TheJakartaPost

Please Update your browser

Your browser is out of date, and may not be compatible with our website. A list of the most popular web browsers can be found below.
Just click on the icons to get to the download page.

Jakarta Post

Junior diplomats defend Indonesia’s sovereignty

The goal of Vanuatu’s statement is not the fulfillment of human rights in Papua, but to create false justification for an act of separatism.

Fauzi M. Hakim and Kama Sukarno (The Jakarta Post)
Jakarta
Thu, October 7, 2021

Share This Article

Change Size

Junior diplomats defend Indonesia’s sovereignty

T

his year at the United Nations General Assembly (UNGA), Vanuatu yet again raised the unfounded call for Papua self-determination. Indonesia urged one of its diplomats to respond, who stated: “Vanuatu has repeatedly tried to question the unquestionable status of Papua as an integral part of Indonesia.” This move was criticized by The Jakarta Post in its Sept. 30, 2021 editorial, “Papua needs more than junior diplomacy”.

At the outset, it is paramount to correctly comprehend the whole picture of Vanuatu’s statement regarding Papua throughout the years.

In 2000, Vanuatu delivered a statement at the UNGA that questioned the legitimacy of the Act of Free Choice (Pepera) and the validity of UNGA Resolution 2504. This “question” was later reiterated with minor changes in 2004, 2008 and 2013 session, after which they completely abandoned this approach. From 2016 until this year, Vanuatu shifted its reasoning toward a fallacious mix of issues regarding human rights violations and separatism, as if the former constituted a right to invoke the latter.

Vanuatu’s decision to completely abandon their Pepera strategy was peculiar. When their main argument for separatism was proven false, then naturally, their call for separatism should have stopped. Instead, they fabricated other arguments to support separatism, indicating that their genuine intention was never to fulfill self-determination, but secession at all costs.

In light of this, the editorial has apparently missed some important points. First, the substance in Indonesia’s right of reply is not in itself a denial. It is intended to address the fact that Vanuatu’s crusade for human rights is a masked attempt to advocate for separatism, which international law prohibits. It is also important to note the fact that this move is akin to a country demanding the secession of Sanma province from Vanuatu based on the many cases of human rights violations there, including police brutality and violence against women.

This approach is not only misleading and violates the principle of sovereignty and territorial integrity; it is fuel for conflict. Take the infamous trend in the European Union as an example. In 2019 alone, according to the EU Terrorism Situation and Trend Report 2020, out of 119 terrorist attacks in EU countries, 57 were carried out by ethno-nationalist and separatist groups, 26 by left-wing groups, 21 by jihadist groups, and sic by right-wing groups.

It is therefore natural that Indonesia reacted to Vanuatu’s statement the way it did. The goal of Vanuatu’s statement is not to fulfill the human rights of the Papuan people, but to create false justification for an act of separatism.

Second, the editorial completely missed the twofold meaning of Indonesia’s “junior diplomacy”. On one side, it reflects Indonesia’s zero tolerance policy toward foreign attacks against its sovereignty and territorial integrity. On the other, it is a sign of diplomatic “fatigue” after conveying the same thing repeatedly at numerous sessions of the UNGA to no avail, a practice that is not at all unusual at the UNGA.

There is a simple reason why Vanuatu’s decades of diplomatic advocacy for Papuan separatism has never gained widespread recognition: it violates the applicable legal norms, a fact that every other UN member state understands. Moreover, member states are certainly aware of Vanuatu’s strategy of “hit-and-run diplomacy” of being loud at general debates, but going missing at important meetings where there is not much spotlight.

It is also regrettable that the editorial seems to belittle the efforts of our competent young diplomats in defending their country, all of who have been trained well since the very first day of their diplomatic career.

Back at home, while noting that there is challenging homework, the government is constantly working toward the betterment of Papua. Both human rights and infrastructure development are prioritized, as showcased by Law No. 2/2021. It provides a major improvement to Papua special autonomy after a series of consultations that involved an inclusive, multi-stakeholder approach.

The law ensures better affirmative action for Papuans in all areas, including economic development, stronger safeguards to ensure adequate representation of the Papuan people in local representative bodies, and last but certainly not least, increased allocation of the special autonomy fund.

These efforts are meant to put the interests of Papuans, including their prosperity, front and center. It is understandable that there will be discourse of the pros and cons. As a democratic country, Indonesia accepts, even welcomes, any constructive input on how to best approach the issues in Papua to find the most appropriate solutions.

As a final note, it is appropriate to quote Vanuatu’s statement on Sept. 25: “There are widespread human rights violations around the world.” But somehow, according to Vanuatu, the human rights violations that may lead to the right to secede exist only in Papua. This is a slippery slope fallacy and one that, after numerous attempts at clarification, even a junior diplomat could not fail to notice and address.

***

The writers are junior diplomats at the Foreign Ministry. The views expressed are personal.

{

Your Opinion Matters

Share your experiences, suggestions, and any issues you've encountered on The Jakarta Post. We're here to listen.

Enter at least 30 characters
0 / 30

Thank You

Thank you for sharing your thoughts. We appreciate your feedback.