By Corinna Billmaier
“The rules of our world are laws, and they can be changed. Laws can restrict or they can enable. What matters is what they serve. Many of the laws in our world serve property - they are based on ownership. But imagine a law that has a higher moral authority… a law that puts people and planet first. Imagine a law that starts from first do no harm, that stops this dangerous game and takes us to a place of safety.” Polly Higgins, 2015
The indigenous people of West Papua, the western part of the island New Guinea in the southwestern Pacific Ocean and officially part of Indonesia, have been fighting a twofold struggle for decades: for the recognition of their independence from Indonesia on the one hand, and against the destruction of their living space through mining and deforestation.
The island New Guinea is home to the second largest tropical rainforest in the world and contains a rich biodiversity. Unfortunately, it is also a place for ongoing conflict due to its rich mineral resources. In 2019, images of protests and violent clashes went through the media and brought the issue into the international spotlight.
Historical Roots of the Present Conflict
To add some context to the current conflict concerning the western part of the island, we should understand the historical background that has led to the division of the island as such and the integration into Indonesia.
The island north of Australia has been populated by indigenous people for more than 10.000 years, possibly with the first inhabitants arriving around 50.000 years ago. Due to the island’s large size, and continuous migration to and from the island, its population comprises not one homogenous ethnic group, but is ethnically diverse and complex and there are around 700 different languages spoken.
Dutch Colonial Rule
In 1828 the western half of the island became part of the Dutch East Indies, like most of Indonesia. The eastern part was divided among Great Britain and the German New Guinea Company in 1884. In 1904, the British part was given under Australian administration, and after Germany had to cede its colonies after their defeat in World War I, Australia took over control of all of Eastern Papua. In World War II, Japan briefly occupied large parts of the whole island, but with their defeat, the Dutch and the Australians took back control of their respective parts of the island. Here it becomes clear that the indigenous population of the island didn’t have a say in the governing of their island for decades and remained under constant occupation.
For the eastern part, known as Papua New Guinea, this changed only in 1975, when Australia granted independence within the British Commonwealth.
Dutch-Indonesian Dispute over the Territory
West Papua (also known as Western New Guinea / West Irian / Irian Jaya) remained under Dutch control until 1962, while Indonesia gained independence from the Dutch in 1949. During the Dutch-Indonesian negotiations for independence, the West Papuan question was already a point of disagreement, with both sides claiming legitimate rule over the territory. Indonesia argued that due to the shared experience of Dutch colonialism West Papua should be integrated into the Indonesian nation, while the Netherlands were in favour of a continued Dutch rule and eventual self-government by the Papuans due to their significant ethnic, racial, cultural and religious differences to the Indonesians (See Musgrave 2015).
The underlying reason was probably the resources on the island, which the Dutch hoped to maintain their access to, with the appointment of a Dutch-friendly independent government. Eventually, the Dutch could hold their power over Papua and the Dutch administration fostered a Papuan nationalism and promised a speedy path to self-determination. Indonesia, however, regarded this development increasingly as an act of aggression and instead saw the “liberation” of West Papua and its integration into Indonesia as a last stage in the fight against colonialism.
Since all this happened in the 1950s and 1960s, it is no wonder that the Cold War had a role to play in the subsequent events. As Thomas Musgrave explains, the Soviet Union had supplied Indonesia in the 1950s with arms and diplomatic support, hoping to gain Indonesia as an ally. For the United States this was an alarming development and, in order to prevent Indonesia from becoming aligned with the Eastern bloc, the US pressured the Dutch into ceding control over Papua to Indonesia. At no point in this decision making did any Papuans take part.
Integration into Indonesia
In 1963, West Papua was then transferred to Indonesia despite substantial protests by the indigenous Papuan population, who demanded to form an independent state. Any political activity of Papuans was banned, and protests were met with brutal force by the Indonesian military, as Thomas Musgrave explains. In 1969, a referendum, the so-called “Act of Free Choice”, was held to settle the question of Indonesian integration. The referendum, however, was anything else than democratic and fair since the 1022 representatives of the Papuan population who were eligible to vote on the issue were hand-picked by the Indonesian administration, and there is “very credible evidence that most, if not all, of them were either bribed, threatened or otherwise intimidated by the Indonesian military or other Indonesian officials”, writes Thomas Musgrave. The result was that all 1022 representatives voted in favour of Indonesian integration. For the indigenous Papuan population, the referendum came to be known as the “Act of No Choice”.
2019: Violent Clashes Between Protestors and Security Forces
Calls for independence by Papuans has since 1963 led to thousands of arrests, torture, and killings and people are up until today living in constant fear and intimidation. In 2019, the tensions that had been smoldering for decades erupted in violent clashes between Papuan protesters and Indonesian military after 20 Papuan students were detained in Jakarta for allegedly throwing an Indonesian flag into the sewer. The protests gave new impetus to the struggle for independence, especially with racist offenses being voiced by Indonesians to Papuans, calling them “monkeys”, “pigs” and “dogs”. It shows a deep belief of superiority by many Indonesians towards Papuans, regarding them as inferior due to their ethnic and racial differences. A 2020 report by Amnesty International found repeated cases of unlawful killings perpetrated by security forces against Papuans in the wake of peaceful protests such as flag-raising ceremonies, which is banned by Indonesian authorities.
As a consequence of the ongoing violence and insecurity, many West Papua have left their home as refugees to Europe, Asia, or the neighbouring country Papua New Guinea (see video 09:50).
The Underlying Causes: Gold and Copper Deposits and their Environmental Consequences
In addition to this oppression and denial of the right of self-determination by the Indonesian Government there is another imminent threat to the indigenous people of Papua: the extensive mining and deforestation, which goes along with the pollution of rivers and the soil. The fact that there are large gold, copper and coal deposits on Papua - the largest gold and second largest copper mine in the world - explain Indonesia’s zealous hold onto the territory. According to the Guardian, “the massive Freeport McMoran gold and copper mine in West Papua is one of the country's largest taxpayers.” This gives the company de facto immunity. A New York Times article wrote in 2005: “Its importance to Indonesia's treasury and its carefully cultivated cocoon of support have helped secure it against challenges from local people, environmental groups, and even the country's own Environment Ministry. Letters and other documents provided to The Times by government officials showed that the Environment Ministry repeatedly warned the company since 1997 that Freeport was breaching environmental laws.” Since 2017, Indonesias interest in holding control over the territory has become even stronger, because they are now the largest stakeholder, owning 51% of the mine.
Environmental Consequences
For the Papuans, however, the wealth in their ground leads to nothing but oppression, violence and destruction of living space through “the loss of their food gardens, hunting and fishing grounds, drinking water, forest products, sacred sites, and other elements of the natural environment upon which their cultures and livelihoods depend.” The revenue goes to the US-based mine-owner, its shareholders and the Indonesian government and military.
The environmental consequences are severe: “Much of that waste has already been dumped in the mountains surrounding the mine or down a system of rivers that descends steeply onto the island's low-lying wetlands, close to Lorentz National Park, a pristine rainforest that has been granted special status by the United Nations. A multimillion-dollar 2002 study […], paid for by Freeport and its joint venture partner, Rio Tinto, and not previously made public, noted that the rivers upstream and the wetlands inundated with waste were now ‘unsuitable for aquatic life’. […] All the while Freeport sealed its relations with the military, the country's fledgling environment ministry could do little but watch as waste from the mine piled up. This year Freeport told the Indonesian government that the waste rock in the highlands, 900 feet deep in places, now covers about three square miles. Down below, nearly 90 square miles of wetlands, once one of the richest freshwater habitats in the world, are virtually buried in mine waste, called tailings, with levels of copper and sediment so high that almost all fish have disappeared, according to environment ministry documents.” (see New York Times 2005).
Local Resistance
Despite the fact that this is known, Freeport has literally bought itself immunity, as the New York Times points out, by bribing government and military officials, and claiming that it’s activities there benefit the local economy. The local people are powerless against this alliance between the government and the mining-company. Demonstrations, sit-ins, and open dialogue from the Papuan side didn’t lead to any concessions by Freeport, and eventually resulted in desperate acts such an “attack on a pipeline and other infrastructure at the Freeport McMoRan gold and copper mine” (see Elmslie & Webb-Gannon 2013) in 1977. The Indonesian government retaliated through bombing and shooting at the highlands Akimuga people. This and other acts of violence by the Indonesian military since the 1960s, which culminated in more than 500.000 Papuan deaths, have led to researchers and human rights activists claiming that there is a genocide taking place. (see Elmslie & Webb-Gannon 2013). Several court cases in the 1990s by representatives of the indigenous Papuans against Freeport, “filed on grounds of human rights abuse, personal injury, environmental damages, and cultural genocide” were nevertheless dismissed.
The outlook appears rather grim, and all means of protecting their land and their livelihood by indigenous Papuans seem exhausted. Lawsuits against the company were unsuccessful and the Indonesian government has no interest in protecting the indigenous communities. With more and more Indonesian settlers moving to the island and the continued crushing of independence protests, national self-determination becomes ever more unlikely. Because West Papua is officially part of Indonesia, and due to Indonesia’s geopolitical importance, the international community still largely refrains from taking a stand against this “domestic” dispute. Only recently, more and more countries, among them the Netherlands, are calling for the UN High Commissioner for Human Rights, whose mandate is “to promote and protect human rights for all”, to be allowed into West Papua.
Ecocide as an Internationally Recognized Crime
West Papuan activists and lawyers around the world, however, seek alternative ways of holding Freeport accountable and ensuring the protection of West Papuan living space and achieving environmental justice.
One of such ways for which lawyers and activists are campaigning, and which could serve for Papuans as a legal framework to seek justice for the environmental and personal damage, is the crime of Ecocide. The term criminalizes environmental harm, which leads to the long-term destruction of ecosystems through extensive mining, overfishing, deforestation etc. and impairs the livelihoods of local communities.
Ecocide could serve as a framework for intersectional environmentalism, combining both the protection of indigenous people’s rights and the environment. As in many other areas of activism, intersectionality is key in seeking justice. Leah Thomas environmental justice activist and founder of @intersectionalenvironmentalist, describes intersectional environmentalism as:
“An inclusive version of environmentalism that advocates for both the protection of people and the planet. It identifies the ways in which injustices happening to marginalized communities and the earth are interconnected. It brings injustices done to the most vulnerable communities, and the earth, to the forefront and does not minimize or silence social inequality.”
In practice, this could be implemented in the International Criminal Court by adding Ecocide to it’s four crimes (the others are: Genocide, Crimes Against Humanity, War Crimes, Crimes of Aggression). Through this, the protection of the environment and the livelihood of Indigenous people would reach a new level of international recognition. The Stop Ecocide campaign explains: “Unlike suing and fining corporations (who simply budget for this possibility), making ecocide a crime creates an arrestable offence. It makes those individuals who are responsible for funding, permitting or causing severe environmental harm liable to criminal prosecution.” As the previous court cases have shown, the current legal framework allows these companies to avoid prosecution. While the damage done is unlikely to be restored, an aggravation could be prevented, by including both indigenous people’s rights and environmental justice to the ICC’s legal framework.
While this doesn't directly help in the West Papuan struggle for political self-determination, it might at least prevent any further harm to their environment. In the long term, making the mineral resources inaccessible for mining will reduce Indonesia's economic interest in the territory and could enable the resumption of peace talks. These might eventually lead to West Papuan independence or at least a fair referendum to settle the issue once and for all.
What can you do?
Get informed and raise awareness
Sign petitions or donate
https://www.freewestpapua.org/take-action/