervisor ELSHAM. [http://ww.westpapua.net/docs/papers/elsham-usri.htm]

43 Indonesian ‘Jihad’ Ready to Combat Americans, 29 March, 2002 03:42:47 AM.
[http://www.westpapua.net/news/02/03/280302-jihad.htm] and Masyarakat Tolak Kehadiran Laskar Jihad Di Papua.

[http://www.infopapua.com/papua/0302/2601.html]
44 Indonesians accused of murdering mine workers, by Matthew Moore and Greg Roberts in Timika and Townsville,
Tuesday September 03, 2002. [http://www.westpapua.net/news/02/09/030902-tpnopm1.htm]

45 Should The U.S. Resume Military Ties With Indonesia? - Reflections From A Papuan Perspective
7. On July 17, police chief Inspector-General Made Mangku Pastika issued a statement announcing
operation "Adil Matoa 2002” which has brought about various human rights violations, including
Ambushes and acts of terror in recent years. 46 It has been stated that Adil Matoa Operation is not to
ensure the implementation of the Otsus, but rather to hinder it. 47
4) Otsus, Islamisation and Ethnic Cleansing Policies

When encouraging Indonesia to fully and comprehensively implement the Otsus, one must be reminded
that the continued occupation of Indonesia over West Papua has another serious consequence, i.e., the
obliteration of a people due to the influx of both formal and informal migrants from other parts of
48
Indonesia. US Senators expressed concern over the escalating military operations, intimidation, acts of
terror and mass murders and asked the UN to take immediate steps to bring the suffering to an end. 49 The
ethnic cleansing policies known to the peoples of West Papua includes:
1. Crusades of this most populous Moslem country in the world to maintain its position as the world’s most
populous Moslem country by either minimising and or preferably obliterating non-Muslims through
various approaches. The commonly known approach was the transmigration programme. However,
since the termination of the project, the influx of Muslim immigrants is incalculable as they come in the
names of development, skilled workers, labours, government officials, military troops, police forces, and
special autonomy.
2. Many preaching in the Mosques emphasise the forced marriage between Christian-Papuan girls and
Indonesian-males. One brochures appeared sometime ago, based on meeting in Jombang, Java Island
showed a direct order from Moslem clerics to carry out this operation in order to reduce the number of
Papuan peoples who are Christians in majority.
3. Various cases of food and crops poisoning as well as biological warfare carried out particularly in the
central highlands of West Papua have never been medically or scientifically investigated. There have
been cases where pigs died in the whole villages in the highlands in late 1990s. In early 1980s, pigs
brought in under the President Suharto’s instruction into the highlands also seriously caused widespread
death and sufferings. This has never been investigated as it was regarded as a natural phenomenon.
By John Rumbiak, Supervisor ELSHAM - Institute for Human Rights Study and Advocacy in Papua.
[http://www.westpapua.net/docs/papers/elsham-usri.htm]
46 Opposition being voiced to Operasi Adil Matoa, July 29, 2002, [http://www.westpapua.net/news/02/07/290702-matoa.ht]
47 "SPECIAL AUTONOMY" FOR INDONESIA’S WEST PAPUA: Its Threats to Pluralism and Development (in Democracy,
Human Rights, Law Enforcement and Economic Activities) According to Papuans’ Experience, by Sem Karoba (Demmak), February
2004 [http://www.westpapua.net/docs/demmak-paper.doc] and [http://www.westpapu.net/news/updates2002.htm]
Control - A paper prepared for the Indonesia Human Rights Network, By the Allard K. Lowenstein International Human Rights
Clinic, Yale Law School, by Elizabeth Brundige, Winter King, Priyneha Vahali, Stephen Vladeck and Xiang Yuan, April 2004
[http://www.westpapua.net/cases/hr/report3/yale-wphr.pdf]
49 Annex 10. 88 US Senators Letter to the UN Secretary-General.
4. The draught in Kwiyawagy district, Geselema and Yahukimo, in the highlands that caused deaths of
many peoples and animals were rumoured to be caused by biological warfare of the Indonesian military.
No one was brave enough to investigate the cause of the deaths, let alone ask question about it. Draughts
in West Papua today are the first time ever in West Papua history. No logic explanation is available as to
why this rich and fertile country is facing draughts and deaths of many living beings.
5. The widespread cases of HIV/AIDS infection that alarmingly higher than the average increase of
HIV/AIDS cases in Indonesia and Asia raises yet another question: “Why do Papuans, those who do not
change their partners, or practice prostitution in the same way as those in Java Island being infected by
this virus?” If this is not a deliberate attempt to wipe out Papuans from their land, then what is the true
answer? If Indonesia can openly open fire and kill, can’t they choose such as safer and more discrete
way of killing off the peoples in West Papua?
6. Current diarrhoea cases in Paniai Regency also suggests a strong indication and suspicion that there is
actually someone carrying out such operations, as a deliberate attempt to wipe out the population in the
central highlands of West Papua.
West Papua has become the great threat to the Indonesia’s image in the Islam world. Transmigration
programme has brought about significant increase of Moslem population in this Melanesian soil. They are
also already coming into the Pacific countries under the names of refugees, displaced peoples,
transmigration and such.
Their great mission is to unify all Melanesian countries under the Islamic Kingdom of Indonesia.
Therefore, the claim by certain Pacific Islands countries that the independence of West Papua will
destabilise the Pacific is merely based on business interests in this richest mineral resources country in the
world today. Allowing Indonesia to occupy the territory is just the same as allowing the Islamic crusade to
sweep across the Pacific archipelago to fulfil the mission of the Indonesian founding fathers’ map and at the
same time the imperialists to extract mineral resources from this Melanesian soil.
Besides, Indonesia’s infamous transmigration programme funded by the World Bank, based on the
Rome Joint Statement that began in 1967 has proven to be a policy to wipe out Melanesian peoples from
their own land, and to take over their lands. Formal, informal, and so-called professional transmigrants are
still pouring into West Papua. The total population of immigrants is about to outnumber the Papuans. This
reality seriously threatens the very existence of Papuans as Melanesian peoples. And the threat is already
spreading across the Pacific Islands and Oceania. For sure, no one can argue about it this matter of fact
facing the Pacific Rim today.
5) Conclusions
Otsus does not Represent a Solution to the Problems

It is unwise and time consuming to list every action violating the spirits of Otsus Bill; therefore, it does
make sense to conclude that in fact Indonesia is not doing enough or is unwilling to do its best to comply to
its own Otsus Bill as well as showing good political will to resolve political problems in West Papua. 50
Even though pressures from various parties inside and overseas being put on Indonesia to fully and
comprehensively implement the Otsus, Indonesia has chosen to ignore and is following the path of former
rulers: military build ups, militia recruitments and operations throughout West Papua. Of course, "Nobody
wants events to result in a military crackdown and demands for humanitarian intervention." 51
However, Anthony L. Smith rightly notes on the reality in the field that:
Despite the great gains that Indonesia's new devolution of power has delivered to the Papuans, human rights have
barely improved since authoritarian times. The lesson that the Indonesian military appears unwilling to learn is that
this ongoing violence v helps reinforce an increasingly robust independence sentiment. 52
In other words, it is not difficult to argue that Otsus for West Papua has failed, if not pending; and that
ignoring the failure without doing anything about it is the most damaging policy that all Pacific Islands’
leaders and the international community had ever taken.
Thus it is valid and reasonable to propose what Sullivan has suggested that that the involvement of the
international community is crucial, if the Otsus is to be successful. If not, he admits that Otsus is not the
final solution, but a referendum on the future of West Papua is the most viable option for resolving the
conflicts.
The position of the international community is also important. Many States welcomed, and encouraged, Otsus as a
means of satisfying Papua's legitimate grievances while also maintaining the territorial integrity of Indonesia. If this
'middle way' of Otsus fails then, eventually, the international community might be confronted with the choice of
acquiescing in highly unsatisfactory, if not repressive, Indonesian rule in Papua or supporting a genuine act of self-
determination for the territory. The international community would rather not have to make such a choice. If Otsus
was fully implemented, respected and developed to its maximum potential the international community would
probably not have to. Consequently, the international community may have a role, at this stage, in seeking to
persuade Indonesia to revert to an autonomy strategy and properly implement Otsus. 53
Thus, Otsus is rather an Illusion of the International Community being Imposed to the Indonesian
Government
It appears more likely that there was a great expectation by the international community that
Indonesia would follow the examples set by the British government in handling the differences of
50 W. Papua, bone of contention between govt and Papuans, by Muninggar Sri Saraswati, The Jakarta Post, Jakarta, Nov
29, 2004, 23:19 [http://www.westpapuanews.com/articles/publish/article_1530.shtml]

51 Council Commission Urges Immediate implementation of Special Autonomy Plan by Indonesian Government, by
CFR-WPNews, May 7, 2003, 05:41 [http://www.westpapuanews.com/articles/publish/article_1462.shtml]

52 Violence in Papua: The Role of Military Elements in Perpetuating Violence, By Anthony L. Smith,
http://www.westpapua.net/cases/hr/hr2002.htm
53 Ibid.
socio-cultural and historical backgrounds among the Scottish, Welsh and Irish peoples within the
United Kingdom of Great Britain. Some experts were sent to West Papua as well as Jakarta in order
to give advice on how to handle the disintegrating situation across the archipelago.
On the contrary, Indonesia has found for the first time, foreigners beginning to interfere into
the internal affairs of its governance. Therefore, the Indonesian government officials viewed
various constructive inputs with suspicion and as a consequence, they have been reluctant and even
resistant to implement the advice in regard to special autonomy in West Papua. The Pacific Island
Forum’s communiqués as well as public statements by the international community have been
demanding Indonesia to fully, immediately and unconditionally implement the Otsus laws. What
Indonesia has done so far is just the contrary to the demand: it has divided the province, postponed
the implementation but set up more regencies and districts which means deployment of more
organic and non-organic military and police forces into West Papua, intimidation, terror and
deliberate delays in delivering the Otsus funding to carry out activities in the field. Major political
reason of the reluctance has been that the money might be used for the independence movement.
The technical reason has been that the local government officials are corrupt and unable to manage
the huge amount of money properly as expected by Jakarta.
Thus, it is clear that the argument of the international community that Otsus is the way to settle
the political conflicts between Jakarta and West Papua is obviously not a solution but rather an
illusion, simply because Indonesia is unwilling to see West Papua becomes autonomous. This
clearly threatens the interests of the international community.
C. Credibility of the AFC 1969: Current Revelations

After 35 years of total cover up of the secretive political manoeuvres, recent National Security Archives of the USA
government revealed the truth of the AFC 1969. 54 This revelation was reported widely by various news agencies in
the world. 55
This report is the milestone in support to what Papuan peoples have been saying so far, and the
strongest evidence besides the findings of Dr. Saltford and Dr. Meijer, the fact that the AFC 1969 was not
more than a farce, illegal, fraudulent and therefore needs a re-examination into the process of the Act.
54 Indonesia's 1969 Takeover of West Papua Not by "Free Choice" - Document Release Marks 35th Anniversary of
Controversial Vote and Annexation: Secret Files Show U.S. Support for Indonesia, Human Rights Abuses by Indonesian Military,
Edited by Brad Simpson [http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/index.html] and also [http://www.westpapua.net/cases/legal/AFC-
Declasified.doc]
55 Declassified U.S. Papers Spark Indonesian Rebuke, By Alan Sipress, The Washington Post, Sunday, July 18, 2004.
[http://www.westpapua.net/cases/legal/afc-1969.htm]
1. News Reports on the AFC 1969

Recent report of the UN Security Archives is undoubtedly the strongest and highly justifiable proof that in fact the
AFC 1969 in West Papua was in fact a total sham, a pure violation of the democratic, legal and human rights
principles ever recognised by our civilised and democratic world.
This revelation is against the position of Indonesia as presented in a briefing paper by the Directorate of
International Organizations, Department for Foreign Affairs of the Indonesian Government that reads “The
implementation of the act of self-determination was carried out democratically and in a transparent manner
by involving the people of Irian Jaya by way of consultation on the method of the act of free choice. 56
Another news report was from Hugh Lunn, the only foreign journalist to be present at the time of AFC
1969 in West Papua writes:
that the selection he witnessed consisted of a group of Indonesians walking into a silent crowd of Papuans and
choosing six men that they themselves had selected. He then described how Indonesian soldiers arrested three
Papuans who displayed placards demanding a plebiscite. One journalist appealed to Ortiz Sanz to intervene, but
he simply said that he was there just to observe [Hugh Lunn article in The Australian newspaper, August
21,1999]. 57
This report agrees with current revelation by CV Narasimhan, vi the retired UN Under-Secretary-
General who was central to the UN’s involvement in 1960’s West Papua has now publicly spoken out on the
Act of Free Choice. In an interview with the AP journalist Slobodan Lekic he confessed:
It was just a whitewash. The mood at the United nations was to get rid of this problem as quickly as
possible…Nobody gave a thought to the fact that there were a million people there who had their fundamental
human rights trampled…How could anyone have seriously believed that all voters unanimously decided to join his
[Suharto’s] regime?…Unanimity like that is unknown in democracies. [Published in an article by Lekic in the
Sydney Morning Herald, 23/11/01 “Historic Vote was a Sham: Ex-UN Chiefs Admit”]. 58
2. Witnesses Accounts Regarding the AFC 1969

Various interviews were carried out by independent campaigners in West Papua. In all interviews, it
became apparent that most of the voters were in fact handpicked by Indonesians themselves, without asking
the peoples. All of them reported that no one of them was elected in a public meeting.
Mr. KK was one of those handpicked. He recalled what happened during that time as follows:
At that time, I was in my village, working my garden and looking after my pigs. Some weeks, or perhaps months
before that, we saw white people, the same colour of skin and hair came to our village. They all had machine guns.
Sometime later, maybe within months or weeks, another type of people came. Their skin was darker, but not like
ours. Their hair was black in colour. Later on, we knew that they were Indonesians.
Those Indonesians also came in with machine guns, but friendlier than the ones that came before, the white
man.
56 The History of the Return of Irian Jaya (West Papua) to Indonesia, Directorate of International Organizations,
Department for Foreign Affairs [http://www.westpapua.net/docs/history-indo.htm]
57 Ibid.
58 BRIEFING re: call on Kofi Annan to review the UN's conduct in relation to the Act of 'Free' Choice in West Papua in
1968-1969 - Background to the United Nations Involvement in West Papua (Irian Jaya), by Dr. John Saltford, 2002.
They came and told me to go and stay with them in their tent. Some days later, other people joined and we all
stayed in the tent. A few days later, they taught us some Indonesian words and sentences. The sentences that I
still remember until now are such as, “Saya mau Indonesia. Saya suka Indonesia. Belanda keluar, Indonesia
tetap.”vii
They did the drilling exercise for some weeks. Sometime later, the drilling teacher asked us to come forward and
read the sentences out. Everyone was illiterate, but we memorised all the sentences. More than 10 persons failed
the final exam, because they could not memorise the sentences. Only a few memorised these sentences very well
and read them out perfectly. They told four of us to stay and ordered the rests to go back home.
They continued the drilling exercises, as well as simulation of the AFC. Some Indonesians acted as security
personnel, some as the UN staff members, others as observers. Then we were asked to go forward and read
those sentences. Other times, they did not ask us to go forward, but just to stand up and read the sentences.
We were then flown to Wamena town. On the way, for the first time in my lifetime to fly on the air, we were
shown the moving scenes on the ground. One of those Indonesians stood up and warned, “If you forget the
sentences, you will thrown down to the ground, from this moving machine. Do you get it? Do you understand?” All
nodded in agreement, but all were so scared.
When we arrived in Wamena, all other people were already inside the building. We were all brought into the
building, and we were seated. As soon as we entered the hall, the Indonesian language teacher sat down beside
us and pointed fingers on us to stand up and read out the sentences. 59
This eyewitness account is just one example of many others, to set the light on what actually happened
leading up to the AFC 1969 in West Papua.
In Fak-Fak region, one person was shot dead when he refused Indonesian occupation over West
Papua. viii In Port Numbay, many were killed even before the AFC took place. The commander in chief of the
pro-independence operations that carried out mass murder of Papuan nationalists was the Late Ondofolo
Theys Eluay himself. He was the key playmaker during the AFC 1969. That was the major reason why
Indonesia killed him, as his first demand was to revisit the history of West Papua’s annexation into
Indonesia.
3. Research Findings on the AFC 1969

For the Papuan peoples, the conflict in West Papua is not based on the classic ethno-political base, but it has
more to do with legal, democratic and human rights principles. The question is “Was the AFC 1969 in West
Papua carried out in accordance with the principles and conditions laid out in the New York Agreement 1969?”
Indonesia claims the whole process of the AFC 1969 was democratically and legally justified, “The
whole process of the act of free choice involved the participation, assistance, and advice of the United
Nations and in turn was acknowledged by the international community (the United Nations General
Assembly),” 60 however, a British Scholar, Dr. John Saltford’s doctoral study on the UN’s Role in the AFC
1969 concludes the opposite:
I would contend that … this does not require an in-depth study of the subject to arrive at an accurate conclusion.
A brief examination of the official November 1969 report is all that is needed to conclude that the Agreement was
not fulfilled. Under its terms, the Netherlands, Indonesia and the UN had an obligation to protect the political
59 Interview conducted by the writer in December 2000.

60 Ibid.
rights and freedoms of the Papuans, and to ensure that an act of self-determination took place, in accordance
with international practice. On both these points, the three parties failed, and they did so deliberately since
genuine Papuan self-determination was never seen as an option by any of them once the Agreement was
signed. 61
Similar to Dr. Saltford’s, Powes Parkop argues that the AFC failed to comply with the UN Declaration
on Decolonisation that upheld “the need to pay regard to the freely expressed will of the peoples"
…Principle ix of Resolution 1514 (xv) part (a) and:
These principles were profoundly breached by what happened in West Papua from the moment Indonesia took
over the country's administration. The adequate preparation of the people and their institutions and the manner in
which the so-called AFC was conducted should render the exercise and its subsequent outcome void in
international law as it clearly violates the principle of the United Nations. In any event the exercise that was forced
upon the West Papuans without their consent and participation. 62
This conclusion is in line with the report of Dr. Fernando Ortiz-Sanz (UN Secretary-General
Representative to West Papua during the AFC 1969 in West Papua) explained his views that in fact he was
not fully satisfied with the process and outcome of the AFC 1969. Recently, before he passed away, he
commented that the AFC was conducted in favour of Indonesia, and therefore, if there was a demand for a
referendum, then it does make sense. This confirms his report to the UN in 1969, “The tour has confirmed
my initial impressions ... that the implementation of the provisions of the New York Agreement relating to
self-determination "in accordance with international practice" is, indeed, impossible.” 63
In other words, he agrees with both Parkop and Saltford’s conclusions that the AFC 1969 was not
carried out in accordance with the international practice, because it was “indeed, impossible”. ix This goes in
line with Narasimhan's [U Thant's Indian chef de cabinet] acknowledgement that the AFC 1969 in West
Papua was a sham, 64 as quoted before. Dr. Ortiz-Sanz himself already recognised the fraud:
I regret to have to express my reservation regarding the implementation of article XXII of the New York Agreement,
relating to “the rights, including the rights of free speech, freedom of movement and assembly, of the inhabitants of
the area”. In spite of my constant efforts, this important provision was not fully implemented and the Administration
exercised at all times a tight political control over the population. 65
Another senior UNTEA official made clear in his confidential reports that he was under no illusion as
to the real state of affairs in the UN administered territory:
I have yet to meet any thinking, sober, generally responsible Papuan who sees good in the coming link with
Indonesia…. Unwelcome as the anxiety and resistance of thinking Papuans maybe it is of course hardly surprising
if one is not under pressure to close one’s eyes to what is in fact happening to this people at the hands of the three
61 UNITED NATIONS INVOLVEMENT WITH THE ACT OF SELF-DETERMINATION IN WEST IRIAN (INDONESIAN WEST
NEW GUINEA) 1968 TO 1969, By John Saltford [http://www.westpapua.net/docs/books/book0/un_wp.doc]

62 REINSCRIPTION OF WEST PAPUA AS A COLONISED STATE AND PEOPLE, by Powes Parkop, (Master of Law)
[http://www.westpapua.net/ docs/books/book5/book5.htm]
63 Ibid.: p7.
64 Ibid.
65 UN doc. A/7723, annex I, paragraph 251, p.70. in West Papua: From Colonisation to Re-colonisation, Rumaseuw,
WestPaC-AMP, 1999. [http://www.westpapua.net/docs/books/book1/part06.htm]

parties to the Agreement. [UN Archives: DAG 13/2.1.0.1:3. Report by Rawlings (UNTEA Divisional Commissioner
Biak) to Somerville, 12 December 1962] 66
Public media, as well as eye witness accounts and academic findings clearly show that the AFC 1919 in
West Papua was a sham, morally, legally and democratically fraud and unjustifiable. If so, why does
Indonesia the following remarks?
It was clear that the PEPERA as the implementation of the act of free choice was not legally flawed. A unilateral
interpretation and misinterpretation of the New York Agreement and attempts to twist perceptions that the New
York Agreement had to exercise ‘one man, one vote’ system was certainly not justified and not true to the fact? 67
3. Dutch Government Commissioned Study Documents Indonesia's Coerced Annexation of West

Papua
Written by Dr Pieter Drooglever of the Institute of Netherlands History, the 740-page Een Daad van Vrije Keuze
(An Act of Free Choice), leaves little doubt that the vote was, as the UN under-secretary general in 1969,
Chakravarthy Narasimhan, said in a 2001 interview, "a whitewash". 68
Publication of a five-year study commissioned by the Dutch government at the request of the
Dutch Parliament, by eminent Dutch academic Professor Pieter Drooglever, documents the fraud
perpetrated by the Indonesian government that resulted in
West Papua's illegal, forced annexation by Indonesia. The research details the international
politics that led key governments to support the annexation, notwithstanding Indonesia’s failure to
abide by democratic principles or the terms of the agreement among the Netherlands and UN
regarding an "Act of Free Choice" for Papuans.
International reaction to the Drooglever study has been intense. While the Indonesian
government has sought to dismiss it as inconsequential "academic research," most observers
contend the conspiracy which abrogated Papuans’ right to selfdetermination warrants remedial
action.
The Sydney Morning Herald editorialized strongly:
“There is always merit in setting the record straight, no matter how much time has passed. For the Indonesian
province of Papua, it has been a long and bloody 36-year wait. The Papuans have refused to accept the "Act of
Free Choice" by which they supposedly voted to join Indonesia in 1969. A report commissioned by the Dutch
government, the former colonial ruler in Indonesia, unequivocally vindicates their stance. The resource-rich
territory of Papua was not included when the Dutch handed over their colonial territories to a new Indonesian
nation after World War II. Instead, the Papuans – who share no religious or cultural ties with majority Muslim
Indonesia – were promised a popular ballot on independence. But a mere 1,000 or so Papuans participated in a
66 Ibid.
67 Ibid.
68 The Netherlands and Indonesia are not happy with a study that questions their actions over West Papuan
sovereignty, writes John Aglionby. The Guardian.co.uk, Tuesday November 29, 2005
‘sham’ rigged vote orchestrated by Jakarta, the report says. The result has been a protracted, debilitating
independence struggle, pitting a vicious Indonesian army against ill-equipped Papuan tribes.”
While the Sydney Morning Herald only appeals for an end to Indonesian repression and provision of
genuine autonomy to West Papua, other observers have intensified ongoing efforts to persuade the UN to
review its tacit 1969 acceptance of the fraudulent "Act of Free Choice." Among Papuans, calls for a genuine
referendum under strict UN monitoring are growing stronger."[The UN representative] Ortiz Sanz was not
allowed to play any part in putting together the electorate and was given the smallest possible role in the
implementation of the referendum itself," Dr Drooglever wrote in an English summary of the Dutch-
language book.
"In the opinion of the Western observers and the Papuans who have spoken out about this, the
Act of Free Choice ended up as a sham, where a press-ganged electorate acting under a great deal
of pressure appeared to have unanimously declared itself in favour of Indonesia," he continued.
D. Three Root Causes of the Fraudulent AFC 1969

If we know that the AFC 1969 in West Papua was a fraud, why was it allowed to happen, or why had there been
no one in the world ever voiced his or her concern over the act? Why these three states as champions of
democracy and human rights with their United Nations Organisation ignored the plight due to the violation of
legal, democratic and human rights principles?
There are at least three major open reasons for the case, namely the Cold War whitewash, the Economic
Interest in rich resources in the territory, and finally due to the Indonesia’s narrow minded nationalist view
that all Dutch East Indies territories must be the new Indonesian state. 69 These three points were the true
underlying reasons for the game, but the rhetoric on the table was different, i.e., it was because West Papua
was still under-developed, and her peoples were still living in primitive lifestyle, and therefore they need
Indonesia to carry out development activities within 25 years. x
1. West Papua, Cold War and War on Terror

If the AFC was a “deliberate” attempt to whitewash the case, then what was the cause? What was the language
on the table and under the table?
Dr. John Saltford’s doctoral study presents the answer for one of the under-the-table games:
In 1961 this campaign had become a matter of some concern to the newly elected President J.F. Kennedy… he
was more prepared than his predecessor to seek a resolution to the dispute. Policy makers in Washington were
concerned about Jakarta’s massive Soviet backed increase in military expenditure. 70
69 Views & Perspectives: Facts on Indonesia's Sovereignty over Irian Jaya, Questions and Answers No. 2, Permanent
Mission of the Republic of Indonesia to the United Nations in New York, April 2001.
[http://www.westpapua.net/faqs.htm#Perspectives]
70 Ibid.
As Rumaseuw cites, the world politicians were, in their pursuit of getting Indonesia out of the
communist grip, not interested in the wish of West Papua or her peoples. Expressions below explain their
views on West Papua during 1960-1969:
R. Komer, a former CIA agent who was assigned as White House Senior Staff, in his November 1961 memo to
Australia stated, "THE PROPOSITION THAT A PRO-BLOC, IF NOT COMMUNIST INDONESIA, IS AN
INFINITELY GREATER THREAT TO THEM AND TO US, THAN TO INDO POSSESSION OF A FEW
THOUSANDS MILES OF CANNIBAL LAND."
The Australian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sir G. Barwick, to his counterpart Joseph Luns of the Netherlands, in
response to ALP views stated: " I DON'T THINK LABOUR PEOPLE HAD MUCH DISAGREEMENT... THEY
WERE DECOLONISING 'BUGGS' WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE CONSEQUENCES." 71
Besides these expressions, President John F. Kennedy sent letters to the Dutch Foreign Minister,
forcing him to co-operate with the US policies in allowing West Papua to be taken over by Indonesia. 72 It
is, thus, not difficult to conclude that the Cold War contributed significant impact on the decisions made by
the UN, USA, the Netherlands and Australia to allow the handover of West Papua to Indonesia as soon as
possible, through whatever way as possible. West Papua’s re-colonisation was not more than just a cold-war
sell out.
The war against communism has sacrificed West Papua. And today, the war against terrorism should
not repeat the same mistake. There is, thus, an urgent need for the international community to bring to an
end the acts of terror by the Indonesian armed forces, the police as well as various Islamic militia groups in
West Papua. The East Timor-style militia build-up across the border between West Papua and Papua New
Guinea as well as Wamena, the Bird’s head region and Timika under various names such as the Red-and-
White militia, Pemuda Pancasila and Laskar Jihad clearly threatens the peace and stability across
Melanesian archipelago, if not across Pacific Island countries.
Some countries in the Pacific region argue that the independence of West Papua can destabilise the
region. However, in the war against terrorism, the message is clear: allowing Indonesia to occupy one of the
Pacific Islands countries actually means allowing terrorist networks and activities to spread over the Pacific
region.
Ignoring the fact of the failure of Otsus in West Papua will not only sacrifice the future peace and
security in West Papua, but also the fate of the peace and security in the Pacific Rim. There are already
enough indications for us to argue that the absence of international intervention while at the same time
recognising the failure of Otsus is an act of suicide by Pacific Island nations and Oceania.
2. West Papua’s Rich Natural Resources

The second point of the under-the-table game was the rich natural resources in West Papua that played a
71 West Papua: from COLONISATION to RECOLONISATION, X 1414, GF990/402, by J. O. Rumaseuw, The WestPaC,
1999 [http://www.westpapua.net/docs/books/book1/part03.htm]
72 Letter from President Kennedy to Joseph Lun. [http://www.westpapua.net/docs/books/book2/part04a.htm].
significant role in attracting foreign interventions into West Papua’s political future. Today and even tomorrow, the
question on who is allowed to extract the natural resources of the territory becomes the major factor that
determines the fate of West Papua.
The US interest in exploiting West Papua’s resources became the main objective besides getting rid of
communism from Indonesia. Rumaseuw quotes revelation of this reality as stated by the Indonesian Prime
Minister/Minister of Information in 1963:
....You all know, that our president in his recent vacation in Japan,…, also spared his time to settle Oil Business
with the Americans.. It could be proven that when in Japan, President Kennedy has sent him a delegation to settle
the oil business. So, what was said by dr. Satrio, was true, that the Indonesian nation is now really lurked by the
foreign nations
....colonialism is originate by capitalism. What is capitalism? Is it trade capitalism? This type of capitalism is cruel.
Is it industrial capitalism, it won't be so cruel. IS IT FINANCE-CAPITALISM, NAMELY CAPITAL INVESTMENT IS
MORE CRUEL BECAUSE THE POLICY FOR EXPLOITATION WILL NOT BE CONSIDERED BASED ON THE
WILL OF THE RESOURCES OWNERS, BUT WILL BE DECIDED BASED ON EVERY OBJECTIVE FACTOR
AVAILABLE WITHIN EACH INVESTING COUTRY RESPECTIVELY. 73
The state-owned US giant Freeport MacMoRan Copper & Gold, Inc. signed an agreement on 10
January 1967, 74 followed by the signing of the First Contract of Work (CoW I) on 7 April 1967, i.e., two
years ahead of the AFC 1969. The CoW I is connected directly to the back-door lobbies by the US political
engineer, Mr. Elsworth Bunker, who proposed the draft of the New York Agreement 1962 and the Rome
Joint Statement (1963, 1969), in which the US was given full rights to extract West Papua’s natural
resources without any limit in terms of time or amount of the resources to be extracted.
Rumaseuw’s paper interestingly and in detail presents the map of connections between the USA
business interests: the Kennedy brothers’ business circles, the Allan Pope incident, (1957) the Rockefeller’s
incident (1961), UN Secretary-General, HommarksjÖld assassination (1961), the Dutch Zilstra’s
assassination (1962), and up to the assassination of a people and state called West Papua (1969). 75
Similar to the 1960’s foreign interests that sacrificed West Papua’s fate, Otsus that began in 2002 was
also imposed under pressure from the foreign powers, based on the same business interests, undermining the
aspiration of Papuan peoples to democratically and peacefully review the previous conspiracy that brought
about the unlawful handover of West Papua to Indonesia. 76
These events justify what Ali Murtopo, the man in charge of handling Papuan nationalists during AFC
1969, once said,
73 Rumaseuw, 1999. op.cit.: [http://www.westpapua.net/docs/books/book1/part04.htm] A detailed information on the
connection between business interest and the violation of Papuans’ national rights presented in WestPaC-AMP Paper: West Papua:
The Case We Knew, by Rumaseuw, WestPaC-AMP, 2001, [http://www.westpapua.net/docs/books/book3/part03.htm]
74 West Papua: From Colonisation to Re-Colonisation, by Rumaseuw, WestPaC-AMP, 1999.
[http://www.westpapua.net/docs/books/book1/part04.htm]
75 West Papua: The Case We Knew, op.cit.. [http://www.westpapua.net/docs/books/book3/part03.htm]
76 WPPRO Report on Meeting with British Foreign Office and West Papuan Representatives, Dr. John Otto Ondawame,
2004. [http://www.westpapua.net/docs/paper11/wppro04.doc]
Brigadier General Ali Murtopo harangued the Papuan Nationalists in Jayapura for two hours and told them that:
"JAKARTA WAS NOT INTERESTED IN THEM AS PAPUANS, BUT IN WEST IRIAN AS A TERRITORY. IF THEY
WANTED TO BE INDEPENDENT THEY HAD BETTER ASKED GOD TO FIND THEM AN ISLAND IN THE
PACIFIC WHERE THEY COULD EMIGRATE, OR MAY THEY WRITE TO THE AMERICANS AND ASK IF THEY
WOULD BE GOOD ENOUGH TO FIND THEM A PLACE ON THE MOON. 77
An open prayer of father in the highlands of West Papua,
“God, take away all gold, copper, oil, gas, timber, fish, all plants and animals that make this Island rich, and give us
back our independence. Those foreigners that need all that you put here in West Papua; those are not what we are
asking for. Take them all out and put them in their countries, and give us what we are asking for now.” 78
3. Indonesia’s Dutch East Indies as the New Indonesia?

Indonesia has repeatedly claimed that West Papua has been under the Dutch Colonial Map, part of the Dutch
East Indies, and therefore, decolonisation of Indonesia should include the territory of West Papua. 79 This has
been the only reason used by Indonesia so far, besides her interest on the rich natural resources in the territory.
This was also the underlining reason why West Papua’s annexation into Indonesia was not regarded as
a “returning back” to Indonesia, rather than a “re-colonisation” of it. This view was expressed all over Asia.
That was the reason why the New York Agreement of 1962 was signed between the Netherlands and
Indonesia, by excluding any representative or organisation from West Papua.
West Papuan peoples have objections on this argument due to at least five reasons: first, historically,
they were not involved any activities during the Indonesian independence struggles and in the formation of
the United States of Indonesia at that time. During the pre-independence period, no West Papuan
Representatives took part in the Indonesian Independence Researching Body's activities. During the Post-
Independence Sovereignty Defence Struggles of Indonesia (1945-1949), no West Papuan militias took part
in the Indonesian guerrilla war against the Netherlands. At the time when Indonesia declared independence,
West Papua was freed by the Allied Forces in 1944 (1 year prior to the Indonesian independence- and
reverted to the Netherlands Indies Civil Administration).
Secondly, the status and name of West Papua, under the Dutch law, was separate and different from the
rests of Indonesia. West Papua was not called the Netherlands East Indies, but it was named the Netherlands
New Guinea. Moreover, the territory had a separate Governor General, not under the control of Governor
General based in Batavia.
The third argument is that when the Kingdom of the Netherlands recognised the sovereignty of
Indonesia on 27th December 1949, West Papua was not mentioned as the territory of Indonesia. Thus, both
the declaration of Independence of Indonesia on 17th August 1945 and consequently recognition by the
77 WEST PAPUA: From Colonisation to Recolonisation, by Glen O. Rumaseuw, WestPaC-AMP, 1999.

78 Open Prayer in front of the author and about 500 peoples in Wamena, West Papua, 10th June, 2000.
79 Views & Perspectives, Facts on Indonesia's Sovereignty over Irian Jaya, Questions and Answers No. 2.
[http://www.westpapua.net/faqs.htm#Perspectives]
Dutch excluded West Papua as the territory of Indonesia. West Papua was in fact listed under the UN
Decolonization List as a Non-Self-Governing Territory projected to become fully independent eventually. If
West Papua was to be part of Indonesia, then the Dutch should have recognised the territory once it
recognised the Republic of the United States of Indonesia.
Another reason is related to common understanding that West Papuan peoples are Melanesians
(Melasoid) and Indonesians are Mongoloids & Melayo-Polynesians/ Austronesians. West Papua is a
traditional Nation (Homogenous); fulfilling the second prerequisite for Self-Determination under the UNGA
Resolution 1541).
The last argument is that West Papua is a separate territory, separated from Indonesia by the sea, and
ethnically and geographically part of Melanesia. West Papua is a geographically connected to Australia by
the Sahul Shelf (Separated from Indonesia by Australasia deep waters); fulfilling the second prerequisite for
Self-Determination under the UNGA Resolution 1541.
Dr. Mohammad Hatta, the first vice-President of Indonesia, also presented these historical,
geographical and anthropological justifications. In 1949, when the Round Table Conference held in The
Hague, the Netherlands, Dr. Hatta once said:
PERSOONLIJK WENS IK TE VERKLAREN DAT WEST IRIAN MIJ NIETS KAN SCHELEN. IK ERKEN DAT OOK
HET PAPOEA-VOLK HET RECHT HEEFT EEN VRIJE NATIE TE WORDEN. [Personally, I would like to declare
that I have nothing to do with West Irian. I realised that West Papuans as a People have the right TO BECOMING
A FREE NATION.] 80
This statement solely reflected Mr. Hatta's personal views based on a pure scholar's objectivity
(anthropologically, ethnologically, geographically, historically, politically, and legally).
Thus, it is obvious that West Papua was not in any way, party to the Republic of the United States of
Indonesia at that time. Therefore, West Papua’s occupation by the Dutch as well as Indonesian history
cannot in anyway be justified to claim West Papua as part of Indonesia.
4. West Papua Development as the Reason of Hand-Over

Inadequacy of political, economic, and social or educational preparedness should never serve as pretext for
delaying independence. 81
The above quote is according the world’s political rhetoric under the name of the UNGA Declaration
on the Granting of Independence to Colonial Countries and Peoples, No.1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960.
On the ground in West Papua, the only on-the-table (or open) reason for handing over West Papua to
80 West Papua: From Colonisation to Re-Colonisation, by Rumaseuw, WestPaC-AMP, 1999.

81 UNGA DECLARATION ON THE GRANTING OF INDEPENDENCE TO THE COLONIAL COUNTRIES AND PEOPLES.
A/RES/1514 (XV) 14 DECEMBER 1960. [http://www.westpapua.net/docs/books/book3/part06.htm]

Indonesia was that West Papua and her peoples were still underdeveloped, primitive, and still in the stone-
age; that the people had no clue of democracy whatsoever, therefore, they need Indonesia to develop and
organise a democratic self-determination. Thus, both geographic characteristics and the condition of the
peoples at that time became reasons for world leaders to compromise with whatever Indonesia wanted to do.
This is a serious violation to point 3 of the above Resolution.
The report by the UN Secretary-General Representative to West Papua clarifies this sort of view:
"with limitations imposed by the geographical characteristics of the territory and the general political situation in the
area, an act of free choice has take place in West Irian, in accordance with Indonesian practice in which the
representatives of the population expressed they wished to remain with Indonesia." 82
This report conveys two reasons for the compromise, i.e., the characteristics of the territory and the
general political situation in the area.” For the first reason, it is worth noted how three years later (in 1972),
the Indonesian Government successfully conducted the first General Election in West Papua that involved
nearly every Papuan in the territory, regardless of the existence of the same abovementioned conditions and
situation.
Besides admitting the geographic characteristics, it also mentions “general political situation in the
area.” This “general political situation in the area” had something to do with what Dr. Ortiz-Sans had openly
acknowledged in his report to the UNGA 1969:
I regret to have to express my reservation regarding the implementation of article XXII of the New York Agreement,
relating to “the rights, including the rights of free speech, freedom of movement and assembly, of the inhabitants of
the area”. In spite of my constant efforts, this important provision was not fully implemented and the Administration
exercised at all times a tight political control over the population. 83
In fact, the self-determination for West Papua had nothing to do with West Papua being
underdeveloped or the peoples being primitive. If the UN as the supervising body during the AFC 1969 were
ever committed to ensure its resolutions/ declarations not to be violated, this would have not been the reason
for the compromise. The principle of Paragraph 2 the Declaration, "All peoples have the right to self-
determination; by virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their
economics, social and cultural development" 84 was in fact yet again, violated.
The following excerpts of comments by the key political players during that time exemplify why the
compromise was allowed to happen or accepted without reservation:
When Kennedy met the Dutch, he bluntly said that 'WEST NEW GUINEA WAS NOT A PART OF THE WORLD
WHERE GREAT POWERS SHOULD BE 'RATIONALLY ENGAGED'"
In expressing his views to Dr. van Roijen, then Dutch Ambassador to the U.S., Kennedy said, "...THOSE
PAPUANS OF YOURS ARE SOME 700,000 AND LIVING IN THE STONE AGE."
82 Ibid. [[http://www.westpapua.net/docs/books/book1/part06.htm]
83 UN doc. A/7723, annex I, paragraph 251, p.70. in West Papua: From Colonisation to Re-colonisation, Rumaseuw,
WestPaC-AMP, 1999. [http://www.westpapua.net/docs/books/book1/part06.htm]
84 West Papua: A Scandal in the UN Decolonisation History, WestPaC-AMP, 1999.
R. Komer, a former CIA agent who was assigned as White House Senior Staff, in his November 1961 memo to
Australia stated, "THE PROPOSITION THAT A PRO-BLOC, IF NOT COMMUNIST INDONESIA, IS AN
INFINITELY GREATER THREAT TO THEM AND TO US, THAN TO INDO POSSESSION OF A FEW
THOUSANDS MILES OF CANNIBAL LAND."
The Australian Minister of Foreign Affairs, Sir G. Barwick, to his counterpart Joseph Luns of the Netherlands, in
response to ALP views stated: " I DON'T THINK LABOUR PEOPLE HAD MUCH DISAGREEMENT... THEY
WERE DECOLONISING 'BUGGS' WITHOUT CONSIDERING THE CONSEQUENCES." 85
As usual in the world politics, there is a striking difference between what was written, and what was
said and done in the field.
5. Conclusion
The four possible causes above give us enough clues why it was West Papua that did not obtain enough
assistance and attention from democratic society of the world and especially the UN itself.
Whether West Papua was sacrificed for winning the Cold War or due to vested interest to exploit her
rich natural resources, or due to the fixed Dutch colonial map of Netherlands East Indies or because of the
geographical characteristics and general political situation in the area at that time or even because the people
were still primitive and had no clue of democracy is not the reason to debate today.
The bone of contention to the conflict and the root cause for the continuing resistance of the Papuan
peoples against Indonesia occupation since 1960s have nothing to do with who was involved in the AFC
1969 and why the re-colonisation had happened in the way it happened; but rather it has to do with “how”
that re-colonisation or annexation or integration of West Papua was conducted in the eyes of world leaders
of the countries who claim to be the champions of human rights and democracy.
E. Proofs of the Violation of the Rights of Papuan Peoples

If Papuan peoples’ claim that violations did happen during the handing over of West Papua to Indonesia
to be true and justifiable, then there should be proofs to that claim.
1. Violation of the Provisions of the New York Agreement of 15 August 1961

The first proof that can be conveyed is the fact that New York Agreement of 15 August 1962 were
fundamentally violated. Dr. John Salford’s briefing paper 86 in support to the campaign for a UN internal
review on the AFC 1996 pinpoints four major violations against the Agreement.
The first one was Article 22 in which the UN and Indonesia had to guarantee fully the rights, including
the rights of free speech, freedom of movement and of assembly of the Papuans. Eyewitness account above
85 West Papua: from COLONISATION to RECOLONISATION, X 1414, GF990/402, by J. O. Rumaseuw, The West Papuan
Community, 1999 [http://www.westpapua.net/docs/books/book1/part03.htm]
1968-1969. [http://www.westpapua.net//action/03/afc-briefing.htm]
clearly indicates the opposite to this provision. Furthermore, what Ortiz-Sans said and news report justify
that there was no rights to free speech, there was no freedom of movement and assembly.
The second proof is related to Article 18, which stipulates, “all adult Papuans had the right to
participate in an act of self-determination to be carried out in accordance with international practice.” It does
not require further research to proof that this article was also violated. According to current library research,
it was found out that there were only 1,022 appointees (982 men + 40 women); participated in the so-called
Act of Free Choice. 87 However, this source does not comment on one who was shot dead in Wayati Village
of Fak-Fak Region.
Another proof to show the violation of New York Agreement provision is Article 16, which says, “a
number of UN experts were to remain in the territory following the transfer of administrative responsibility
to Indonesia. Their primary task was to advise and assist the Indonesians in their preparations for Papuan
self-determination that was to take place before the end of 1969.” The acknowledgement of Ortis-Sanz as
well as other UN officials during that time in previous sections are already enough to justify that what
happened during the AFC 1969 was in serious violation to the provisions of the Agreement.
Finally, and similar violation to Article 16, in fact Article 17 was also violated seriously. Article 17 of
the Agreement says, “one year prior to self-determination, the Secretary-General was to appoint a
representative who would lead a team of UN officials including those already stationed in the territory and
additional staff as required. Their task was to continue and build on the work outlined in Article 16 and
remain until the act of self-determination was complete.”
Regarding this obvious violation, Saltford notes:

In August 1968, Fernando Ortiz Sanz arrived in West Papua as the Secretary General’s representative to advise,
assist and participate in Article 18’s Indonesian-organized act of self-determination (known as the “Act of Free
Choice”). He originally planned to have at least 50 UN staff on his team but, following pressure from Jakarta, the
total never exceeded 16 (including administrative personnel). As Ortiz Sanz was to mention in his final report to the
UNGA, the failure to implement Article 16 meant that he had no experienced staff ready on the ground to advise
him when he arrived. As a consequence, he had only a few months to begin the task of gathering information with
staff new to the territory – a job that should have already have been done over the previous 5 years. 88
According to Rumaseuw’s analyses on the degree of consistency in the implementation of the

New York Agreement, mst of the Articles regarding the Rights of the inhabitants of West Papua
were not fully implemented. 89
87 IRIAN BARAT, Keluarga Kesatuan: DEPPEN RI - 1969

1968-1969, 3. [http://www.westpapua.net//action/03/afc-briefing.htm]
89 Annex 9. DEGREE OF CONSISTENCY IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW YORK AGREEMENT 1962 IN WEST
PAPUA, p.52
2. Violation of the UN Declaration & Resolution on Granting Independence to Colonised Peoples and
Territories
Various facts already proven that in fact the conditions and situation of the territory and the peoples of
West Papua became the main reason for handing over West Papua to Indonesia. Such a view clearly on the
contrary of and in violation to point 3 of the UNGA Declaration on the Granting of Independence to the
Colonial Countries and Peoples. A/RES/1514 (XV) of 14 December 1960 says, “Inadequacy of political,
economic, and social or educational preparedness should never serve as pretext for delaying independence. 90
The events during the AFC 1969 in West Papua as stated in point 1. above were also clearly and
seriously violate yet another point of the above Declaration that says, “All peoples have the right to self-
determination; by virtue that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their
economic, social and cultural development.” Dr. John Saltford’s assessments as well as the
acknowledgements of officials during that time do validate the claim of the violations.
Officially Indonesia commenced its occupation of West Papua on May 01, 1963; i.e., a time difference
of 6 years and 3 months between the date the occupation was commenced and the implementation of the Act
of Free Choice on August 02, 1969. Had there been any political goodwill from the U.N., the Dutch and the
Indonesian governments to conduct a fair and democratic Act within such a length of time could absolutely
not classified as more than sufficient. 91
3. Violation of Democratic Principles in the AFC 1969

It was also clear that the Electoral Members pointed to represented the People of West Papua were picked
among those who were fighting for Integration and Indonesia's sympathisers.
The first point to reveal in reviewing democratic principles in the AFC 1969 is on how those involved
in the Act were appointed. According to international practice, representatives of the peoples should be
appointed by the peoples themselves, and the appointment should also comply with certain criteria in regards
to the representation and or proportionality of the representatives. It was clear that the appointment of the so-
called West Papuan 'People's Representatives' for the AFC Electoral Council was not conducted based on a
democratic mechanism (No Election Process). Dr. Saltford agrees that:
Indonesia rejected this and instead announced that they would use existing regional councils (which had not been
democratically elected) to decide on behalf of the people. Before the final vote, these councils were to have
additional members selected so that a planned total of 1025 Papuans would eventually take part in the Act of Free
Choice. With no plebiscite, the selection of these additional members was the only potential opportunity that the
Papuan people had to have any genuine involvement in the Act of Free Choice. 92
90UNGA DECLARATION ON THE GRANTING OF INDEPENDENCE TO THE COLONIAL COUNTRIES AND PEOPLES.
A/RES/1514 (XV) 14 DECEMBER 1960. [http://www.westpapua.net/docs/books/book3/part06.htm]
91 West Papua: A Scandal in the UN Decolonisation History, op.cit.
92 UNGA DECLARATION ON THE GRANTING OF INDEPENDENCE TO THE COLONIAL COUNTRIES AND PEOPLES.
A/RES/1514 (XV) 14 DECEMBER 1960, op.cit.

It is obvious also that the total appointees of 1,022 who participated in the AFC 1969 (consist of 982
men and 40 women) are not in any way representative of the peoples of West Papua that totalled more than
800,000 at that time.
Another point to make is the way the Act was carried out. In the Agreement, it was clearly stated that
the Act was to be carried out on the basis of “one-man, one vote.” The change over this principle was made
during the Secret Rome Agreement in 1962, which overwrote the principle that was agreed, witnessed by the
UN. There was no question raised by the UN or other democratic countries as to why the change had
happened.
Furthermore, the implementation of the Act of Free Choice was completed only in 8 (eight) days time
with a total of 33.32 man-hours. This is relatively short period of time to guarantee a fair and democratically
justifiable implementation process of the Act. 93
The last point to make is that all parties knew far before that the outcome of the AFC 1969 would be in
favour of Indonesia. Democratically, anyone can predict the outcome of a democratic process, but in this
case, major players in the AFC 1969 were fully aware of the final outcome. One proof is the signing of the
CoW I between Freeport and Indonesia on 7th April 1967. If the USA signed the CoW I two years ahead of
the AFC 1969, then it was clear enough that the USA was in favour of Indonesia to take over West Papua.
Another revelation was made by Dr. Hans Maijer, a Dutch historian who uncovered the incriminating
papers, which show that the government of the day gave tacit approval to undemocratic arrangements for the
1969 Act of Free Choice, an orchestrated vote by a small number of tribal leaders that decided the fate of the
territory. He said,
The most interesting thing about the documents are actually the minutes of the cabinet. Because the Dutch
Foreign Minister, Lunz, he said explicitly in the cabinet that he was convinced that the Act of Free Choice would
not be honest because if it was honest the Papuans would vote against Indonesia and he was certain (the poll
results) would not go against Indonesia but that it would be in favour of Indonesia. And that was actually the
outcome! But he said this already in February 1969. So more than half a year before the Act of Free Choice. And
then you know, exactly that it was not democratic and that it was a farce. 94
A last, but more obvious revelation is that if Suharto being regarded today by the world as a dictator
who does not know democracy, then how can the same world community accept that the AFC 1969 in West
Papua, under the presidency of that same man was ever democratic? In other words, if he is undemocratic in
his rule in Indonesia for 32 years, then how can anyone accept that what he did in the AFC 1969 was
democratic?
93 West Papua: A Scandal in the UN Decolonisation History, op.cit.

94 Documents show Dutch support for West Papua takeover, 17 April 2001.
[http://www.westpapua.net/cases/hr/pepera_dutchroles.htm]
F. Parties Accountable for the Assassination of West Papua as a State

and a People
…the UN was an active participant in the systematic undermining of the New York Agreement, but its actions were
initiated and supported by Washington, Jakarta, and the Hague. In acting as they did, U Thant and the UN
Secretariat allowed the UN to involve itself in a dishonest process which deliberately denied the Papuans political
and human rights. 95
Various findings indicate at least five parties are responsible for the fraudulent AFC 1969 in West
Papua. The first one is of course, the United Nations itself. Another one is Indonesia and third the
government of the Kingdom of the Netherlands, and fourth the USA. And the last one is the international
community.
1. The United Nations

Narasimhan in fact realised that Mr. U Thant’s expectations as he expressed during the hand-over of
West Papua to Indonesia were not fulfilled. In the last part of the UN Secretary-General's message read by
his assistant, Mr. C.V. Narasimhan at the transfer ceremony of West Papua from the UNTEA to the
Indonesian Government, Mr. U Thant stated:
.... I would like to express to the people of this territory, my earnest hope for their welfare and happiness in the
future. I am sure that THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA WILL THOROUGHLY FULFILL ALL TERMS AND
CONDITIONS MADE ON AUGUST 15, 1962, and guarantees the exercise of the people's right in the territory in
expressing their will for their future. The United Nations will assist the Government of Indonesia in the
implementation of other parts stated in the agreement. 96
As a result of the U.N.'s confidence, trust and assistance to Indonesia, the people of West Papua started
entering the dark times under the rule of the Indonesian government, which has had continued for over 43
years now.
Total incapability of the (Acting) UN Secretary General, U Thant, in enforcing all international laws
applicable in the defence of the inalienable rights of West Papua as a Non-Self-Governing Territory and
Nation in process to full independence under UN Decolonization program is unacceptable and much
questionable (whereas, the late UN Secretary-General, Dag Hammarskjöld was promoting Self-
Determination for West Papua - an approach that didn’t favour the Dutch nor favoured the Indonesian
claim). To this reality, Dr. Meijer once again comments:
“…It was not in the Dutch interests to fight again with Indonesia because of the Papuans. So they had to solve it
with Indonesia and they were very willing to come to an agreement with Indonesia. And they were not the only
ones because the United Nations actually played the worst role in this whole affair… It was the United Nations that
had the official role for looking after the right way that the Act Of Free Choice was going in a democratic way…” 97
95 UNITED NATIONS INVOLVEMENT WITH THE ACT OF SELF DETERMINATION IN WEST IRIAN (INDONESIAN
WEST NEW GUINEA) 1968 TO 1969, by John SaItford, 2002:20. [http://www.westpapua.net//docs/books/book0/un_wp.doc]
96 IRIAN BARAT, Deppen RI, 1964, page 19.
97 Dr. Hans Meijer, Dutch Historian: Documents show Dutch support for West Papua takeover, ABC Radio National Asia/
Pacific program, first broadcast Tue. Apr. 17, 2001.

2. The Netherlands
Secondly, the Kingdom of the Netherlands was in fact irresponsible for its own promises made 98 and it
did not comply with the decisions made in 1949 and 1961. Furthermore, it was not consistent either with the
content of the New York Agreement, but rather turned its blind eye to the fact that the AFC 1969 was
manipulated.
Dr. Meijer acknowledges archives from former Dutch Ambassador to Indonesia in 1960s, Mr. Schiff,
for the first time that there are some proofs that the Dutch Government indeed had applied double-standards
(two faces) policy during the West Papua Decolonisation Processes. The Netherlands was in fact pretending
to help the Papuans, xi but actually encouraging Indonesia to re-colonise the territory and the people. Such an
attitude is evident in such an instance as approving the outcome of the undemocratic Act of Free Choice on
November 19, 1969. This is obviously the strongest fact that supports Dr. Meijer’s findings. 99
Meijer’s finding also indicate the Dutch’s failure, as a party to the Agreement, to ensure that the AFC
1969 was carried out according to the provisions of the New York Agreement of 15 August 1962. Even
though it signed the Agreement, it did not act consistently and responsibly in making sure the proper
implementation it. Even his finding about indicates the Dutch already knew the vote would be in favour of
Indonesia.
Another revelation from Meijer’s study was that Lunz also had very secret meeting with the Indonesia
Minister for Foreign Affairs, Adam Malik, in Rome, Italy, where he had confirmed to Malik that the Dutch
would look away when the Act of Free Choice was to be held. Even if the Dutch knew that it would not be
democratic, they would not do anything about it. Mr. Saltimar who was The Dutch Ambassador at the time
of the Act Free Choice, wrote to Mr. Schiff who was then Secretary-General of the Foreign Affairs that of
course he saw a lot of things that were wrong but it was not his responsibility to report about that in official
documents. 100
In order to restore its name, on December 10, 1999, Dutch Foreign Minister Van Aartson announced
that he would initiate a historical re-examination of the circumstances surrounding the Act and declared that
the Act was an unfinished business. Van Middelkoop, the MP who was behind the proposal replied
"...finally we can look the Papuans straight in the eyes." 101 It remains to be seen whether the UN will agree
to join the Dutch in returning again to this particular episode from its past.
98 "IGNOMINIES": HUMAN RIGHTS APPEAL ON INTERNATIONAL VIOLATIONS IN WEST PAPUA - Submitted to the
Government of the United Kingdom of Great Britain in London, (23 February 2004), Prepared by: J. Ottow R., MPE (2001); Edited &
Presented by: Amunggut Tabi, Secretariat for Foreign Relations, Headquarter of the Liberation Army of Free Papua Movement
(TPN/OPM), January, 2004, p.5. [http://www.westpapua.net//doc/ignominies.doc]
99 Why Should the Kingdom of Netherlands Responsible for West Papua? An Answer from one of the victims? by S.
Karoba, England, 2000. [http://www.westpapua.net/news/00/01/JAN17~1.HTM]

100 ABC Radio National Asia/Pacific Program, first broadcasting, 17 Apr. 2001).
101 Algemeen Dagblad (Netherlands), December 10, 1999.
3. Indonesia
John Saltford’s conclusion from his doctoral study on the AFC reveals the truth of an international
conspiracy that Indonesia is also responsible for the denial of the rights to self-determination of Papuan
peoples. 102
Indonesian operations leading up to and during the AFC 1969 as conveyed by academic studies or
eyewitnesses’ accounts do show that Indonesia’s agenda was not to implement the Agreement, but rather to
ensure that West Papua was finally integrated into Indonesia. Various military operations, intimidation and
acts of terror are proofs that Indonesia is responsible to the fraudulent Act.
In addition, Indonesia’s continuous claim over the legality and credibility of the Act, while being aware
of what it did leading up to and during the AFC 1969 also indicate the state’s accountability to the
democratic and civilised world community.
Similarly continued military operations, including acts of terror, intimidation, rapes, arbitrary arrests,
extra-judicial killings and imprisonments, unjust trials, kidnappings and acts of murder since 1961 should
not be allowed to continue today. Indonesia has to behave in a civilised way, by allowing dialogue and
eventual democratic referendum to determine the political future of West Papua to testify whether or not
West Papuan peoples did make the choice to join Indonesia in 1969.
4. The United States

“…What we are going to do on West New Guinea was in the interest of the United States…” 103
The interest of the United States was twofold: first, to get rid of communists’ grip over Indonesia, and
secondly, to ensure that West Papua’s natural resources are extracted by the USA.
At the same time, J.F. Kennedy repeatedly used two interesting and questionable terms: for our
common interests and for justice. For one thing, common interests reflect the Cold War Era and the Natural
Resources in West Papua that could be exploited for the economic interests of the West. However, why did
President Kennedy search for justice? Was there any injustice between Indonesia and the Netherlands,
between the U.S.A. and Indonesia? Or was it between Papuans the Americans?
One of the most plausible answers to the question of “justice between who and who” is that President
Kennedy at that time was furious about the killing of Michael Rockefeller (23) in Asmat Region of West
Papua, from which time the world started calling Papuans as cannibals. Theoretically, there is no empirical
evidence that can provide justification that Papuans are cannibals and that The Young Rockefeller was
“eaten” by Papuan peoples. Our recent findings, however, show that he was not “eaten” as it was told. We
are more than prepared to provide guides and assistance in searching the causes of his death, the true story
102 Dr. John Saltford, op.cit.:19.

103 A Letter from US Attorney General, Robert F. Kennedy to Indonesia’s President Soekarno, Jakarta – 1962:7 in .
[http://www.westpapua.net/doc/ignominies.doc]
from our side, on the death of dedicated Rockefeller, who should have become a hero for West Papua
liberation, but who was then stopped by a mysterious hands in doing his humanitarian work he started some
months before his assassination.
The phenomenon is reflected in various humiliating verbal expressions:
“…New Guinea was not was not a part of the world where great powers should be rationally engaged…” (John F.
Kennedy to the Dutch diplomats - The Hague, 1961)
“…Those Papuans of yours are some 700.000 and living in the stone-age …” (John F. Kennedy to the Dutch
Ambassador in Washington, 1961).
“…The preposition that a pro-bloc if not communist Indonesia is an infinitely greater threat to them and to us than
Indo possession of a few thousand miles of cannibal land…” (P. Komer, JFK’s Senior Staff)
When referring to the peoples or territory of West Papua, they used terms such as “stone-age”, “a few
thousand miles of cannibal land”, and “not part of the world where great powers should be rationally
engaged” all pose an interesting picture of these great powers’ perspective on West Papua and her peoples.
Such a view on the territory and her peoples, the interests on the rich natural resources and the Cold
War made it possible for the USA to force the Netherlands to accept whatever proposed by Indonesia.
However, at the time the world enters a new wave of war, i.e., war against terrorism, the USA and the
international community ought to reshape their foreign policy to ensure peace and security, particularly in
the Pacific Rim as the door of the USA into Asia.
5. The Democratic and Civilised World Community

81 nations are well known in West Papua and will be remembered in the territory’s history for generations to
come as ‘Killers of a Papuan State And Nation” for their direct participation in the ‘take-note’ and ‘adoption’ of
UNGA Resolution 2504 (XXIV), 19 November 1969, that has put West Papua in a considerable Human Rights
Violations abuses.
Following presentations of the outcome of the AFC 1969 in West Papua by respective parties, 81 states
of the world approved the outcome, whereas 15 countries, and mostly from the Black Continent, refused it,
while …member states were abstain.
It is, of course, unfair to pinpoint a number of countries or organisations as to be accountable for the
failure of the Act. The international community has also been silent about the fact that the abovementioned
parties failed to properly carry out their duties according to the provisions of the New York Agreement or
UN Declaration and Resolution regarding Decolonisation.
It is surely in the best interests of the West Papuan peoples, the UN, the international community and
even the Indonesians, that the full facts surrounding the Act of Free Choice be revealed. There is nothing to
be gained from maintaining a distorted version of history that can only further distort current efforts to solve
the West Papuan issue peacefully. It is far better that the UN itself addresses this task rather than remain
silent and leave it to others.
This was the background reason why West Papuan peoples and supporters around the world launched a
campaign demanding the UN Secretary-General to carry out an internal review on its conduct during the Act
1969 in West Papua, just as it has done over the failure to properly conduct similar referendum in Rwanda.
G. Campaign for ‘a UN Internal Review of Its Conduct’ of the AFC

1969 in West Papua
There is nothing and no one in the world that can defeat the power of the peoples and of the Truth. When the
people believe the Truth is Truth, then that power can do anything it can, for the sake of truth, justice, peace and
security of the world.
The world opinion is clear enough that the West Papua’s incorporation into Indonesia was by force, and
that the AFC 1969 is morally, democratically and legally fraudulent. Therefore, any attempts by Indonesia to
restore peace in West Papua either in the name of development, peace and reconciliation, punishment of
human rights violators, special autonomy, or even military operations by deployment of tens of thousands of
troops and various militia groups do not and will never address the core issue. Until the legality of the AFC
1969 is restored by a democratic and transparent referendum, the conflict will never be solved, because the
truth can never be defeated.
1. International Support
The campaign for the internal review of the UN conduct during the AFC 1969 in West Papua was
officially launched on 27th March 2002:
March 27, 2002 - Human rights activists from around the world, including representatives of West Papua’s leading
human rights organization, ELSHAM, submitted a petition to UN Secretary General Kofi Annan this week urging
him to conduct an investigation into the United Nations' endorsement of a sham referendum held over 30 years
ago endorsing Indonesia's take over of West Papua. After the so-called "Act of ‘Free’ Choice, the UN General
Assembly removed West Papua from its agenda, consigning the people of West Papua to decades of brutality and
mass murder under Indonesian rule. 104
The opinion and support to the UN Internal Review of Its Conduct during the AFT 1969 in West Papua
has been growing since last year only. Articles attached (from Annex 1. to Annex 16) clearly indicate that
the world opinion is already reaching its climax. According to our Online Petition Database, 3870 people
around the world have already signed the same petition to demand the UN Secretary-General to review the
act of conduct of the UN during AFC 1969 in West Papua. 105
More than 100 NGOs and community organisations around the world also signed the petition, asking
the UN Secretary-General to review the Act.
104 KOFI ANNAN URGED TO EXAMINE UN’S MISCONDUCT IN WEST PAPUA, by WPNet News at
[http://www.westpapua.net/news/02/03/280302-annan.htm]
105 http://www.petitiononline.com/westpap/
2. Support from Bishops and Religious Organisations

This campaign has gained widespread support from around the world. The mainstream support to the
campaign began when Bishop Desmond Tutu of South Africa said in this supporting letter to the campaign:
I would like to add my voice to growing international calls for the UN Secretary General to instigate a review of the
UN’s conduct in relation to the now-discredited “Act of ‘Free’ Choice”.
I will keep the people of West Papua in my prayers, and I would like to extend my best wishes and moral support
to them in their hour of need. 106
Another Bishop from Oxford, UK expressed similar concern and support and presented the issue to the
debate in the House of Lords on 13th December 2004. This paper is written to follow up the debate presented
by Bishop of Oxford, Rt Revd Richard Harries. 107
Religious organisations in West Papua and Australia are giving strong support for the campaign. They
have expressed their support in a number of occasions, as well as in their prayers. The support from the
Evangelical Christian Church of Papua (GKI), The GKII, The Evangelical Church of Indonesia (GIDI),
Fellowship of Baptist Churches of Papua (PGBP), and Catholic Bishops in West Papua are strong, in the
name of promoting peace and justice in Papua soil. xii
Churches in the United States also expressed their concern over Islamist extremists operating in West
Papua, fully trained, backed and equipped by the Indonesian military. Even though the connection between
Indonesian military and Islamic extremists cannot be proven empirically, there is evidence that they are
connected, either personally or in a loosely organised manner.
3. Support from Indonesia

The Indonesian pro-democratic movement organisations such as the Peoples’ Democratic Party (PRD),
the National League of Democratic Students (LMND), National Solidarity for Papua (SNUP) and Acheh-
Papua Solidarity (SAP) 108 are supporting the campaigns, and even demanding for a democratic expression of
the opinion of Papuan peoples.
At least two political parties in Indonesia had openly presented their political manifesto, declaring their
support for a review of West Papua history under the UN supervision, and also for a democratic referendum
in West Papua.
106 Annex 12. STATEMENT BY ARCHBISHOP DESMOND TUTU, SOUTH AFRICA p.56.
107 Refer to Annexes 5 and 6. [http://www.westpapuanews.com/articles/publish/article_1634.shtml,
http://www.westpapuanews.com/articles/publish/printer_1663.shtml]
108 http://sap.papuapost.com
4. Support from Politicians (Parliamentarians, Senators, Government Ministers)

Early this year (March 2004), majority members of the Irish Parliament urged Kofi Annan 109 to review
the United Nations' role in the 1969 AFC, xiii joining South African Archbishop and Nobel Peace Prize
Laurite Desmond Tutu and scores of non-governmental organizations and European Parliamentarians. xiv
MPs from the UK, 110 Ireland, 111 and Australia 112 also signed the campaign for the UN conduct in 1969.
On June 28, 2004, nineteen U.S. Senators sent a letter to United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan
urging the appointment of a Special Representative to Indonesia to monitor the human rights situation in
West Papua and Aceh. 113
The Irish Parliament Members and politicians appear to have strong support for the campaign. Most of
the MPs at the Dael signed the campaign. Many politicians also have asked the government on possible roles
to play in encouraging the UN to review its conduct. One of the examples is Mr. O’Keefe’s parliamentarian
question on 16th February 2002. 114
5. Support from Melanesian Sister Countries

Support from the South Pacific Island countries such as Nauru, Vanuatu, Tuvalu, Solomon Islands and
Fiji for West Papua independence was raised in the Millennium Summit, New York in 2000.
The Vanuatu Free West Papua Association (VFWPA) 115 is currently collecting signatures from
different political parties, politicians and ministers in Vanuatu and will seek support from other countries in
Melanesia, Polynesia and Micronesia in support to the campaign of the review of the UN conduct in the Act.
VFWPA, in cooperation with national NGOs in Vanuatu, PNG, Solomon Islands, Kanak, Fiji and West
Papua recently organised a Conference of Chiefs in one of the islands in Vanuatu in late October to early
November 2004. All chiefs in Vanuatu, and some from other countries in Melanesia have signed the letter
requesting the UN to launch the review. They have also indicated their desire to visit Secretary-General of
the UN in person to appeal to the UN. Most probably, one chief from each 116 Melanesian country will
present the appeal sometime next year.
109 Annex 11. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: MAJORITY OF TDS CHALLENGE SHAM VOTE IN WEST PAPUA, p.54.
110 Annex 14. Early Day Motion 475 at British House of Parliament, by Jeremy Corbyn, p.60 and Annex 3. Human Rights
Champion Lord Frank Judd Calls for UN Review, as well as Annex 7. Mike Hannock (PM South, Ldem – UN Review on West
Papua and Annex 6. Another Recent UK Government Minister backs UN campaign.
111 Annex 11. Majority of TDs Challenge Sham Vote in West Papua, p.52.
112 Annex 8. Motion by Australian Labor Party (ALP) – UN Review on West Papua, and Annex 5. Greens Senate Motion
on West Papua.
113 Annex 10. The 88 US Senators Letter to the UN Secretary-General, p.53.
114 Jim O'Keefe is the Fine Gael Spokesperson on Foreign Affairs. Fine Gael is the main opposition party in the Dail,
the Irish parliament. Parliamentary Question - Dept Details. [http://www.westpapua.net/news/02/03/finegael-papua.htm]

115 http://vanuatu.papuapost.com
116 Annex 4. Sope reaffirms Vanuatu support for West Papua, by Royson Willie - Vanuatu Daily Post, Dec 3, 2004.
[http://www.westpapuanews.com/articles/publish/printer_1522.shtml],
After presenting West Papua issue at the UN Millennium Summit, 117 UN General Assemblies in 2001,
2003, and 2004, the Government of Vanuatu is currently committed to lobbying other Melanesian countries
to support the cause until West Papua is eventually independent. 118
6. Support from West Papua

From inside West Papua, many major organisations such as the Papua Presidium Council (PDP), Papua
Panel, National Liberation Army of Free Papua Movement (TPN/OPM), the Koteka Tribal Assembly
(Demmak), Aliansi Mahasiawa Papua (AMP), TAPO/NAPOL, and Papua Women’s Alliance also have
signed the petition to urge the UN to launch an internal review on the Act.
Mass collection of signatures from every individual in West Papua is underway, however, it is done as
an underground work as Indonesian retaliation to such an activity always has been deadly. Demonstrations,
protests and various activities inside West Papua and Indonesia are underway, until West Papua gains her
independence.
H. Conclusions and Recommendations

1. General Conclusion
West Papua was clearly sacrificed due to the interests of Cold War in the late 1960s. That Cold War
that changed a huge number of political maps in the world is over. We are now entering into the War against
terrorism, i.e., the war between Truth and lies, the war of democracy versus undemocratic, the war between
civilisation and those who hate it, the war between peace and violence, and the war between modernisation
against anti-modernisation.
It is not difficult for us to conclude that Indonesia has chosen the road of military confrontation and
opposition against full and comprehensive implementation of Otsus. It is also clear that Indonesia tends to
allow machine guns to talk and resolve the political conflicts, rather than a democratic or civilised way. This
choice has put Otsus into jeopardy, and finally Otsus has failed.
The failure of Otsus means the failure of the government of Indonesia to handle the political conflicts in
West Papua that began in 1961. That means the continuing resistance that have implicated serious violations
of human rights in West Papua will go nowhere.
According to the international practice, the failure to systematically and politically protect and promote
human rights of citizens categorically means the failure of a governing power to rule over occupied peoples
or the territories.
117 Foreign Support on West Papua's Struggle for Independence. [http://www.westpapua.net/support/support.htm]

118 Annex 13. Speech by Vanuatu Delegate to the UNGA 59th Session, 2004
This failure of Otsus is mainly caused by the Government’s managerial and bureaucratic incapability to
comply with the principles of democracy and abide to the supremacy of law that it has passed. This is
particularly due to the absence of Jakarta’s political will to properly and completely resolve the prevailing
problems.
2. General Recommendations
Three interests are conflicting in resolving political conflicts in West Papua: foreign countries who have
investments in West Papua that want West Papua to be a peaceful territory for the investment activities;
Indonesian Government that wants to maintain its national sovereignty over West Papua at any cost and in
any ways as possible, and West Papua who feels betrayed in the UN-Supervised Act of Free Choice in 1969
and demands for a re-examination or review of the Act.
Therefore, some general recommendations for each party can be as follows:
1. If the international community really want see West Papua as a Zone of Peace, it is clearly unwise to put
pressures Indonesia every now and again to resolve the political conflicts alone. The reality is that
Indonesia is incapable of handling the conflicts, not only in West Papua, but also across the archipelago.
There appear to be necessarily for immediate steps taken by the democratic and civilised world to
address the root causes of the conflicts, and not just the conflict itself. If not, then surely the interests of
the international community are at serious risk.
Therefore, it not an exaggerated proposition to convey that the world’s democratic and civilised human
community should help Indonesia and West Papua in setting up the path to establish space for a peaceful
conflict resolution between Jakarta and West Papua.
2. If Indonesia is willing to maintain West Papua as an integral part of Indonesia at any cost, then the cost
to do that is to fully and comprehensively, as well as consistently with full commitment and good
political will, implement the Otsus unconditionally and immediately. If not, I would rather agree totally
with L. Sullivan “Those elements in Jakarta who are disrespecting Special Autonomy, in the name of
defending the State, are in fact doing Indonesia a most enormous disservice.” 119
3. However, if all parties agree with the position of West Papuan peoples that the AFC 1969 in West Papua
was proven to be morally, democratically and legally fraudulent and therefore the legal base for
Indonesian occupation in West Papua is unjustifiable, then a logical consequence, which is just and
beneficial for all parties, will be to support the campaign to review the UN Conduct during the Act.
Continuously neglecting this scandal, or failure or misled justification in this globalised world and war
119 Lawrence Sullivan, op.cit. [http://www.westpapua.net/docs/papers/paper7/otsus-sullivan.htm]

against terrorism era will not only cause further human rights violations in West Papua, but more
importantly and clearly, it is a serious threat to the peace and security across the Pacific RIM and
Oceania.
Any of the interest parties has equal opportunities and prospects to win the game. However, what is true
and absolute for every party is that the truth can never be defeated in any way, with any reason, by anyone,
and at anytime as there are already more than sufficient proofs showing the matter of fact that the AFC 1969
in West Papua was morally, legally and democratically fraud and therefore unjustifiable.
Only parties who are prepared to comply with the truth of the AFC are the ones to be seen as
democratic and civilised.
Annexes:
Annex 1. UK House of Lords on Act of Free Choice: Lord Bishop of Oxford asked Her Majesty's:
http://www.westpapuanews.com/articles/publish/article_1634.shtml
Government
By WPNews
Dec 15, 2004, 12:01
House of Lords
13 Dec 2004: Column 1084
Indonesia: West Papua - Lord Bishop of Oxford asked Her Majesty's Government:
Whether they will support the call for the United Nations Secretary-General to instigate a review of the United Nations' conduct in
relation to the Act of Free Choice in West Papua in 1969.
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, in 1969 the United Nations accepted by a majority vote the results of the Act of Free
Choice which led to West Papua becoming a province of Indonesia. Because the Act of Free Choice has subsequently raised so
much controversy, the Indonesians have introduced the 2001 special autonomy law for Papua, including a truth and reconciliation
commission. The British Government support the implementation of these measures.
The Lord Bishop of Oxford: My Lords, I thank the noble Baroness for that reply. She referred to the so-called Act of Free Choice
giving rise to controversy. Is she aware that Suharto's Indonesia handpicked a little more than 1,000 people, out of a population of
800,000, and forced them to vote 100 per cent for union with Indonesia? Is she further aware that the secretariat of the UN advised
the UN Assembly to accept the result of that vote as fair, even though it had agreed to be a guarantor of the fairness of the election?
Does she agree that the present unrest in West Papua and the violence by the Indonesian Government is in part a response to the
failure at that time?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, I agree with the right reverend Prelate's summing up of the position. As he is aware,
this took place in 1969, some 35 years ago. He is right to say that there were 1,000 handpicked representatives and that they were
largely coerced into declaring for inclusion in Indonesia. The question is what should happen now. Although the 2002 special
autonomy legislation has been passed it has not yet been fully implemented. It grants, for example, 70 per cent of oil and gas
royalties originating in Papua—as well as 80 per cent of 13 Dec 2004 : Column 1085 forestry, fishery and mining royalties—to the
people of Papua. It refers to a change in the name of the province; to its having its own regional flag and legal system based on
traditional values; and to positive discrimination for Papuas, together with the truth and reconciliation committee. Under the new
president, these measures ought to be given a chance to imbed in order for us to see whether the greater autonomy thereby granted
eases the situation.
Lord Avebury: My Lords, is not the real question whether or not the province should be divided into two or three parts, irrespective of
the ruling by the constitutional court? Does the Minister believe that we should encourage President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono,
when he visits the territory on 26 December, to consult the people and ascertain whether it is their wish to have a unified
administration rather than splitting the province into several divisions, which seems to be contrary to the will of the people? While he
is there, could he be encouraged to launch an inquiry into the atrocities, which are continuing in Puncak Jaya, as revealed in the
Amnesty International report last week?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, there have been representations to the new President of Indonesia. Our
Ambassador, Charles Humfrey, visited Papua in September and has discussed his findings with the Indonesian Government.
Michael Williams, the Foreign Secretary's special adviser, also visited Indonesia this month and raised the issue of Papua with
senior members of the Indonesian Government. The President of Indonesia has stated that the resolution of the conflict in Papua is
one of his priorities, and we support him. There are press reports that he will be spending Christmas in Papua. We shall encourage
him to consult as much as possible with the people of Papua about how they see a way forward.
Earl Attlee: My Lords, is the Minister satisfied that everything necessary to resolve these difficulties is being done on the part of the
Dutch Government?
Baroness Symons of Vernham Dean: My Lords, the international community has a responsibility in this respect. Of course, given
their history, the Dutch Government have particular responsibilities. Through the EU, we have supported the Indonesian
Government's implementation. The Dutch Government have obviously been a party to that. I do not think that anything specific is
going on with the Dutch—for example, at the United Nations—but, as a whole, the United Nations wishes to have consultation with
the UN's office about any planned review of the Act of Free Choice.
With the new president we have seen greater positive action from the Indonesian Government. It is wise to allow the Indonesian
Government to deal with these issues in the first instance, as they have indicated they wish to.
------------------------------------------
Annex 2.
Indonesia's 1969 Takeover of West Papua Not by

"Free Choice"
Document Release Marks 35th Anniversary
of Controversial Vote and Annexation
Secret Files Show U.S. Support for Indonesia,
Human Rights Abuses by Indonesian Military
Edited by Brad Simpson
simpbrad@isu.edu / 208-282-3870
Posted July 9, 2004
Washington, D.C. - July 8, 2004 - "You should tell[Suharto] that we understand the problems they face in West Irian," national
security adviser Henry Kissinger wrote President Nixon on the eve of Nixon's July 1969 visit to Indonesia. On the 35th anniversary of
West Papua's so-called "Act of Free Choice" and Indonesia's first direct presidential elections, the National Security Archive posted
recently declassified documents on U.S. policy deliberations leading to Indonesia's controversial 1969 annexation of the territory.
The documents detail United States support for Indonesia's heavy-handed takeover of West Papua despite overwhelming Papuan
opposition and United Nation's requirements for genuine self-determination.
Background
When Indonesia gained its independence from the Netherlands in 1949, the Dutch government retained control over the
territory of West New Guinea. From 1949 until 1961 the Indonesian government sought to "recover" West New Guinea (later known
as West Irian or West Papua), arguing that the territory, a part of the former Netherlands East Indies, rightfully belonged with
Indonesia.
In late 1961, after repeated and unsuccessful attempts to secure its goals through the United Nations, Indonesia's President
Sukarno declared a military mobilization and threatened to invade West New Guinea and annex it by force. The Kennedy
administration, fearing that U.S. opposition to Indonesian demands might push the country toward Communism, sponsored talks
between the Netherlands and Indonesia in the spring of 1962. Negotiations took place under the shadow of ongoing Indonesian
military incursions into West New Guinea and the threat of an Indonesian invasion.
The U.S.-sponsored talks led to the August 1962 New York Agreements, which awarded Indonesia control of West New
Guinea (which it promptly renamed West Irian) after a brief transitional period overseen by the UN. (Note 1) The agreement
obligated Jakarta to conduct an election on self-determination with UN assistance no later than 1969. Once in control, however,
Indonesia quickly moved to repress political dissent by groups demanding outright independence for the territory.
U.S. officials understood at the outset that Indonesia would never allow West Irian to become independent and that it was
unlikely to ever allow a meaningful act of self-determination to take place. The Johnson and Nixon Administrations were equally
reluctant to challenge Indonesian control over West Irian, especially after the conservative anti-Communist regime of General
Suharto took over in 1966 following an abortive coup attempt which led to the slaughter of an estimated 500,000 alleged
Communists. Suharto quickly moved to liberalize the Indonesian economy and open it to the West, passing a new foreign
investment law in late 1967. The first company to take advantage of the law was the American mining company Freeport Sulphur,
which gained concessions to vast tracts of land in West Irian containing gold and copper reserves. (Note 2)
Over six weeks from July to August 1969, U.N. officials conducted the so-called "Act of Free Choice." Under the articles of the
New York Agreement (Article 18) all adult Papuans had the right to participate in an act of self-determination to be carried out in
accordance with international practice. Instead, Indonesian authorities selected 1022 West Papuans to vote publicly and
unanimously in favor of integration with Indonesia.
Despite significant evidence that Indonesia had failed to meet its international obligations, in November 1969 the United
Nations "took note" of the "Act of Free Choice" and its results, thereby lending support of the world body to Indonesia's annexation.
Thirty-five years later, as Indonesia holds its first-ever direct Presidential elections, the international community has come to
question the validity of Jakarta's takeover of West Papua and ongoing human rights abuses there. In March, 88 members of the Irish
Parliament urged Kofi Annan to review the United Nations' role in the 1969 Act of Free Choice, joining South African Archibishop
Desmond Tutu and scores of non-governmental organizations and European Parliamentarians. On June 28, 2004, nineteen U.S.
Senators sent a letter to United Nations Secretary General Kofi Annan urging the appointment of a Special Representative to
Indonesia to monitor the human rights situation in West Papua and the territory of Aceh.
The Documents
The Archives postings include a confidential February 1968 cable from U.S. Ambassador to Indonesia Marshall Green.
Following a conversation with Indonesian Foreign Minister Adam Malik about the situation in West Irian, Green concluded that
conditions in the territory are "far from satisfactory and deteriorating." A subsequent cable reported that Indonesia is "belatedly and
almost desperately seeking to develop support among the peoples of West Irian" for the "Act of Free Choice."
A consular trip to West Irian in early 1968 observed that "the Indonesian government directs its main efforts" in the territory
to "maintaining existing political facilities and suppressing political dissent." Because of neglect, corruption and repression at the
hands of Indonesian authorities, Western observers agreed almost unanimously that "Indonesia could not win an open election" and
that the vast majority of West Irian's inhabitants favored independence.
In July of 1968 the UN-appointed Ambassador Fernando Ortiz Sanz arrived in Jakarta as the Secretary General's Special
Representative for assisting Indonesia with the West Irian plebiscite, as called for by the 1962 New York Agreements.
A confidential cable from the US Embassy to the State Department outlined the stakes in the upcoming "Act of Free
Choice." While cautioning that the U.S. government "should not become directly involved in this issue," Ambassador Green worried
that Ortiz Sanz or other UN members might "hold out for free and direct elections" in West Irian, frustrating Indonesia's intention to
retain the territory at all costs. Consequently, U.S. and other Western officials worried about the need to meet with Ortiz Sanz to
"make him aware of political realities." In a confidential October 1968 Airgram the U.S. Embassy reported with relief that Ortiz
now "concedes that it would be inconceivable from the point of view of the interest of the U.N., as well as the GOI, that a result other
than the continuance of West Irian within Indonesian sovereignty should emerge."
The Indonesian government firmly rejected the possibility of a one-person, one-vote plebiscite in West Irian, insisting instead
on a series of local 'consultations' with just over 1,000 hand selected tribal leaders (out of an estimated population of 800,000),
conducted in July 1969 with between 6,000-10,000 Indonesian troops spread throughout the territory. As the U.S. Embassy put it in
a July 1969 telegram:
The Act of Free Choice (AFC) in West Irian is unfolding like a Greek tragedy, the conclusion preordained. The main
protagonist, the GOI, cannot and will not permit any resolution other than the continued inclusion of West Irian in
Indonesia. Dissident activity is likely to increase but the Indonesian armed forces will be able to contain and, if necessary,
suppress it.
Ambassador Frank Galbraith noted on July 9, 1969 that past abuses had stimulated intense anti-Indonesian and pro-
independence sentiment at all levels of Irian society, suggesting that "possibly 85 to 90%" of the population "are in sympathy with
the Free Papua cause." Moreover, Galbraith observed, recent Indonesian military operations, which resulted in the deaths of
hundreds, possibly thousands of civilians, "had stimulated fears and rumours of intended genocide among the Irianese." President
Nixon and national security adviser Henry Kissinger visited Jakarta in July 1969 while the "Act of Free Choice" was underway.
Improving relations with Indonesia's authoritarian regime was clearly uppermost in the mind of Kissinger, who characterized Suharto
as a "moderate military man … committed to progress and reform." In Nixon's secret briefing papers (Document 9 and Document
10) for the visit Kissinger flatly told the President "you should not raise this issue" of West Irian and argued "we should avoid any
U.S. identification with that act." The White House generally held to this position throughout the period preceding and following the
"Act of Free Choice."
Although they recognized the deep flaws in the Act and in Indonesia's intentions, U.S. officials were not interested in creating
any problems for a Suharto regime they saw as nonaligned but pro-Washington. While the U.S. was unwilling to actively intervene
on Indonesia's behalf (an action they thought unnecessary and counterproductive) at the UN to insure quick General Assembly
acceptance of Indonesia's formal takeover of West Papua, the U.S. quietly signaled that it was uninterested in a lengthy debate over
an issue it viewed as a foregone conclusion and marginal to U.S. interests. In a secret briefing memo for a meeting with
Indonesia's Ambassador to the United States Soedjakmoto, a State Department official expressed confidence that international
criticism of the "Act of Free Choice" would quickly fade, allowing the Nixon Administration to move forward with its plans for forging
closer military and economic ties with the authoritarian regime in Jakarta.
------------------------------------------
Annex 3. Human Rights Champion Lord Frank Judd calls for UN Review
By WPNews, Dec 4, 2004, 14:25
The West Papuans' campaign calling on the UN Secretary-General to order a review of the UN's conduct during the 1969 Act of
'Free' Choice gathered further momentum this week when the Rt Hon. Lord Frank Judd of Portsea, a Labour Member of the UK
House of Lords (Senate), former Foreign Office Minister and Director of Oxfam, and highly respected human rights and development
consultant and champion, added his considerable personal authority to the campaign.
In a personal request to Kofi Annan, Lord Judd has expressed the deep sense of injustice felt by the West Papuan people about the
Act of 'Free' Choice:
"You will be aware that many of the people [in West Papua] have long regarded the 1969 'Act of Free Choice' as fraudulent and the
UN's seemingly unquestioning support for the outcome at the time as betrayal."
In his letter of 24 November, Lord Judd also importantly emphasised that the question of Papuan self-determination must be dealt
with if a genuine just and peaceful resolution of the West Papuan conflict is to be found:
"There does seem to be widespread admission that the UN's conduct in 1968-69 fell short of more recent high standards and failed
to assist the people of Papua properly to exercise their rights to self-determination. I therefore hope that the request for a review can
be allowed as a necessary precursor to resolving this source of unrest."
Finally, Lord Judd also highlighted the "continuing violence by Indonesian military forces against civilians, particularly in the central
highlands of West Papua."
The full text of Lord Judd's letter to Kofi Annan, together with a brief political biography, is printed below.
West Papuans are seeking international support for their call for the establishment of a Special Commission of Enquiry to review the
UN's conduct in relation to the now discredited Act of "Free" Choice under which the former Dutch colony was incorporated into
Indonesia in 1969.
Under a US sponsored1962 Netherlands/Indonesia treaty, the UN was given the role of guarantor of a one person-one vote act of
self-determination under which all adult Papuans could decide between joining Indonesia or full independence. However, in blatant
breach of the treaty and of the UN Charter itself, Suharto's Indonesia hand picked a mere 1,025 Papuans out of a then population of
800,000, and then forced them at gun-point to vote 100% for Indonesia.
The UN Secretariat sent only 16 observers (to a territory the size of Poland) to monitor the Act and shamefully recommended that
the result be accepted by the UN General Assembly, knowing full well that it had failed to reach the international standards which
are obligatory for any act of self-determination under international law.
-------------------------------
Lord Judd,
House of Lords,
LONDON SW1A 0PW
H.E. Kofi Annan,

Secretary-General,
The United Nations.
24 November 2004
Dear Secretary-General,
I am writing with reference to the current unrest in West Papua. You will be aware that many of the people there have long regarded
the 1969 "Act of Free Choice" as fraudulent and the UN's seemingly unquestioning support for the outcome at the time as betrayal.
This strong sense of injustice continues. The UN's recent helpful role over public consultations in East Timor has only increased
West Papua's frustration that the UN in 1968-69 seemingly failed to fulfil its obligation to "advise, assist and participate … in
accordance with international practice".
This situation continues to create a source of anger and unrest and the recently formed Papuan Presidium Council is, as you will
know, seeking a review of the UN's conduct in relation to the "Act of Free Choice". This in turn has led to retaliatory acts of violence
against members of the Council, including the assassination of its Chairman, Theys Eluay.
There are many reported acts of continuing violence by Indonesian military forces against civilians, particularly in the central
highlands of West Papua.
There does seem to be widespread admission that the UN's conduct in 1968-69 fell short of more recent high standards and failed
to assist the people of Papua properly to exercise their rights to self-determination. I therefore hope that the request for a review can
be allowed as a necessary precursor to resolving this source of unrest.
With warmest personal regards,
Frank Judd
Lord Judd of Portsea
Biography: Lord Frank Judd of Portsea
Lord Frank Judd is highly respected for his work on human rights and international development which spans over four decades. He
has held numerous key appointments including Director of Oxfam, 1985-91, Director of the Voluntary Service Overseas, 1980-85
and Chairman of the International Council of Voluntary Agencies, 1985-90.
He was made a Member of the House of Lords in 1991. His distinguished political career includes election as a Labour MP for
Portsmouth West, 1966-74, and Portsmouth North, 1974-79, Minister for Overseas Development, 1976-77 and Foreign and
Commonwealth Office Minister, 1977-79. He has also held Opposition Spokesman posts for Development and Co-operation,
Education, and Defence. Lord Judd travels extensively and is professional consultant to many international affairs bodies.
He has been the rapporteur for Chechnya to the Political Affairs Committee of the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe
(PACE), and he co-chaired the Joint PACE-Duma Working Group on Chechnya. He visited Chechnya eight times. After the first
Chechen war, his delegation called for an immediate cease-fire to be respected by both sides, and called on the Russian
government to begin negotiations with the elected Chechen representatives concerning a political resolution to the conflict.
------------------------------------------
Annex 4. Sope reaffirms Vanuatu support for West Papua
By Royson Willie - Vanuatu Daily Post, Dec 3, 2004, 00:02
Vanuatu will not rest its support until it sees an independent West Papua. This strong message to the rest of the world was delivered
yesterday by one of the founding fathers of independence and current minister for Lands, Barak Sope Ma’autamate.
Sope, who has pushed hard for independence of West Papua, and other pacific neighbours at the level of United Nations, made the
remark when delivering his speech on West Papua Day at the Port Vila stadium.
Said Sope: “Today is a Melanesian Day. “Eight weeks ago on Efate, geologists dug the graves of our ancestors.
“After analysing the data, it was found that the bones were 3,400 years old.
“Why I am saying this is to remind us that 3,400 years ago we were already here.
“Other similar archaeological finds were made in other Melanesian countries from West Papua down to New Caledonia but
Vanuatu’s was the oldest.
“Why we want West Papua to be free is simply that 3,400 years ago we were already living here before Europeans settled Australia
and New Zealand.
“And because of our struggle in 1980 for independence, we also call for the freedom of New Caledonia and West Papua.
“Today Indonesia says it will give autonomy to West Papua— not independence.
“But still that is a step forward.
“The struggle for West Papua is not an easy one. “There have been over 200,000 people killed in the struggle including women and
children.
“We have raised the issue in the United Nations, the Pacific Forum, and Melanesian Spearhead Group but that will not end there.
“I am one of those who fought for Vanuatu’s independence and I believe that one day West Papua will be independent,” minister
Sope said.
West Papua Day or Remembrance Day is commemorated each year on December 1, by West Papuans.
Yesterday in Port Vila this day was remembered by different communities and their high chiefs of Vanuatu who travelled to the
Capital especially for the Day.
The day saw music performances and traditional dances from Ambrym, Tanna, Maewo, Paama and Pentecost in full traditional
attires.
------------------------------------------
Annex 5. Greens senate motion on West Papua
By UNPO-WPNews, Dec 3, 2004, 15:26
Greens senate motion on West Papua
URGENT ACTION
Manifesto in support of the Campaign - "World citizen legislative initiative"
As the controversy over Labor's successful efforts to have the Eureka flag displayed in Parliament House continues, Labor today
joined the Howard Government to crush a Greens move for West Papuans to have their Morning Star flag of freedom permitted.
This is an appalling major party attack on the basic freedoms of our near neighbours, Senator Brown said.
This smacks of double standards. Many Papuans have been shot by Indonesian troops for simply raising their flag, Senator Brown
said.
The motion read that the Senate

(a) notes that 1 December 2004 was West Papuan National Day, the 43rd anniversary of the 1961 West Papuan Declaration of
Independence from Dutch colonial rule; and
(b) calls on the Australian Government to urge the Indonesian Government to lift the ban on the flying of the Papuans' morning star
flag.
The motion was defeated 50 votes to 9 with the Democrats and Senator Lees supporting the Greens motion.
------------------------------------------
Annex 6. WEST PAPUA - Another recent UK Government Minister backs UN Review campaign
By WPNews, Nov 19, 2004, 05:15
Oxford,UK 19.11.04
Just a week after a former UK Cabinet Minister, the Rt Hon. Michael Meacher MP (Environment Secretary 1997-2003), publicly
called on Kofi Annan to set up an official United Nations review of the UN's conduct in the 1969 Act of 'Free' Choice, the campaign
took a further giant step towards reaching its goal when another recent UK Government Minister pledged his support to the
campaign.
The Rt Hon. Andrew Smith MP had been a member of Prime Minister Tony Blair's Cabinet for five years before resigning a mere two
months ago, in September 2004. He was Chief Secretary to the Treasury between 1999 and 2002 and Secretary of State for Work &
Pensions from 2002 to 2004. He is also the MP for Oxford East, where the Oxford Papuan Rights Campaign is based. Now in a
strongly worded letter to the UN Secretary-General Andrew Smith, has put on public record what has previously only been said by
Western governments in private:
"...it is clear that the Act of Free Choice was certainly not a free democratic choice, and that the people of West Papua have been
denied their right democratically to determine their own future."
Mr Smith went on to call on Kofi Annan to respond "... both on the question of a review of the Act of Free Choice, and any other
initiatives the UN can take to promote a peaceful settlement consistent with the human rights and self-determination of the people of
West Papua."
The full text of Andrew Smith's letter to Kofi Annan, together with a brief political biography, is printed below.
West Papuans (together with the Government of Vanuatu) are seeking international support for their call for the establishment of a
Special Commission of Enquiry to review the UN's conduct in relation to the now discredited Act of "Free" Choice under which the
former Dutch colony was incorporated into Indonesia in 1969.
Under a 1962 Netherlands/Indonesia treaty, the UN was given the role of guarantor of a one person-one vote act of self-
determination under which all adult Papuans could decide between joining Indonesia or full independence. However, in blatant
breach of the treaty and of the UN Charter itself, Suharto's Indonesia hand picked a mere 1,025 Papuans out of a then population of
800,000, and then forced them at gun-point to vote 100% for Indonesia.
The UN Secretariat sent only 16 observers (to a territory the size of Poland) to monitor the Act and shamefully recommended that
the result be accepted by the UN General Assembly, knowing full well that it had failed to reach the international standards which
are obligatory for any act of self-determination under international law.
Richard Samuelson
Oxford Papuan Rights Campaign
"When truth is replaced by silence, the silence is a lie."
-------------------------------------
Rt Hon Andrew Smith MP
House of Commons
London SW1A 0AA
18th November 2004
The Hon Kofi Annan

Secretary-General
United Nations
New York, NY 10017
USA
Dear Secretary General,
WEST PAPUA
I am writing following representations I have received from the Oxford Papuan Rights Campaign to raise with you the case for a
review of the UN's involvement in the so-called Act of Free Choice in West Papua.
Looking at the history of this, it is clear that the Act of Free Choice was certainly not a free democratic choice, and that the people of
West Papua have been denied their right democratically to determine their own future.
I strongly support initiatives to resolve peacefully the current conflict in West Papua, to act on the plight of people suffering its
consequences, and to uphold human rights.
I know you will understand the importance of the particular responsibility the United Nations has in these matters, and would
appreciate your response, both on the question of a review of the Act of Free Choice, and any other initiatives the UN can take to
promote a peaceful settlement consistent with the human rights and self-determination of the people of West Papua.
Yours sincerely,
Andrew Smith
Rt Hon Andrew Smith, MP
ANDREW SMITH MP (Oxford East)
Electoral history
1983 - Contested Oxford East seat, narrowly lost to Steve Norris June 1987 - Elected Parliament for Oxford East constituency Re-
elected in General elections of 1992, 1997 and 2001
Political Career (in Opposition)

1988 - 92 Opposition Spokesman for Education
1992 - 96 Opposition Frontbench Spokesman on Treasury and Economic Affairs
1994 - 96 Shadow Chief Secretary to the Treasury
1996 - 97 Shadow Secretary of State for Transport
Government
May 1997 - October 1999 Minister of State, Department for Education and Employment (Minister for Employment, Welfare to Work
and Equal Opportunities)
October 1999 Appointed to Cabinet
Ocotber 1999 - May 2002 Chief Secretary to the Treasury
May 2002 - September 2004 Secretary of State for Work and Pensions
--------------------------------------
Annex 7. Mike Hancock (Portsmouth South, LDem), Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs ---- West
Papua
Written answers
Thursday, 9 September 2004
To ask the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs if he will make it his policy to urge the United Nations to
instigate a review of the UN's conduct in relation to the Act of Free Choice in West Papua in 1968-1969; and if he will make a
statement.
Bill Rammell (Harlow, Lab) [Foreign Office Minister]
The Report of the Special Representative who oversaw the implementation of the UN backed 1969 Act of Free Choice resulting in
West Papua becoming a province of Indonesia was accepted by a majority vote of the UN in November 1969.
The British Government, together with other members of the international community, has continued to stress to the Indonesian
Government at the highest level the need to implement fully the 2001 Special Autonomy law for Papua. This law allows for the
establishment of a Truth and Reconciliation Committee to look at the incorporation of Papua into Indonesia in the 1960s.
------------------------------------------
Annex 8. Motion by the Australian Labor Party (A.L.P) - UN Review on West Papua
By WPNews, Nov 24, 2004, 05:27
Motion by the Australian Labor Party (A.L.P)
Victorian Branch that passed unanimously in their Victoria State conference on Saturday, 20th Nov
URGENCY MOTION - WEST PAPUA
1) There is increasing evidence of a worsening human rights situation in Papua / Irian Jaya, the easternmost province of Indonesia.
2) Indonesia‚s government has recently launched a military operation in the central highlands region that left six people dead and
forced 5000 villagers to flee their homes. The government has announced that foreign journalists will not be granted visas to enter
the province at this time.
3) An extra 25,000 troops have been poured into the mineral and timber-rich province since 2000.
4) Papua is home to the world's largest gold and copper mine at Freeport, while British energy giant BP plans to start the
construction of the Tangguh liquefied natural gas (LNG) next year, and BHP Billiton is hoping to go ahead with an open cut nickel
mine.
5) Local community leaders have been losing patience with the Indonesian government after moderate independence leader Theys
Eluay was assassinated in November 2001, and efforts to establish a "zone of peace" throughout the province by humans rights
workers had failed.
6) John Rumbiak, international advocacy co-ordinator for the Jayapura-based human rights group Elsham, says that increasing
militarisation, coupled with human rights abuses and unmet demands for independence, has turned Papua into a "time bomb waiting
to go off".
7) More than a million migrants had moved into the province from elsewhere in Indonesia, rapidly closing the gap on the 1.5 million
native Papuans, he said.
8) There is a danger that because the indigenous Papuans can't fight against the military, they may turn their anger on the migrants.
9) Islamist militia groups have added to the explosive mix, experiencing a recruitment surge December 2003 during a visit by Eurico
Guterres, the notorious leader whose own militia wreaked havoc in East Timorin 1999
10) Australia and neighbouring countries will be affected if further wide-scale violence breaks out and refugees once more begin
fleeing over the border to Papua New Guinea.
11) Indonesia's new President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono has expressed a willingness to resolve the conflict in Papua.
Therefore this conference of the Victorian branch of the A.L.P

a) Calls on the Australian government to call for peaceful dialogue between the Indonesian government and relevant
government and civil society representatives in Jayapura
b) Calls on the Australian government to "support and encourage" Indonesian President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono to
establish the "necessary pre-conditions" for peaceful dialogue, including a withdrawal of TNI troops from Papua, the
dismantling of militias and revoking decrees that seek to divide Papua into separate provinces.
c) Calls on the Australian government to work in co-operation with New Zealand and Pacific Island governments, to implement
Pacific Island Forum policy on peaceful dialogue and monitoring human rights abuses in Papua. (@)
------------------------------------------
Annex 9. DEGREE OF CONSISTENCY IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE NEW YORK
AGREEMENT 1962 IN WEST PAPUA
Note: 1 = Fully Implemented; 2 = Partly implemented; 3 = Not Implemented; 4- Heavily Violated.
DEGREE OF
ARTICLE SUBJECT
IMPLEMENTATION
I. Ratification of the Agreement 1 2 3 4
II. Transfer of Administration (from the Netherlands to the UN) X
III. The UN Administration X
IV. The UN Administrator X
V. The UNTEA's Chief Executive Officer
1. The UN Flag X
VI.
2. The Indonesian and the Netherlands' Flags X
VII. The UN Security Forces X
VIII. The UN Periodic Reports X
IX. 1st Phase of UNTEA X
X. Publication of the Agreement X
XI. Laws and Regulations X
XII. 2nd Phase of the UNTEA X
XIII Replacement of the UN Forces X
XIV. Indonesian Administration X X
XV. Social, Cultural, and Economic Developments X
XVI. The UN Experts X
The UN Representative for the implementation of the Act of
XVII. X
Self-Determination
• The Musyawarah Method X X
• The Dates of Implementation X
XVIII.
• The Formulation of Questions X X
• Eligibility X X
XIX. Reporting re-arrangement for Freedom of Choice X X
DEGREE OF
ARTICLE SUBJECT
IMPLEMENTATION
XX. Completion of the Act X
Final Report X
XXI.
Acceptance of the Result X
Rights of the Inhabitants:
X X
• Guarantee
XXII. • Concessions X
• Honoring Commitments X X
• Freedom of Movement for non-Papuans Civilians X
XXIII. Representative Council Vacancies X X
Financial Matters:
X
• Deficit in Budget
XXIV.
• UNTEA's Budget X
• Cost Reimbursements X
XXV. Previous Treaties X
XVI. Privileges/ Immunities X
• Entry into force X
XVII.
• Registration X
XXIX. Authentic Text X
REMARKS: Most of the Articles regarding the Rights of the inhabitants of West Papua were not
fully implemented and even heavily violated.
------------------------------------------
Annex 10. The 88 US Senators Letter to the UN Secretary-General
United States Senate

WASHINGTON, DC 20510
June 28, 2004
Honorable Kofi Annan

Secretary General
United Nations
New York, New York 10017
Dear Mr. Secretary General:
We are writing to urge you to appoint a United Nations Special Representative to Indonesia to monitor and report on the situations in
Aceh and Papua. This Special Representative would also make recommendations regarding steps the UN Security Council and
General Assembly might undertake to end the troubling and deadly conflicts that continue to engulf these regions.
In Aceh, the year-long period of martial law that ended in May with the imposition of a "civil emergency" has had an extraordinary
human cost.
While it is impossible to verify the precise number of extra-judicial incarcerations and killings, accounts suggest that more than 2000
people have been killed in the past year, the majority of whom have been civilians.
Indonesia's National Commission on Human Rights' (Komnas HAM) ad-hoc team for Aceh recently reported on the "attacks against
unarmed civilians, including victims who were murdered, tortured, sexually abused or raped, or others who the court had not yet
proved were rebels." The report also cited kidnapping, child abuse, arson, and robbery. The Komnas HAM team alleged that most
violations were committed by the Indonesian security forces, including both high level political and military authorities, though some
deaths have been attributed to the rebel Free Aceh Movement. The conflict has also generated massive refugee flows across
international borders, with thousands of others displaced internally. Although martial law has formally ended, the massive troop
presence in Aceh continues, as do most of the restrictions imposed under martial law.
The Indonesian government and security forces have effectively shut off Aceh from the rest of the world, severely restricting the
activities of Indonesian and international humanitarian and human rights organizations.
Many non-governmental organization workers and activists have been forced into hiding. International media have been effectively
barred from entering the province and the Indonesian press has been intimidated. In an affront to the United Nations itself,
Indonesian authorities forced the UN to curtail its humanitarian activities in Aceh for several months in 2003. While the UN and the
International Committee of the Red Cross are now allowed to operate there, significant constraints remain imposed on internal travel
and contact with the civilian population.
In Papua, the UN Special Rapporteur on Violence Against Women and the Working Group on Arbitrary Detention have long
documented human rights violations. Recently, the Indonesian military's creation of militia has exacerbated tensions between
indigenous Papuans and migrants. A military campaign in the Central Highlands has led to an inestimable number of civilian deaths
and significant population displacement. The fate of those hiding in the Papuan forests remains unknown, as military authorities
have prohibited provision of humanitarian assistance. Human rights organizations have endured intimidation and threats by
government security forces operating with impunity.
Human rights violations in Papua have instigated a refugee flow across international borders. Dialogue between the Indonesian
national government and Papuan local leaders has recently broken down, as demonstrated by Jakarta's ultimately deadly attempt to
divide the province into smaller provinces against the will of the people.
The international community has remained too quiet for too long regarding the conflicts in Aceh and Papua. The scale of human
rights violations in these two Indonesian provinces warrants special international attention.
Therefore, we urge you to appoint a Special Representative to Indonesia to monitor and report on the situations in Aceh and Papua.
We look forward to hearing from you regarding these concerns.
Sincerely,
Senator Frank R. Lautenberg (NJ)

Senator Chris Dodd (CT)
Senator Patrick J. Leahy (VT)
Senator Ron Wyden (OR)
Senator Dianne Feinstein (CA)
Senator Russell D. Feingold (WI)
Senator Deborah Ann Stabenow (MI)
Richard J. Durbin (IL)
Senator Jon S. Corzine (NJ)
Senator Herb Kohl (WI)
Senator Barbara Boxer (CA)
Senator Barbara Mikulski (MD)
Senator Carl Levin (MI)
Senator Byron L. Dorgan (ND)
Senator Patty Murray (WA).
Senator Jeff Bingaman (NM)
Senator Paul S. Sarbanes (MD)
Senator Jack Reed (RI)
Senator Daniel K. Akaka (HI)
Senator Edward M. Kennedy (MA)
cc: James B. Cunningham, Acting U.S. Representative to the United Nations

------------------------------------------
Annex 11. FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: MAJORITY OF TDS CHALLENGE SHAM VOTE IN
WEST PAPUA
25 MARCH 2004
A majority of TDs today challenge the sham take-over of West Papua - the first majority to so do in Europe.
The story of West Papua is one of independence cruelly snatched away at the last hour.
Each of the 88 TDs - from all political parties - have individually signed a letter to the UN Secretary General calling on him to initiate
a review of the UN's actions in the Indonesian take-over of West Papua. This is one significant step to righting this injustice.
"Irish politicians can be proud that they are taking a lead in Europe on this issue, and we hope this will act as a catalyst to mobilise
support internationally for the neglected cause of the West Papuan people. The denial of the right to self-determination is the root
cause of systematic human rights violations in my country," said leading West Papuan activist John Rumbiak today.
"We would like to thank our Irish brothers and sisters who are standing with us today. Maybe this is the beginning of the end of our
isolation. I call upon the Government of Ireland to call upon the UN Secretary General to review the UN's role in the Act of Free
Choice, 1969" added Dr. John Ondawame, West Papuan spokesman.
"Today Ireland has made history, and I am very happy to be here to witness it," proclaimed Viktor Kaisiepo.
West Papua Action Coordinator Mark Doris concluded: "We look forward to close cooperation with the Government to build on this
political breakthrough."
An estimated 100,000 West Papuans have died since the Indonesian military take-over.
Notes for Editors: (1) In 1969, while the world looked away, a grave injustice was committed against the West Papuan people. West
Papua was actually promised independence from the Dutch, the former colonial power (by 1st December 1970). But this was cruelly
snatched away in a Cold War sell-out dressed up as a democratic plebiscite called the "Act of Free Choice". This spurious Act was
contaminated by force and violence. Just 1,022 West Papuans out of a population of one million were allowed to vote. Not
surprisingly, this handpicked group unanimously "agreed" that West Papua would become the 26th province of Indonesia. A senior
UN official in charge at the time, Chakravarthy Narasimhan, has since called the process a "whitewash".
List of Supporting Parliamentarians

British Parliament: Ann Clwyd MP - Chair, All-Party Parliamentary Human Rights Group; Jeremy Corbyn MP - Jnt. Vice-Chair; Lord
Avebury - Jnt. Vice- Chair; Robert Walter MP- Jnt. Vice- Chair; Mark Oaten MP - Treasurer; Julie Morgan MP - Secretary, UK,
PicheN@parliament.uk
Irish Parliament (TD = MP): Fianna Fáil (12 TDs): Dan Wallace TD, Noel Davern TD, Cecilia Keaveney TD, Michael Mulcahy TD,
Máire Hoctor TD, Peter Kelly TD, Eoin Ryan TD, Barry Andrews TD, John Moloney TD, Seán Fleming TD, Dermot Fitzpatrick TD,
Charlie O'Connor TD; Progressive Democrats (4 TDs): Noel Grealish TD, Liz O'Donnell TD, Tim O'Malley TD, Fiona O'Malley TD.
Fine Gael (31 TDs): Enda Kenny TD, Leader, Gay Mitchell TD, Spokesperson on Foreign Affairs, Padraic McCormack TD, Jim
O'Keeffe TD, David Stanton TD, Paul Kehoe TD, John Perry TD, John Deasy TD, Simon Coveney TD, Dinny McGinley TD, Bernard
Durkan TD, Michael Noonan TD, Bernard Allen TD, Billy Timmins TD, Tom Hayes TD, Seymour Crawford TD, Jimmy Deenihan TD,
John Bruton TD, Paul Connaughton TD, Michael Ring TD, Olivia Mitchell TD, Phil Hogan TD, Damien English TD, Paul McGrath TD,
Dan Neville TD, Fergus O'Dowd TD, Richard Bruton TD, Denis Naughton TD, Pat Breen TD, Gerard Murphy TD, Olwyn Enright TD;
Labour Party (21 TDs): Pat Rabbitte TD, Leader, Labour Party, Michael D. Higgins TD, Spokesperson on Foreign Affairs, Ruairí
Quinn TD, Jack Wall TD, Joe Sherlock TD, Kathleen Lynch TD, Joe Costello TD, Tommy Broughan TD, Jan O'Sullivan TD, Mary
Upton TD, Brian O'Shea TD, Liz McManus TD, Joan Burton TD, Seán Ryan TD, Emmet Stagg TD, Willie Penrose TD, Brendan
Howlin TD, Seamus Pattison TD, Róisín Shortall TD, Eamon Gilmore TD, Breeda Moynihan Cronin TD; Green Party (6 TDs): Trevor
Sargent TD, Leader, John Gormley TD, Spokesperson on Foreign Affairs, Dan Boyle TD, Paul Gogarty TD, Ciaran Cuffe TD,
Eamon Ryan TD; Sinn Féin (5 TDs): Aengus Ó Snodaigh TD, Caoimhghín Ó Caoláin TD, Martin Ferris TD, Arthur Morgan TD, Seán
Crowe TD; Socialist Party (1 TD): Joe Higgins TD; Independent TDs (8 TDs): Paddy McHugh TD, Marian Harkin TD, Mildred Fox
TD, Seamus Healy TD, Paudge Connolly TD, Tony Gregory TD, Finian McGrath TD, Liam Twomey TD.
Finland: Ulla Anttila MP, Vice Chairperson of the Human Rights' Group, Kari Uotila MP, Chairperson of the Human Rights' Group,
Anni Sinnemäki MP, Satu Hassi MP.
New Zealand Parliament: Green Party : Jeanette Fitzsimons MP, Rod Donald MP (co-leaders), Mike Ward MP, Ian Ewen-Street MP,
Sue Bradford MP, Metiria Turei MP, Sue Kedgley MP, Nandor Tanczos MP, Keith Locke MP (Foreign Affairs Spokesperson); United
Future: Larry Baldock MP; Progressive Coalition: Matt Robson MP. Green Party of Aotearoa New Zealand -
International.Secretary@Greens.org.nz
Australia: Australian Greens Senator Bob Brown - senator.brown@aph.gov.au

Australian Greens - DebF@cyberone.com.au
Canada: Svend Robinson, MP
European Parliament: Proinsias de Rossa, MEP

Mrs Nuala Ahern MEP
Mr Alexandros Alavanos MEP
Mrs Mary Banotti MEP
Mr Margrietus (Max) J. van den Berg MEP
Mr Johannes (Hans) Blokland MEP
Mr Hans Udo Bullmann MEP
Mr Paulo Casaca MEP
Mr Michael Cashman MEP
Mr Luigi Cocilovo MEP
Mr Gerard Collins MEP
Mr Richard Corbett MEP
Mr Armando Cossutta MEP
Mr John Cushnahan MEP
Mrs Avril Doyle MEP
Mr Harald Ettl MEP
Mrs Pernille Frahm MEP
Mr Koldo Gorostiaga Atxalandabaso MEP
Mr Liam Hyland MEP
Mr Giorgos Katiforis MEP
Mrs Jean Lambert MEP
Mr Jo Leinen MEP
Mr Alain Lipietz MEP
Mrs Caroline Lucas MEP
Baroness Sarah Ludford MEP
Mr John Joseph McCartin MEP
Professor Sir Neil Mac Cormick MEP
Mrs Patricia McKenna MEP
Mr Erik Meijer MEP
Mr Seán O'Neachtain MEP
Mrs. Francisca Sauquillo Pérez Del Arco MEP
Mrs Catherine Stihler MEP
Mr Charles Tannock MEP
Mrs Anne E.M. Van Lancker MEP
Ulla Sandbaek MEP
Jens Peter Bonde MEP
Brian Crowley MEP
Niall Andrews MEP
Matti Wuori MEP
Nelly MAES MEP
(Total Members of European Parliament: 40; Total national parliamentarians: 111; Total Parliamentarians: 151)
------------------------------------------
Annex 12. STATEMENT BY ARCHBISHOP DESMOND TUTU, SOUTH AFRICA
For many years the people of South Africa suffered under the yoke of oppression and apartheid. Many people continue to suffer
brutal oppression, where their fundamental dignity as human beings is denied. One such people is the people of West Papua.
The people of West Papua have been denied their basic human rights, including their right to self-determination. Their cry for justice
and freedom has fallen largely on deaf ears.
An estimated 100,000 people have died in West Papua since Indonesia took control of the territory in 1963.
It is with deep concern I have learned about the United Nations’ role in the take-over of West Papua by Indonesia, and in the now-
discredited “Act of ‘Free’ Choice” of 1969. Instead of a proper referendum, where every adult male and female had the opportunity to
vote by secret ballot on whether or not they wished to be part of Indonesia, just over 1,000 people were hand-picked and coerced
into declaring for Indonesia in public in a climate of fear and repression.
The UN had just 16 observers to this Act for a country the size of Spain. The then Secretary-General’s Representative reported on
the conduct of the Act to the UN General Assembly in 1969, which noted his report on 19 November of that year.
One of the senior UN officials at the time, Chakravarthy Narasimhan, has since called the process a “whitewash”.
A strong United Nations will be capable of, among other things, acknowledging and correcting its mistakes.
I would like to add my voice to growing international calls for the UN Secretary General to instigate a review of the UN’s conduct in
relation to the now-discredited “Act of ‘Free’ Choice”.
I will keep the people of West Papua in my prayers, and I would like to extend my best wishes and moral support to them in their
hour of need.
----------------
Annex 13. Speech by Vanuatu Delegate to the UNGA 59th Session, 2004
Mr. President
Mr. Secretary General
Excellencies
Distinguished Delegates
I bring to this august gathering a warm greeting from the people of the Republic of Vanuatu.
Mr. President,
At the outset, I take this opportunity to congratulate you on your assumption as the President of the 59th Session of the United
Nations General Assembly. May I further take this occasion to acknowledge with deep gratitude the contributions of your
predecessor who so competently steered the work of the 58 Session to its conclusion.
Here, I must also acknowledge the outstanding role of Mr. Kofi Annan, the Secretary General, for being resolute in his efforts to
revitalize the organization in addressing global concerns and my delegation hereby reaffirms its support for Mr. Annan's profound
and meticulous leadership of the United Nations.
I also take this time to convey the condolences of my Government and people of Vanuatu to the people in the Caribbean nations,
and in particular Haiti, for the loss of so many lives and for the extensive damage caused by the destructive forces of nature that
swept through the region recently. We offer you our moral support and pray for a speedy recovery in the lives of the affected
peoples and for the swift rehabilitation and rebuilding of the devastated areas of your nations. These inevitable natural calamities
again expose the extreme and particular vulnerability of island states, seriously affecting national economies.
Mr. President,
Annually, from this rostrum we reaffirm our faith and confidence in upholding the purposes and principles of the Charter. We entered
the new Millennium with much anticipated hope of creating a just and better world for all our citizens. However, global insecurity and
the varying dimensions of serious conflict have created a frightening situation. The world is expected to plunge into further turmoil
unless the role of this only truly global body is reinvigorated to resume its legitimate responsibility in addressing the causes of
conflict and maintaining peace and security. I come to this Assembly with some trepidation as I see the globe spiraling beyond
control unless its members uphold the universality of the United Nation's decision-making process in addressing global concerns.
The world is at the crossroads and we meet here at a critical juncture. Around us civil strife, wars, poverty, diseases, famine,
drought, natural disasters, terrorism, environmental degradation, depletion of land and marine resources, etc are ravaging the world.
The displacement of peoples from their natural habitats and the sacrilege of the human suffering in many parts of the world
demonstrate that unless immediate remedial strategies are implemented the global situation will continue to deteriorate.
Moreover, the emergence of conflict in areas once believed stable coupled by the deterioration in law and order and the senseless
killings of innocent peoples are painful reminders that warrant rethinking of policies and decisions.
Globalization has brought with it both opportunities and challenges but for the small island states the challenges are much more
ominous.
Mr. President,
Those are the realities.
These negative developments lead me to conclude to the indispensability of the United Nations and the need for all members to
work as friends and equal partners. Globalization has brought nations together-we are interlinked and interdependent and this
requires global cooperation and governance from all responsible members of the Organization . Understandably, there are vested
interests from the powerful but this requires genuine cooperation and goodwill, and the convergence of those interests and the
United Nation's role in that regard must remain fundamental to ensure compatibility with the international legal framework. Maverick
policies and decisions will only create further division and hostility.
With that mindset, I believe there is now consensus for far reaching reforms to be introduced to make the United Nations relevant to
all its members with the fundamental objective of preserving international peace, security, and stability.
My government fully supports efforts to reform the United Nations system to ensure a stronger and more effective organization. On
this note my delegation wishes to endorse the views of other delegations on the need to review the membership of the Security
Council that will better reflect geographical representation and the underrepresented group of member countries of the
UnitedNations, without affecting the authority of the Council.
I hope all the rhetoric that has come before this Assembly can be translated into concrete and practical action. We must be resolute
in our collective desire to work together as sovereign nations in addressing the world's problems through multilateral institutions. The
blueprint for international cooperation has been established but reforming certain structures in the United Nations system must be
seen as the prerequisite if we are serious in moving forward. The Achilles heel of the current structure is the imbalance of power
play in the United Nations system. It has become so chronic that it has weakened the multilateral focus, cohesiveness, and
internationalism of the United Nations.
The principles of democratization and good governance so actively advocated and championed by some members must be
reflected in the reorganization and decision-making process of the United Nations system.
It is in this regard that Vanuatu supports the review of the permanent membership of the Security Council to include Japan, a
representative from the African continent, the Middle East, and one from the group of small developing countries. A more
representative Council will bring openness and transparency, create confidence, and ameliorate understanding and cooperation.
A restructuring of the Security Council membership is long overdue. Diversity is essential here.
My Government looks forward to the report of the Secretary General's High Level Panel. 2
Mr. President,
While the fight against terrorism takes center stage, it must not overshadow the socio-economic development agenda and other
serious security concerns affecting the developing world and in particular those of small island states. Resources will inevitably be
diverted towards combating terrorism in all its facets but judicious decisions need to be taken. It is against this background that our
delegation wishes to associate itself with statements made by other delegations on the imperativenes the concerns of the small
island states on vulnerability.
At the Millennium Summit Leaders adopted the 8 Millennium Development Goals with targets to be achieved by 2015.While
commitments have been made the lethargic performance of many countries, including Vanuatu, demonstrate the need for more
international support in assisting countries meet those targets.
The global economic situation today discriminates against many of the developing economies.
Unfair trading practices and imposition of intrusive policies on national economies, in this case Vanuatu, affect the economy by
opening it up to unfavourable conditions that only favour the stronger nations. Post-Cancun poses extreme challenges for the
economic survival and socioeconomic stability of many of the small developing nations like Vanuatu.
My Government's initial focus is on the social sector- in health and education. The Government ' s Prioritized Action Agenda
launched last year in consultation with development partners is the catalyst for Vanuatu's medium to long term strategic planning.
This development policy framework is consistent with achieving the MDG targets and emphasizes the need to empower our rural
population through infrastructure and capacity building initiatives. Our appeal goes to our development partners to adequately assist
us in its implementation.
On that note my delegation wishes to express its gratitude to the United States of America for granting Vanuatu eligibility to access
development funding from the Millennium Challenge Account.
Mr. President,
The primary responsibility for development lies with the state itself however, external influences and conditional aid has not
adequately corresponded to Vanuatu's development priorities and advancement. The pretext for foreign advice conditioned with
development assistance has been to improve governance and are sectors considered vital in establishing a strong economy.
In Vanuatu's case this line of argument has not produced tangible results with restricted progress reflected in our continuous
struggle with reforms that are more or less dictated by external forces.
Both the recipient and the external assistance must be balanced and sensitive to national interests. Too often, these normal
reactions are misunderstood by some of our development partners. From Vanuatu's perspective, externally driven reforms must be
buttressed by an equal partnership that respects local tradition, culture, and rights of all citizens without disturbing the essential
uniting mechanisms of society that have successfully held us together over time. An exploitive agenda can only erode and dismantle
these ingrained mechanics leaving us vulnerable to the rapid changes affecting all today.
Vanuatu embraces democracy and concepts of governance/transparency but these must be tailored to suit the traditional system
without affecting the relevance and significance of those farreaching principles.
Mr. President,
In recent times the history of the Organization has been characterized by indecision that have blemished the record of the United
Nations, and I speak to the longstanding issue of self determination, and in particular the case of West Papua cognizant of the
Charter espousing the principles that continue to guide the Organization's efforts in the process of self-determination. The United
Nations must be consistent in its decisions for the recognition and respect of the fundamental rights to self-determination for the
people of West Papua. The truth surrounding the so called Act of Free Choice must be exposed to the Melanesian sisters and
brothers of West Papua, and the rest of the international community; the saddest of all is the UN General Assembly Resolution 2504
on West Papua in 1969. How can the UN continue to ignore the cries of over three million people demanding justice?
As World leaders, we have time and time again, expressed serious concerns and dissatisfaction that certain decisions and actions
by the United Nations or its organs were not consistent with the purposes and intentions of the Charter. However, with case of West
Papua absolutely nothing has been done to rectify the gross violation of internationally accepted practice.
It is therefore our joint responsibility to address this grey area in history.
The continuing disputes and concerns raised on the legality of UN -endorsed instruments which have been concluded during those
years, such as the New York Agreement of 1962, to govern the UN administration of the so -called Act of Free Choice in West
Papua is a clear example challenging the integrity and validity of the UN resolutions at that time. In our opinion the UN conducted
exercises were a total farce conditioned only to suit the geo-political climate of that period.
The United Nations cannot and must not continue to turn a blind eye on its own past failures. It is morally, politically and legally
wrong to do so.
The Netherlands, which was the former colonial authority, in particular, should also recognize that they should shoulder some
responsibility in helping to resolve the unfortunate situation of West Papua in a peaceful and transparent manner. Why is no one
accountable for those unjust decisions affecting the lives of millions today?
Vanuatu therefore calls for:

• The establishment of a Special Commission of Enquiry to review the UN's conduct in relation to the 1969 Act,
• The UN to send a fact-finding mission to examine the situation in West Papua with regard to human rights abuses and other
related issues,
• The re-inscription of West Papua on the List of Non-Self-Governing Territories.
These are critically challenging responsibilities.

Mr. President,
On a final matter, my delegation strongly reaffirms its support for Resolution 2758 of the 26th Session of the General Assembly in
1971 recognizing the legal and political representation of the People's Republic of China as a member of the United Nations.
Vanuatu again reiterates its unwavering support for One-China and urges all members of the United Nations to work in the interest
of world peace and stability in the Asia-Pacific region.
Mr. President,
In conclusion, I must bring to the attention of this Assembly another priority issue that is of grave importance to my Government and
Nation. I raise again the matter concerning the relocation of the ESCAP Pacific Operations Center in Vanuatu to another location.
My Government was not properly consulted and requests that the decision to relocate the EPOC from Vanuatu be reconsidered. If
the UN ESCAP Pacific Operations Center's relevance in the region is questioned then my Government is proposing that a proper
review be carried with a view to restructuring the ESCAP Office in order to relocate the Pacific Operations Center to Bangkok.
Programmes and activities under ESCAP responsibility may be better coordinated through the United Nations Development
Programme (UNDP) for the region.
I hope wisdom will prevail as the debate continues on our future destiny. Despite all our differences and diversities human security
for all is our main goal, and this should remain the focus of the UN agenda. The cardinal question is will members allow the United
Nations to undertake serious reforms in meeting the challenges ahead? The future remains in our hands.
Thank you for your attention.

---------------------------
Annex 14. Early Day Motion 475 tabled at British Houses of Parliament by Jeremy Corbyn,
06.03.00
WEST PAPUA
06.03.00
Corbyn/Jeremy
That this House recalls that in August 1969 an Act of Free Choice (the Act) took place in the former Dutch colonial territory now
known as West Papua or Papua, then under Indonesian administration, which was intended to be an act of self-determination
conforming with international practice; further recalls that the Act in fact involved an unrepresentative group of 1,025 persons
selected by Indonesia voting under duress to become part of Indonesia; is concerned that the Act was not free and fair and was not
a proper act of self-determination in accordance with international law; notes that in December 1999 the Government of the
Netherlands agreed to investigate the circumstances under which West Papua was incorporated into Indonesia; further notes that in
February 2000 the Grand Assembly of West Papua, comprising representatives from across the territory, voted to reject the result of
the Act because it did not conform with international practice and took place amidst intimidation and murder by the Indonesian
military; calls upon Her Majesty's Government to recognise that the inalienable right of the people of West Papua to self-
determination has not yet been realised in accordance with international law and to press the UN to investigate the Act with a view
to carrying out a proper act of self-determination in the territory; and further calls upon Her Majesty's Government to press the
Government of Indonesia to enter into meaningful dialogue with West Papuan representatives to seek peaceful and democratic
solutions to their grievances.
Signatures (27) Corbyn/Jeremy Mahon/Alice Campbell/Ronnie

Hancock/Mike Wise/Audrey Rogers/Allan
Morgan/Alasdair George/Andrew McWalter/Tony
Simpson/Alan McNamara/Kevin Wigley/Dafydd
Taylor/David Clapham/Michael Sawford/Phil
Jones/Lynne Hopkins/Kelvin Vis/Rudi
Wyatt/Derek Cryer/Ann Gorrie/Donald
Austin/John Etherington/Bill McDonnell/John
Michie/Bill Godman/Norman A Benn/Tony
In respect of the memory of the estimated 300,000 murdered and disappeared Papuans (please read section on abuses), each
reader is requested to e-mail their respective members of Government, Parliament, Senate, Congress where ever they are, to seek
an urgent review by the United Nations of the 'Act of Free Choice' of 1969.
We hope enough material has been provided through this website (and others) for all humanity to realise that something terribly
wrong has occurred in West Papua and that the situation is likely to deteriorate in the very near future.
The West Papua 'problem' can not, will not, and shall not disappear until the great injustice which has been the history of West
Papua is rectified.
--------------
Annex 16. PRESS RELEASE for immediate release: Church leaders boycott Indonesian president
West Papua - Sunday, December 26, 2004

http://www.westpapuanews.com/articles/publish/article_1686.shtml
CONTACT:
Socrates Sofyan YOMAN, President of West Papuan Baptist Church Phn:+62-(0)812-4888458;
Rev. Lipius Biniluk, Chairman of the Christian Evangelical Church Indonesia in West Papua, Phn. +62-(0)81344062678;
Rev. Dr. Benny GIAY (Bible Church Camp Papua), Phn: +62-(0)815-86237462;
Rev. Herman Saud, Chairman of Christian Evangelical Church in the Land of Papua. Phn. +62-(0)811482674
„Military operation overshadows Yudhoyono's Christmas visit to West Papua”
A boycott of today‚s Christmas visit to the capital of the Indonesian province of West Papua is an embarrassing rebuke to newly
elected President Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono.
In a protest to highlight community outrage over military operations underway in the province‚s interior, church leaders from all major
denominations in West Papua, led by West Papua‚s largest church, the Christian Evangelical Church in the Land of Papua (GKI),
today released a statement in Jayapura denouncing the Presidential visit.
President Yudohoyono is today offering a well-publicized gift” to the people of West Papua, the establishment of a Papua People's
Council (MRP), which will represent tribal and religious leaders in local parliament and is part of a special autonomy scheme for the
province.
„Mr Yudohyono speaks of resolving the West Papua issue peacefully and giving symbolic gifts to the Papuans, yet his military is
killing our people more than 6,000 civilians are right now hiding in the forests of Puncak Jaya fearing for their lives and dozens have
died from hunger. What kind of Christmas gift is this?” said Rev. Herman Saud, Chairman of GKI in the strongly worded statement.
In the last two weeks a series of calls from a broad coalition of religious, student, human rights and women‚s groups to stop the
operation in Puncak Jaya and allow humanitarian assistance into the area have been ignored by Jakarta.
„The attitude of ignoring the demands of the West Papuan people and visiting in the middle of the operation in Puncak Jaya where
thousands are displaced is really an insult to the West Papuans. It demonstrates the discriminatory policy of the Indonesian
government towards West Papua for over 40 years,” said Rev. Dr Benny Giay, an academic and head of the Peace and Justice
Bureau of the West Papuan Bible Camp Church.
„Authorities are always manipulating Christmas events for the interests of Jakarta, not the interests of the West Papuan people. Our
people are dying and he comes to celebrate”, said Reverend Giay.
„It is like the President is coming to Papua to dance on our graves”, said Socrates Sofyan Yoman, President of the West Papuan
Baptist Church.
„This administration does not listen to the voices of the Papuan people. It is very simple - stop the military operation, withdraw the
troops and allow us to deliver food, medicine and shelter to the refugees. Then he will be welcome,‰ demanded Yoman.
Church officials have been monitoring the Puncak Jaya crisis via information filtering out from the area by couriers.
An influx of troops since September has seen the highlands area surrounding the towns of Mulia and Puncak Jaya become a „zone
of military operations‰. Last week an extra 900 troops were deployed.
A report from church sources received earlier this month indicated eight more people had died of starvation, which brought the total
deaths from hunger to twenty-three. No reports have emerged since then due to lack of access to aid workers and church officials.
Over six thousand people are still without help and have been prevented from receiving food supplies and medical aid.
Wider Destabilising Political Developments in West Papua
Commenting on the deteriorating situation in Puncak Jaya, Reverend Herman Saud claimed the operation in Puncak Jaya is clearly
a reflection of the wider destabilising policies in West Papua today.
„The statements made by Mr Yudhoyono that no civilians would be harmed by military operations in the Papuan highlands
contradicts reality‚‰, said Reverend Saud. „The policies of this administration must be questioned, not only by the Christian church
here in Papua. This is an issue that must be confronted by Indonesians as a people and by the international community”, he added.
Increasing militarisation, coupled with human rights abuses and unmet demands for independence has turned Indonesia's
easternmost province into a "time bomb waiting to go off". Locals are losing patience with Jakarta, with efforts to establish a "zone of
peace" throughout the province at the brink of failure.
An extra 25,000 troops have been poured into province since 2000, and more than a million migrants have moved into the province
from elsewhere in Indonesia, rapidly closing the gap on the 1.5 million native Papuans.
In another development, this week the Mayor of the coastal town of Sorong told community leaders that police had found 260 home
made guns and dozens of petrol bombs in the Teminabuan district. Over the last year reports have filtered out from Sorong that
shipments of guns have been arriving and are being sold to local people and to militia members recruited by the notorious Eurico
Gutterres. Gutterres was accused of committing crimes against humanity following the bloodbath after the 1999 East Timor
referendum.
Meanwhile, it has been reported by police sources in Puncak Jaya that several attacks on police officers in the area have been
orchestrated, not by OPM, but by Kopassus operatives who have infiltrated the OPM. The officers shot have all been native
Papuans.
Tom Beanal, the Deputy of the moderate political organisation, the Papuan Presidium Council, believes the whole West Papuan
political situation is destabilising and needs to be resolved peacefully.
„This is the time international community and the Jakarta government must work together to stop the military operation in the
highlands, withdraw the additional troops in West Papua and begin to create a space for a dialogue between Indonesian
Government and the West Papuans,‰ appealed Mr Beanal.
Background
West Papua is the western half of the island of New Guinea. The indigenous population is Melanesian, 95% of which are Christian.
In the 1960s the United Nations supervised a fraudulent plebiscite, the „Act of Free Choice” ,that forced the indigenous population of
West Papua to incorporate with Indonesia. For more than 40 years, Papua province has been ruled by the Indonesian military and
as result more than 100,000 have been killed.(ENDS)
-----------------
Papua report Drooglever launched
A Dutch study on Papua, charged with political implications for Indonesia, has been greeted with rejoicing by many Papuans,
and led to controversy in the Netherlands and growing concern about the prospects for Papua.
15 November 2005, will go down in history as an important day for Papuans as Prof.
P.J. Drooglever's long awaited study, Een Daad van Vrije Keuze (An Act of Free Choice),
was finally launched in The Hague. The Dutch-commissioned report has now confirmed
international findings that the UN held "vote" in 1969,
that put Papua under Indonesian sovereignty, was "a sham" -- a conclusion likely to
strengthen the pro-independence Papuan perspective and the international criticism of
Papua's integration into Indonesia.
Jakarta has always considered Papua its province in the legitimate and ultimate
sense, and The Hague has stated that it categorically respects Indonesia's territorial
integrity. Drooglever's work, though, is not a political document, but a study written at the
request of the Dutch Foreign Ministry. Yet the launching of the report has been a delicate
and sensitive affair precisely because of its conclusions. Neither Indonesian diplomats nor
Dutch government officials, both moving in tandem, were willing to attend. Dutch Foreign Minister Bot refused to officially receive the
book, which he dismissed as "superfluous" despite it being sponsored by his ministry. Instead, it was presented to his predecessor,
van Aartsen, the man who actually gave the go-ahead to the study.
The two governments' conspicuous silence indicates a cautious, but undeclared concern that Drooglever's findings might
complicate the issue of Papua by provoking Papuan and international demands for a "historical rectification" of the 1969 vote, i.e. a
new referendum.
P.J. Drooglever has no doubt written a credible and most comprehensive study on Papua. He recognizes that the Papua issue
began after the Dutch raised the idea of zelf-beschikkingsrecht (right to self-determination) at the Linggardjati talks (1948) and put it
in the Round Table Agreement (1949). However, Indonesian President Sukarno and Foreign Minister Soebandrio's successful
diplomacy cornered Dutch foreign minister Luns after the two Kennedys, John and Robert, threw U.S. support behind Indonesia.
The sham that thwarted a free vote began after Gen. Soeharto declared he would only accept the results if Papua, then called West
Irian, joined Indonesia. Based on archives and testimony, Drooglever argues, the 1969 vote was not, in fact, held quite in
accordance with the 1962 New York Agreement. In fact, there was no vote at all as the process went through stages where
decisions were taken collectively by carefully selected Papuans on the basis of written prescriptions -- often with intimidation and
threats of violence forming the backdrop.
Jakarta Post, 22 November 2005

The Netherlands and Indonesia are not happy with a study that questions their actions over West
Papuan sovereignty, writes John Aglionby
Tuesday November 29, 2005
This Thursday, December 1, marks the 44th anniversary of the West Papuan people's declaration of independence from their
Dutch colonial masters. The residents of the western half of New Guinea island have, however, never ruled themselves because
nine months later, in August 1962, the Dutch, via the United Nations, handed over control of the resource-rich territory to Indonesia.
That move was given international legal sanctity following a referendum seven years later, called the Act of Free Choice, of
1,025 of the approximately 700,000 Papuans. Since then no major nation has ever questioned Jakarta's right to rule West Papua.
This may soon change following the publication this month of a study commissioned by the Dutch government into the history
of the area. Written by Dr Pieter Drooglever of the Institute of Netherlands History, the 740-page Een Daad van Vrije Keuze (An Act
of Free Choice), leaves little doubt that the vote was, as the UN under-secretary general in 1969, Chakravarthy Narasimhan, said in
a 2001 interview, "a whitewash".
"[The UN representative] Ortiz Sanz was not allowed to play any part in putting together the electorate and was given the
smallest possible role in the implementation of the referendum itself," Dr Drooglever wrote in an English summary of the Dutch-
language book.
"In the opinion of the Western observers and the Papuans who have spoken out about this, the Act of Free Choice ended up
as a sham, where a press-ganged electorate acting under a great deal of pressure appeared to have unanimously declared itself in
favour of Indonesia," he continued.
In an interview with Guardian Unlimited, Dr Drooglever said he found that in "the whole set up of the plebiscite there was no
freedom of speech". How close Dr Drooglever got to the truth can be guessed by the reaction in both the Hague and Jakarta. Dutch
foreign minister Ben Bot refused to formally receive the report - it had been commissioned by his predecessor in 2000 - and
reportedly described it as "superfluous". An Indonesian foreign ministry spokesman, Yuri Thamrin, viewed the study as "an
academic work" but of no "significant substance". "The status of Papua as an integral part of Indonesia has already been recognised
by the world, including the Netherlands itself," he said.
John Saltford, a British academic who wrote one of the last major studies of West Papua, said Dr Drooglever's book "will have
a profound effect". "He could have been a lot more circumspect and tried to blur the issue," he told Guardian Unlimited. "The
difference here [compared to other books] is that it was a Dutch foreign-ministry commissioned report."
Papuan independence campaigners, in contrast, rejoiced at its publication. A rally to mark the event in the West Papuan
capital Jayapura was harshly suppressed.
Benny Wenda, an activist who has been granted political asylum in Britain, said the Drooglever report has "opened a door".
"Now Papuans' actions have to be focused around keeping this door open and at on it till victory," he told Guardian Unlimited.
Jakarta's treatment of West Papua over the decades has been characterised more by brutal repression and rampant
exploitation of the natural resources than developing the people's welfare.
Dr Drooglever estimates "tens of thousands" of Papuans have been killed in Jakarta's attempt to suppress opposition to
Indonesian rule. Tens of thousands of troops are stationed in West Papua to contain a tiny armed separatist movement which the
Dutch academic believes poses no threat to Jakarta.
Last week, the military announced that a new division of some 10,000-15,000 troops of the elite strategic reserves would be
created specifically to be based in West Papua. Foreign journalists and most researchers and aid workers are banned from Papua
but, ironically, tourists are not.
Dr Drooglever believes the military, which has to find some 60% of its own budget, has such a heavy presence there for
ulterior motives. "There's a lot of money available in the territory and the troops go where the money is," he told Guardian Unlimited.
The territory is home to the world's largest gold and copper mine, run by a subsidiary of the American firm Freeport-McMoran,
and the Anglo-American oil giant BP is developing a massive natural gas field which is expected to be generating revenues of
around £55m a year.
In recent years government revenues to West Papua have more than tripled as a result of a massive nationwide
decentralisation programme. But the World Bank reported in a study this month that despite this - and the fact that Papua (Jakarta
does not use the word West in its official name) is the second wealthiest province in the nation - the poverty level, at 40%, is double
the national average, one third of the children do not attend school and nine out of 10 villages do not have basic health service with
a health centre, doctor or midwife.
The UN's Aids organisation, UNAids, has identified it as having an HIV epidemic that is all-but out of control.
After the Indonesian dictator General Suharto fell in 1998, the government promised special autonomy to the region and a law
was passed to that effect the following year. But it has still not been fully implemented and Jakarta has repeatedly violated its
provisions, as recognised by the country's constitutional court.
No major governments or the UN have spoken out about the Drooglever report so the chances of the Papuans using it to
generate international momentum remain very slim.
The author himself believes Papuans will have to set their sights lower than independence. "I think they will have to be happy
when an administration is set up that's not dominated by the military," he said.
Email: john.aglionby@guardian.co.uk
Endnotes:
i Otsus stands for Otonomi Khusus, which means Special Autonomy.

ii It is necessary because the special autonomy, according to Karoba (2004), is an outcome of conflicts
between social and political interests, and has nothing to do with reformation in legal, human rights and
humanitarian aspects within Indonesia. Therefore, there is no good political will within the Special
Autonomy Package, but it is merely to address the demand for separation by various organisations and the
people in West Papua. Karoba puts some tests to the credibility of the Bill by suggesting the readers to
question: “where did the idea of special autonomy come from, how and who was involved in the processes of
the bill, and how and who have the access to influencing or manipulating the implementation of the bill.”
iii Real and genuine representatives of the Papuan peoples are like the Papua Presidium Council, the
Koteka Tribal Assembly, Free Papua Movement (OPM), Alliance of Papuan Students (AMP), and Papua
Women’s Alliance.
iv Benny Wenda, the Secretary-General of the Koteka Tribal Assembly (Demmak) was arbitrarily
arrested, and later on his unjust trials went on and he was imprisoned but then escaped from prison and now
seeking for asylum status in the United Kingdom of Great Britain.
v A Background Explanation by Sem Karoba gives the density of Indonesian efforts to steer up violence
can be seen in Appendix B.

vi Narasimhan in fact realised that Mr. U Thant expectations as he expressed during the hand-over of
West Papua to Indonesia were not fulfilled. In the last part of the UN Secretary-General's message read by
his assistant, Mr. C.V. NARASIMHAN at the transfer ceremony of West Papua to the Indonesian
Government, Mr. U Thant stated: ".... I would like to express to the people of this territory, my earnest hope for their welfare
and happiness in the future. I am sure that THE REPUBLIC OF INDONESIA WILL THOROUGHLY FULFILL ALL TERMS AND
CONDITIONS MADE ON AUGUST 15, 1962, and guarantees the exercise of the people's right in the territory in expressing their will
for their future. The United Nations will assist the Government of Indonesia in the implementation of other parts stated in the
agreement. (Deppen RI, 1964: IRIAN BARAT, page 19).
vii It means I want Indonesia, I like Indonesia, the Dutch get out, and Indonesia should stay here,
respectively.
viii According to an eyewitness account from Wayati Village of Fak-Fak Regency
ix It was “indeed impossible”, according to their version, due to the scattered and remote villages, as well
as due to the people being still primitive and had no clue of democracy whatsoever. However, what is
important to note is that the fact General Election under Indonesian occupation in early 1970s was
conducted all over West Papua, and that no reason was posed as to the people were still primitives and had
no clue of democracy. The general election was carried out all over West Papua, in remote and scattered
villages, and no one was excluded in it. Does this justify the reasons for saying “indeed impossible”? Or
perhaps Dr. Ortiz-Sans’ “indeed impossible” was related to something else?, i.e., Indonesian strict control
over UN staff members?
x The number “25 years” was according to the Rome Joint Statement, but no one ever knows what the
three parties’ plan after that term. They have done nothing after 25 years was terminated by 1 May 1988.
xi On April 5, 1961, the Dutch Government appointed Local Council Members, and in its Official Gazette
No. 68 formalised the establishment of the West Papuan Council (Nieuw Guinea Raad) in order to undertake
all Representative and Legislative tasks. The Council later the National Attributes of the West Papua State,
namely: West Papua for the Nation, The Morning Star for the National Flag, 'My Land of Papua' as its
National Anthem, and the whole colony of The Netherlands New Guinea became the State's Territory. Days
before sovereignty recognition by the Dutch government on Indonesia in 1949, West Papua, known as
Netherlands New Guinea was affirmed in 1950 as a special autonomy government, headed by a governor
based on the Netherlands Government's Official Gazette J.576, of December 22, 1949.
Long before the adoption of Resolution 1514 (XV), the Netherlands government issued an Official
Gazette, Stattsblad J.599, January 10, 1949, for the establishment of a West Papuan Council, consisted of a
number of peoples' representatives, that would function as a legislative body. However, due to special
considerations the plan was only brought into realization on April 05, 1961.
Based on NNG Govt. Official Gazette 1961 No. 6B (National Flag), 1961 No. 69 (National Anthem), and
1961 No. 70 (Flag Raising) of November 18, 1961, the West Papuan National Attributes were officially
announced, and used effectively on December 01, 1961.
[http://www.westpapua.net/docs/books/book3part02.htm]
xii Catholic Church in West Papua manages Human Rights Website http://www.hampapua.org and
other religions organisations are preparing to present news and information regarding the churches at
http://www.papuachurches.org, which is now under construction.
xiii This support is a follow up of previous support and endorsement. One of the examples is: The
Oireachtas Joint Committee on Foreign Affairs Unanimously Endorsed Four Requests

Submitted by West Papua Messenger to the Republic of Ireland, On 11 July 2001.
[http://www.westpapua.net/docs/submissions/submission071101.htm]
xiv Total Members of European Parliament: 40; Total national parliamentarians: 111; Total Parliamentarians: 151

Briefing A

Uploaded by

Document Information

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Briefing A

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUFFICIENT PROOFS INDICATE

WEST PAPUA’S INTEGRATION INTO INDONESIA AS

Background and Progress Report:

The West Papuan Peoples’ Representative Office (WPPRO)

1. For the International Community

For Her Majesty’s Government of the Kingdom of Great Britain to:

3. For West Papuan Peoples

To Know More About Our Independence Campaigns:

To Know About Us: Emails: koteka@westpapua.net, amole@wp.minihub.org

Other Useful Websites: http://www.freewestpapua.org, http://www.freewestpapua.com,

B. The Facts of West Papua Independence Movement

1. Continuous Resistance as the Matter of Fact

report is available at http://www.westpapua.net/cases/hr/report1/index.htm]

Campaign (OPRC, 14th December 2004. [http://www.westpapuanews.com/articles/publish/printer_1663.shtml]

All Papuan peoples are aware today the reality that:

2. Indonesian Failures to Resolve Core Problems

[http://www.westpapua.net/docs/books/book1/part03.htm] and [http://www.westpapua.net/docs/books/book2/part06.htm]

3. Otsus: Solution or just an Illusion?

1) The Inputting and Processing of the Otsus Bill

Press Yogyakarta, 2004.

No. 10, [http://www.eastwestcenter.org/res-rp-publicationdetails.asp?pub_ID=1523]

2) The Otsus Bill vs. Partition of the Province

Pemekaran: The Politics of Divide and Rule

As an outcome of manipulative inputting (drafting) between central and provincial government

2000, Minggu, 16 February, 2003. [http://www.melanesianews.org/tpnopm/press/060203-otsus.htm]

Autonomy, 17.11.2004. [http://www9.sbs.com.au/theworldnews/region.php?id=99115&region=2]

Papuan People). [http://www.hamline.edu/apakabar/basisdata/2001/10/24/0052.html]

http://www.westpapua.net/cases/autonm/uuotsus.htm of the final version and http://www.westpapua.net/cases/autonm/otsusbe.htm

OF WEST PAPUA, PRESS STATEMENT, Timika, 08 September 2003. [http://www.westpapua.net/docs/press/03/090903-

Dec 7, 2004, 15:54 [http://www.westpapuanews.com/articles/publish/article_1562.shtml]

Lawrence Sullivan: Otsus Law and Partition Law

3) The Implementation of Otsus for West Papua Today

37 Constitutional Court's ruling on the partition of Papua, by Watch Indonesia - WPNews

Government, By CFR-WPNews, May 7, 2003, 05:41. [http://www.westpapuanews.com/articles/publish/article_1462.shtml]

by John Rumbiak, Supervisor ELSHAM. [http://ww.westpapua.net/docs/papers/elsham-usri.htm]

[http://www.westpapua.net/news/02/03/280302-jihad.htm] and Masyarakat Tolak Kehadiran Laskar Jihad Di Papua.

Tuesday September 03, 2002. [http://www.westpapua.net/news/02/09/030902-tpnopm1.htm]

4) Otsus, Islamisation and Ethnic Cleansing Policies

Otsus does not Represent a Solution to the Problems

29, 2004, 23:19 [http://www.westpapuanews.com/articles/publish/article_1530.shtml]

CFR-WPNews, May 7, 2003, 05:41 [http://www.westpapuanews.com/articles/publish/article_1462.shtml]

C. Credibility of the AFC 1969: Current Revelations

1. News Reports on the AFC 1969

2. Witnesses Accounts Regarding the AFC 1969

3. Research Findings on the AFC 1969

59 Interview conducted by the writer in December 2000.

NEW GUINEA) 1968 TO 1969, By John Saltford [http://www.westpapua.net/docs/books/book0/un_wp.doc]

WestPaC-AMP, 1999. [http://www.westpapua.net/docs/books/book1/part06.htm]

3. Dutch Government Commissioned Study Documents Indonesia's Coerced Annexation of West

The Sydney Morning Herald editorialized strongly:

D. Three Root Causes of the Fraudulent AFC 1969

1. West Papua, Cold War and War on Terror

2. West Papua’s Rich Natural Resources

73 Rumaseuw, 1999. op.cit.: [http://www.westpapua.net/docs/books/book1/part04.htm] A detailed information on the

An open prayer of father in the highlands of West Papua,

3. Indonesia’s Dutch East Indies as the New Indonesia?

77 WEST PAPUA: From Colonisation to Recolonisation, by Glen O. Rumaseuw, WestPaC-AMP, 1999.

4. West Papua Development as the Reason of Hand-Over

80 West Papua: From Colonisation to Re-Colonisation, by Rumaseuw, WestPaC-AMP, 1999.

A/RES/1514 (XV) 14 DECEMBER 1960. [http://www.westpapua.net/docs/books/book3/part06.htm]

E. Proofs of the Violation of the Rights of Papuan Peoples

1. Violation of the Provisions of the New York Agreement of 15 August 1961

Regarding this obvious violation, Saltford notes:

According to Rumaseuw’s analyses on the degree of consistency in the implementation of the