Pim Opinion

In August. 1969, shortly after good sense, humanity and principle were once more thrown to the political winds at the United Nations, this magazine denounced the “act of free choice” in West Irian as a fraud and a sham. We were of the view then that Indonesia had no more right to take over that Melanesian territory than to take over the Rotterdam urban transit system. We forecast that much misery, and not a little anxiety among nations of the region would arise because of what was, in fact, a sell-out in the name of short-term political expediency.

Nothing which has occurred since has led us to change our views and the events of the last month or two have served only to confirm them.

But those were the days of Soekamo, the demagogue, high upon his wave, leading his millions of countrymen in the chant for Indonesian rule “from Sabang to Merauke.”

The American ambassador Elsworth Bunker led the merchants in the U.N. temple as they traded their political markers, claiming that theirs was the true realism, ignoring the utterly sincere dismay, and thoroughly well-founded apprehensions of not only West Irian leaders, but also those who, soon, would come to lead Papua New Guinea.

Australia accepted the Bunker formula because it seemed to make good political “banking” sense at the time. Indonesia was playing a heady, bullying game. They had already “confronted”

Malaysia. They threatened to be very difficult over West Irian.

Western nations wanted Indonesia in their camp fearing, at the time, a Soviet intrusion if they did not accede to Jakarta’s demands. But, as plenty of knowledgeable people said then and have continued to say, the United Nations was only feeding a monster.

In the end. however persuasively the “realists” argued, and however tempting their rationalising, the fact remained that Indonesia was being helped to re-colonise a people, not of their race, who had been told that their own independence from the Dutch was on the way. Given the hue and cry in the United

Nations about the evils of colonialism, this left a lot of people gasping.

In fact, and belated as they were, the Dutch had been doing quite a good deal to develop West Irian, to identify and promote an elite which might have taken over and governed the territory with an efficiency and aplomb approaching that achieved across the border in Papua New Guinea.

Having thus pointed out, without any pleasure, that “we told you so” it must also be recognised that the “freedom fighters” of the Operasi Papua-Merdeka (OPM, or Free West Papua) movement are neither numerous, nor likely to throw the Indonesians out of their territory. The unfortunate, and unneces sary, sore will continue to fester and upset relations between Jakarta and Port Moresby.

PNG’s prime minister, Michael Somare, and his foreign minister.

Rabbie Namaliu, are angry about what they see as the arrogance of the Indonesian government. But both will do their best to at least keep talking and contain outraged public opinion in PNG. Indeed, it is this sense of Melanesian brotherhood, and feeling for clansmen betrayed, which is the fuel for the ongoing fire.

The Indonesians could, and should, have done much more from the beginning of this latest outcry, to appear cooperative with Papua New Guinea. Instead they acted in some way like colonial masters, treating in very cavalier fashion attempts to talk about the facts of the border-crossings and the reasons for them.

Australia, quite rightly, kept off the stage, but did what it could to persuade Jakarta to own up to what was going on in Jayapura and its environs and to talk constructively with PNG about the OPM refugees. Australia will continue to follow this policy, but at the same time must view with anxiety this sort of bad blood between its biggest neighbor and a developing country with which it is inextricably involved.

The only lesson to be drawn is that when basic human rights are cast aside, and when principle is ignored for expediency, there is always a bill to be paid.