P A G A R A S Pagaras (Papua Garis Keras) merupakan lembaga Swadaya Masyarakat yang bertujuan untuk menghimpun potensi berbagai pihak yang terkait isu Papua
Papua pada dasarnya telah merdeka bersama seluruh bagian nusantara lain dan bagian dari Indonesia sejak 17 Agustus 1945. Namun secara resmi terintegrasi dengan Indonesia melalui Perjanjian New York (New York Agreement) pada tanggal 15 Agustus 1962, diikuti dengan Penentuan Pendapat Rakyat (PEPERA) pada tahun 1969 yang hasilnya disahkan dalam Sidang Umum PBB pada tanggal 19 November 1969. Integrasi tidak berjalan mulus dan sejak tahun itu sudah muncul kelompok separatis. Separatis menilai bahwa Perjanjian New York dan PEPERA 1969 “cacat hukum” dan melanggar hak-hak asasi rakyat Papua karena tidak menempuh prosedur yang berlaku, yakni “one man one vote” melainkan melalui sistem perwakilan.
Bicara konflik di Papua, Organisasi Papua Merdeka (OPM) merupakan separatis terbesar yang pernah dihadapi Indonesia. Perlawanan kelompok tersebut semakin terkonsolidasi melalui pembentukan United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) yang menyatukan faksi-faksi perjuangan OPM antara kelompok bersenjata dan faksi politik.
ULMWP dideklarasikan pada tanggal 7 Desember 2014 di Port Vila, Republik Vanuatu. Dengan dalih persamaan ras (Melanesian Brotherhood), Vanuatu memfasilitasi terbentuknya ULMWP
Tugas utama ULMWP adalah mengampanyekan Papua merdeka serta melakukan lobi-lobi politik untuk mendapatkan dukungan dari berbagai negara, terutama di kawasan Pasifik Selatan. Tidak heran, ULMWP memiliki kantor perwakilan OPM di Papua Nugini (Port Moresby), Australia (Perth), Belanda (Den Haag), dan Inggris (Oxford), serta Vanuatu (Port Vila). Vanuatu secara khusus menjadi lokasi kantor ULMWP.
Pagaras mencermati strategi ULMWP yang mengusung isu-isu tradisional, HAM dan demokrasi, dalam rangka menyudutkan Indonesia. Pagaras tidak ingin membahas disini, sepak terjang dan kaitan nya Benny Wenda dengan ULMWP. Pagaras ingin membuka mata dan penilaian publik tentang realita terkait ULWMP.
Pagaras melihat ULMWP memfasilitasi internalisasi isu-isu dimaksud dengan memanfaatkan organisasi sub-regional di kawasan Pasifik, seperti Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG). Vanuatu sendiri merupakan salah satu penggagas berdirinya MSG. ULMWP memusatkan pergerakan internasional dan konsolidasinya di Kawasan Pasifik, menjadi “lumrah” ketika kemudian beberapa negara di Kawasan pasifik berpihak pada upaya kemerdekaan Papua. Kami sedikit tertawa melihat hal tersebut, bagaimana mungkin suatu pergerakan yang dimotori negara-negara pasifik, dimana sebagian besar dari tokoh mereka bahkan belum pernah menginjakkan kaki di Tanah Papua, dari mana kah empati mereka muncul? Apakah ada unsur materi?
Dari ringkasan singkat diatas, kami suara-suara nyamuk ingin mengajak masyarakat di Tanah Papua, juga Pemerintah Indonesia serta pihak terkait lainnya dengan secara obyektif memperhatikan fakta atau kondisi sebagai berikut:
Pertama, Pergerakan OPM yang terpecah dalam berbagai faksi perlawanan kini berupaya menyatukan kekuatan agar terkonsolidasi, solid, dan rapi menjadi tantangan tersendiri bagi Pemerintah Indonesia dalam meredam gerakan separatis Papua yang mengancam keutuhan Negara Kesatuan Republik Indonesia (NKRI).
Kedua, Analisa Pagaras menyimpulkan bahwa kepentingan Vanuatu dalam dukungan terhadap Papua Merdeka, didasarkan pada dua hal, yaitu politik domestik Vanuatu dan orientasi kekuasaan. Politik domestik dimaksud disini bahwa kebijakan-kebijakan luar negeri dari Vanuatu dipengaruhi oleh kelompok-kelompok kepentingan yang pro terhadap gerakan kemerdekaan Papua. Kelompok kepentingan ini tidak lepas dari intervensi kepentingan asing di Papua juga turut andil dalam menarik perhatian dunia atas Papua, seperti Amerika Serikat, Australia, Kanada, Cina, Jepang, dan India yang masing-masing memiliki kepentingan bisnis di Tanah Papua. Sementara Orientasi Kekuasaan tersebut diatas dimaknakan bahwa Vanuatu juga memiliki ambisi untuk menjadi pemimpin regional dengan mengusung paham identitas Melanesian Renaissance. Paham ini mengangkat isu dekolonisasi bagi bangsa Melanesia yang “seolah” belum merdeka. Pagaras mengidentifikasi tujuan kotor Vanuatu ingin menjadi “pemimpin” di antara Ras Melanesia tanpa memperhatikan kedaulatan NKRI, mencampuri urusan dalam negeri dan membuat pemberitaan yang menyesatkan serta mengabaikan capaian pembangunan saat ini yang hanya memicu konflik dan menambah daftar panjang korban jiwa.
Ketiga, Pagaras mencatat beberapa peristiwa yang menunjukkan sikap berseberangan Vanuatu dengan Indonesia dalam isu separatisme Papua yang ditunjukan di forum internasional antar bangsa untuk menyudutkan indonesia sebagai pelaku genosida, pelanggar HAM berat, hingga meminta PBB untuk mengirimkan utusan demi melakukan investigasi dan memfasilitasi penentuan nasib sendiri atau referendum kemerdekaan Papua.
Keempat, Pagaras mencermati narasi yang dibangun tekait fakta bahwa Ras Melanesia di Indonesia juga ada pada Etnis Maluku dan Timor. Pagaras menilai fakta tersebut sangat strategis dalam mematahkan kampanye rasisme milik Kelompok Papua Merdeka yang mengklaim dirinya sebagai satu-satunya ras Melanesia di wilayah NKRI sehingga secara ras dan budaya berbeda dan bukan bagian dari bangsa Indonesia.
Kelima, Pagaras meminta Pemerintah Indonesia untuk melakukan upaya proaktif untuk menyusun agenda pemberitaan melalui serangkaian aktivitas dan kegiatan yang didesain sedemikian rupa untuk memengaruhi persepsi publik, terutama publik dalam negeri masyarakat Papua. Pagaras meminta Pemerintah Indonesia untuk lebih mengoptimalkan manajemen berita dan komunikasi strategis yang telah diupayakan selama ini. Upaya mengubah persepsi mengenai isu Papua lantas menjadi tantangan sendiri dalam implementasi diplomasi publik Indonesia.
Keenam, Pagaras meminta Pemerintah Indonesia untuk mengoptimalkan bantahan atas tuduhan-tuduhan Vanuatu dan menyatakan bahwa tuduhan tersebut tanpa bukti dan bersifat politis dengan menyiarkan dan mempublikasikan bantahan-bantahan tersebut ke berbagai media nasional dan internasional.
Ketujuh, Pemerintah harus lebih banyak melibatkan peran aktor non-negara (second track) seperti LSM, bisnis, aktivis, peneliti, media, untuk lebih menjabarkan kondisi Papua dalam bentuk data statistik, fakta-fakta pertumbuhan ekonomi dan pembangunan, fakta-fakta tentang dinamika politik di Papua, serta perjalanan berdarah kelompok separatis Papua. Pagaras mendorong pembentukan lembaga khusus yang secara fokus dan terkoordinasi menjalankan manajemen berita dan mengimplementasi strategi komunikasi. Sebagai contoh, Inggris memiliki British Council atau Trade Partners United Kingdom (TPUK).
Shalom, Tuhan Jaga
Jayapura, 08 April 2022
Herdy Ezra Wayoi
Ketua LSM PAGARAS
Papua Garis Keras
ENGLISH VERSION
PRESS RELEASE
Exploring Vanuatu’s Involvement in the ULMWP Separatist Movement
Disguised as Supporting Papuan Independence.
Let’s Dig Into How Vanuatu’s State Interests Are Intertwined With This Cause.
Jayapura, 08 April 2022
Papua has basically been independent along with all other parts of the archipelago and attached to Indonesia since August 17, 1945. However, it was officially integrated with Indonesia through the New York Agreement (New York Agreement) on August 15, 1962, followed by the Act of Free Choice (PEPERA) in 1969 whose results were ratified in the UN General Assembly on November 19, 1969. Integration did not go smoothly and since that year separatist groups had emerged. Separatists consider that the New York Agreement and the 1969 PEPERA are “legally flawed” and violate the human rights of the Papuan people because they do not follow the applicable procedure, namely “one man one vote” but through a representative system.
Talking about the conflict in Papua, the Free Papua Movement (OPM) is the biggest separatist Indonesia has ever faced. The group’s resistance has been further consolidated through the formation of the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) which unites the OPM factions in the struggle between armed groups and political factions.
The ULMWP was declared on 7 December 2014 in Port Vila, Capital of Vanuatu. Under the pretext of racial equality (Melanesian Brotherhood), Vanuatu facilitated the formation of the ULMWP. The main task of the ULMWP is to campaign for an independent Papua and to conduct political lobbies to gain support from various countries, especially in the South Pacific region. Not surprisingly, ULMWP has OPM representative offices in Papua New Guinea (Port Moresby), Australia (Perth), the Netherlands (The Hague), and the UK (Oxford), as well as Vanuatu (Port Vila). Vanuatu in particular is the location of the ULMWP Headquarters.
Pagaras observes the ULMWP strategy which carries traditional issues, such as human rights and democracy, in order to corner Indonesia internationally. Pagaras does not want to discussabout Benny Wenda’s actions and his links with ULMWP. Pagaras wants to open the public’s eyes and assess the reality related to ULWMP.
Pagaras observes that the ULMWP is making strides in raising awareness about Papuan issues by working with sub-regional organisations in the Pacific, such as the Melanesian Spearhead Group (MSG). Vanuatu played a key role in setting up the MSG, showing its support for the cause. The ULMWP is focusing its efforts on gaining international support in the Pacific region, where several countries are backing the movement for Papuan independence. It’s quite amusing to think about – how can countries in the Pacific be so invested in a cause that they have no direct connection to? Where does their empathy stem from? Is it just talk, or is there something more tangible behind it?
It’s interesting to see this dynamic play out, with countries like Vanuatu leading the charge for Papuan independence despite never having visited the region themselves. The ULMWP’s strategy of rallying support from Pacific nations seems to be working, but one can’t help but wonder about the motivations behind it all. Is it genuine concern for the people of Papua, or is there some other agenda at play?
As we ponder these questions, it’s clear that the ULMWP’s approach is certainly unconventional. By leveraging support from countries in the Pacific, they are able to amplify their message and gain momentum in their fight for Papuan independence. Whether this support is rooted in genuine empathy or political strategy remains to be seen, but one thing is for sure – the ULMWP is making waves in the region and beyond.
In the grand scheme of things, the ULMWP’s tactics may seem unorthodox, but they are undeniably effective. By tapping into the support of countries in the Pacific, they are able to broaden their reach and garner more attention for their cause. It may be a bit puzzling to see countries so far removed from Papua taking such a strong stance on the issue, but perhaps that’s just a testament to the power of solidarity and shared values in the region.
Overall, the ULMWP’s strategy of focusing on the Pacific region may raise some eyebrows, but it’s certainly making an impact. Only time will tell if their efforts will lead to real change for the people of Papua, but for now, they are certainly shaking things up in the international arena.
From the brief summary above, we, the voices of mosquitoes, would like to invite the people in the Land of Papua, as well as the Government of Indonesia and other related parties by objectively paying attention to the following facts or conditions:
First. The OPM movement, made up of different factions, is currently working on coming together as one strong and united force. This poses a challenge for the Indonesian government as they try to suppress the Papuan separatist movement that could potentially threaten the unity of Indonesia.
The OPM’s efforts to consolidate and organise themselves is causing some concern for the authorities. With a more unified front, they are becoming a force to be reckoned with. The Indonesian government will need to come up with a strategic plan to address this growing threat to the integrity of the Republic of Indonesia.
It’s a tricky situation that requires careful handling. The OPM’s determination to unite and stand together is making it harder for the government to control the situation. Only time will tell how this conflict will play out, but one thing is for sure – tensions are running high as both sides try to assert their dominance.
Secondly, Pagaras’ analysis suggests that Vanuatu’s support for an independent Papua is driven by two key factors: domestic politics and power aspirations.
In terms of domestic politics, Vanuatu’s foreign policies are influenced by interest groups that back the Papuan independence movement. These groups are often linked to foreign interests in Papua, including countries like the United States, Australia, Canada, China, Japan, and India, all of which have economic stakes in the region. This external involvement has helped draw global attention to Papua and fuelled support for its independence cause.
Furthermore, Vanuatu’s power orientation reflects its desire to establish itself as a regional leader, rooted in the concept of Melanesian Renaissance identity. This vision includes advocating for decolonization and independence for Melanesian nations that are perceived as not yet fully autonomous. However, Pagaras has highlighted concerns that Vanuatu’s ambitions may come at the expense of Indonesia’s sovereignty, as it involves meddling in domestic affairs, spreading misinformation, and undermining progress in the region.
Overall, Vanuatu’s strategic goals appear to be driven by a mix of internal political dynamics and regional power dynamics. While the country’s support for Papuan independence may be well-intentioned, it is crucial to consider the broader implications and potential consequences of such actions on regional stability and diplomatic relations.
Thirdly, Pagaras highlighted a series of events where Vanuatu took a firm stance against Indonesia regarding the issue of Papuan separatism. This was evident in various international forums where Vanuatu sought to portray Indonesia as a perpetrator of genocide and a serious violator of human rights. They even went as far as calling on the United Nations to send envoys to investigate and assist in organizing a self-determination or independence referendum for Papua. This shows Vanuatu’s unwavering support for the Papuan cause and their determination to hold Indonesia accountable for their actions.
Fourth, In his analysis, Pagaras delves into the narrative surrounding the presence of the Melanesian race in Indonesia, particularly in the Moluccas and Timor. He highlights the strategic importance of this information in debunking the Free West Papua campaign’s claim of being the sole Melanesian group within Indonesia. By showcasing the existence of the Melanesian race in other parts of the country, Pagaras effectively challenges the notion that West Papua is racially and culturally distinct from the rest of Indonesia.
Pagaras’ examination sheds light on the diversity within Indonesia, illustrating that the Melanesian identity is not exclusive to West Papua. This insight not only undermines the separatist movement’s narrative but also reinforces the idea of unity and inclusivity within the Indonesian nation.
By reframing the discussion around the Melanesian race in Indonesia, Pagaras offers a fresh perspective that encourages dialogue and understanding. Rather than perpetuating divisions based on race and culture, his analysis promotes a more nuanced and holistic view of Indonesia’s diverse population.
Overall, Pagaras’ research serves as a valuable contribution to the ongoing discourse surrounding West Papua and Indonesia, challenging assumptions and fostering a more inclusive approach to national identity.
Fifth, Pagaras suggested that the Indonesian Government take proactive steps to shape the news agenda by engaging in a variety of activities aimed at influencing public opinion, particularly among the people of Papua. He recommended that the government enhance its news management and strategic communications efforts in order to better address the perceptions surrounding the Papua issue. This, he noted, would present a unique challenge for Indonesian public diplomacy.
Sixth, Pagaras urged the Indonesian Government to step up their game in debunking Vanuatu’s baseless accusations, highlighting the lack of evidence and political agenda behind them. He suggested spreading these rebuttals far and wide through both national and international media channels.
Seventh, the government should engage more non-state actors (second track), such as NGOs, businesses, activists, researchers, and media, to provide a comprehensive overview of Papua. This should include statistical data on economic growth and development, insights into the political landscape in Papua, and information on the activities of Papuan separatist groups. Pagaras suggests establishing a dedicated institution to manage news and communication strategies effectively. For instance, the UK has the British Council and Trade Partners United Kingdom (TPUK) as examples of successful communication-focused organisations.
By involving a diverse range of stakeholders, the government can gain a more nuanced understanding of the situation in Papua and develop more effective policies and strategies. This collaborative approach will also help to build trust and foster dialogue between different groups with a stake in the region.
Furthermore, by centralising news management and communication efforts, the government can ensure that accurate and timely information is disseminated to the public. This will help to counter misinformation and promote transparency in governance.
In conclusion, by working closely with non-state actors and establishing a dedicated institution for news management, the government can improve its communication strategies and better address the complex issues facing Papua. This proactive and collaborative approach will ultimately benefit all stakeholders involved and contribute to a more informed and inclusive decision-making process.
Shalom, God bless
Herdy Ezra Wayoi
Chairman PAGARAS NGO’s
Papua Hard Liner
