While I fully respect President Wahid’s approach, the weaknesses remains that our policymakers failed to crystalize the approach into a written regulation. This reluctance of our policymakers has left our security personnel confused. If we had a firm regulation – rather than just the oral statement voiced by President Wahid – I believe that nowadays our security personnel in the field would not be faced by a dilemma as to whether they have to arrest or to allow Papuan people to raise the Morning Star flag. It remains a big question: why were we reluctant to formulate a clearer regulation on the identity of Papuans? Apart from dialogue and cultural approaches pursued by the central government, it is a fact that the Papuan people are divided into 252 tribes; each of them concerned with their own interests. These hundreds of tribes are equal to each other, so that even the Dani tribe –the largest tribal group – does not dominate in policymaking or in framing decisions regarding the land of Papua. There is also rivalry among the tribes living in the mountainous areas and those living in the coastal zones – these are the facts that have driven tribes with different goals and perceptions as they talk about becoming independent. The other fact that makes problems in Papua more complicated is the difference of perceptions and interests between the locals (ie indigenous Papuans) and non-local residents (Indonesian migrants from outside the region). What is clear is that the process of resolving issues in Papua is totally different compared to the settlement mechanism we pursued in Aceh. To read the complete interview: Subscribe now
Posted on: Wed, 17 Jul 2013 05:33:24 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015