West Papua Issue: Time for Vanuatu to Repositioning Role
Rudi Kurniawan Dahlan — October 2021
Vanuatu is a country that has become a supporter for the West Papuan separatist movement in international forums, especially in the Pacific region. This country is home to the ULMWP organization which is based in Port Vila. In the Pacific group of countries, Vanuatu is actively influencing other countries of the Melanesian Spearhead Group forum to participate in voicing the issue of Papua. Vanuatu often attacks Indonesia through the issue of West Papua in the UN General Assembly or UN Human Rights Commission sessions. For almost the last 5–7 years, this country has always raised the issue of Papua related to its support for the independence of West Papua. By using racial sentiments, Vanuatu tries to get into the issue of human rights and the right of self-determination and its support for the methods of armed violence carried out by groups of the Papuan independence movement.
In the context of regional politics, Vanuatu can actually play a role in many things if it is aimed at solving political problems. If the primary goal is to put humanitarian and peacekeeping missions in place so that the conflict can end, then there are various ways for Vanuatu to participate in it.
It is understandable when a country offers to be a mediator in resolving conflicts. In the case of armed conflict, the contribution is to stop the violence and bring both parties to begin in peace talks. There are many examples of peace efforts involving third parties who offer peace efforts in many cases around the world. Even Indonesia itself has this experience, both as a conflict mediator or as a party mediated due to armed conflict.
If Vanuatu conducts intense communication with the Indonesian government, it may bring in better results. Indonesia has experience in welcoming a peace mediator from Finland represented by Maarti Ahtisaari. He was the former president of Finland. Maarti became a peace mediator for the Aceh separatist conflict with the Indonesian government. The results of the peace talks have now brought significant changes to the peaceful lives of the Acehnese. The economy is growing, social and cultural life is developing, and education and health issues can be tackled together by local and state governments.
One important thing in Aceh peace talks was to give up the intention to take advantage and own political interests except to create peace. If it is based on this good intention, then a smooth path for peaceful goals can be achieved.
Now we may ask, is the Papua issue that Vanuatu is fighting for is based on the desire to create peace? Is Vanuatu working on the right track?
On many occasions, the Vanuatu Government has placed the issue of Melanesian race as an effort to attract the issue of West Papua as a regional issue. Through this issue of race, many potential leaders of Vanuatu have tried to play it on issues of political contestation at home and in the region. Vanuatu has repeatedly called on the international community that the Papuan people are Melanesian, different from other Indonesians. The Vanuatu Government even said that Indonesia was a colonial country for the Melanesian people of West Papua.
This race issue is also the entry point for the United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) group to be accepted into the forums of Pacific countries as observers. They accept the ULMWP as a Melanesian racial group even though it is at the status of a Non-Governmental Organization (NGO).
Placing the issue of race between the people of Papua and Indonesia is certainly one of the weakest arguments. Vanuatu should have understood the historical roots of Indonesia, which consists of many islands with all the interactions of each of its inhabitants for hundreds of years, including the interaction of the Papuan people with the surrounding areas, such as Sulawesi and Maluku. The diverse cultures of the Indonesian, the Maluku region and East Nusa Tenggara are also included in the Melanesian race. This explains why Indonesia can also interact with other groups of Pacific countries such as Papua New Guinea and Fiji. Both of them always welcome Indonesia’s efforts in the arena of pacific countries.
Indonesia’s position in the MSG since 2015 is an associate member, which means it is higher than the level of an observer. Full membership is the highest status in this organization. Meanwhile, the ULMWP as mentioned above is still an observer with Timor Leste. There is a clear difference between the Associate Member and the Observer. Indonesia can take part in making decisions and also be able to submit requests for statements in the forum under approval of the full members. Meanwhile, observers can only provide statements when requested. Indonesia also has the right to access confidential documents while observers do not.
Vanuatu should also consider Indonesia’s strategic position in the world. With the fifth largest population in the world, large natural resources, and strong relations among the most influential countries in the world, a friendly approach to improving the conflict situation in Papua is much better for Vanuatu than being confrontational in international forums. Confrontation efforts will be difficult to attract the sympathy of the international community. This fact can be seen from the responses in the UN forum.
Historically, a peaceful resolution of the separatist conflict by means of confrontational support in international forums has never been successful. Especially when racial sentiments are highlighted. In an increasingly unified world, the issue of race is increasingly irrelevant in political resistance. Because instead of resolving conflict, racial sentiments will only exacerbate conflict from the roots, as race will be closely related to political identity, which is not purely a humanitarian issue. Even sacrificing human values if this sentiment is excessive.
Records of violence due to excessive racial sentiments even occurred in recent times. Armed groups supporting Papuan independence have targeted people who are considered to have a different race or ethnicity by means of violence. Unarmed civilian casualties continue to increase as a result of this group’s attacks. The violence carried out by these separatist groups is even carried out in vile ways and violates human rights. Even not too long ago, violence occurred where the victim was burned inside their car. There were also records of the burning of schools and health facilities which has also claimed the lives of health workers.
If Vanuatu continues to give support to Papuan separatist groups, the result will only lead to violence. Vanuatu’s support for the Separatist group with issues of race and Vanuatu’s attacks in international forums has indirectly fueled and provoked violence in the name of race in Papua.
Therefore, if Vanuatu is serious about promoting peace and respect for human values, then the role of dialogue between the Indonesian government and these separatist groups must be encouraged. Vanuatu can provide influence and encouragement to the ULMWP group which is based in its country. As described above, Vanuatu can learn Indonesia’s experience in Aceh which provides a place for peaceful dialogue through a neutral mediator. If this role is taken by Vanuatu, the impact is far more likely to make a difference than a confrontational attitude in international diplomacy forums.
Vanuatu will never benefit from anything if they do not change their approach to the Papua issue. Even the efforts that are increasingly becoming better and better by the Indonesian government towards Papua, in terms of economic development, education, culture, as well as sports, will place Vanuatu in a position of losing its role among the Pacific countries. Thus, Vanuatu must be able to take a position with a better diplomatic approach than the current role in place.
This piece fully represents the writer’s idea. It does not express any ideas or stances of specific institutions or organizations he works at or is affiliated with.
