Interview Ibrahim Peyon: Issue Papua Merdeka vs Pacific Diplomacy

Papuan Anthropologist and Cendrawasih University Lecturer, A. Ibahim Peyon. (Photo: personal doc)

A. Ibrahim Peyon is known as a productive Papuan anthropologist. The books of the lecturer of Cendrawasih University, Jayapura, have been widely read and referenced when talking about anthropology, especially the anthropology of Papua.

As an anthropologist, he is known as a scholar who perseveringly championed the idea of ​​'Anthropology of Papua back home'. What he meant by that is an anthropological perspective focused on paradigms, methods and theories based on Papuan culture and knowledge alone .

"Knowledge based on our own culture, philosophy and history," he wrote in an article entitled Anthropology of Papua Back Home at suarapapua.com.

For that, he said, the method of Anthropology in this perspective requires a radical, critical and focused Anthropology perspective on the knowledge and culture of Papuans themselves.

"Anthropology in this perspective must break away from the shackles of nationalism and liberal intellectualism inseparable from colonialism and global capitalism," writes Ibrahim Peyon, author of Contemporary Anthropology: A Critical Study of Papua (Publisher of Nirentohon Study Group, 2012), Papuan Negroid Man : Race and Science in Anthropological Theory, (Publisher of Nirentohon Study Group, 2012), Social Structure and Kinship of Yali (Publisher of Nirentohon Study Group, 2012), Light Shines Behind the Mountain: The Evangelical Service Story of GKI-TP in the Mountains of West Papua, (Publisher of Nirentohon Study Group, 2015) and Colonialism and Light of Decolonization in West Papua (Publisher Nentiens Focus, 2010).

One of the books by A. Ibrahim Peyon. (Photo: Personal Document)

Ibrahim Peyon was born with a Yali ethnic background, he is currently studying his Ph.D. at Ludwig Maximilian University, Munich, Germany. There is also the subject of his research is about the structure and meaning of myths and songs in the perspective of indigenous ethnic one in the interior of Papua.

He is very vocal in voicing the aspirations of self-determination of the Papuan people, an issue that for many in Papua itself is often seen as a sensitive issue. Ibrahim Peyon consciously took the critical position, and he did not feel himself vocal.

"I do not speak vocal in this regard. My academic writings can not be categorized as vocal, they are built on data, or from the realities of Papuan life. The historical and cultural reality that has been hidden for so long. They are academic tasks for theoretical and practical interests to improve social life. So for me that's normal in the world of college and there is nothing vocal and special, "said Ibrahim Peyon in a written interview with satuharapan.com.

Public attention to the territory of Papua in recent years is increasing. One of the trigger factors is the development of infrastructure campaigns that the news is so intense. But at the same time, it is still very little recognition of the history of Papua, from the perspective of Papuans themselves. In fact, the historical perspective has become one of the important factors in Papua's problems, including an urgent movement of self-determination.

This interview with Ibrahim Peyon presented, intended as an effort to lift the introduction of Papua's history from a Papuan perspective. Interview with Ibrahim Peyon we do via electronic mail, and the results into four sections are presented in a row. The first part is what you read, followed by a second part interview with the title, Ibrahim Peyon: Pacific Diplomacy Will Fail Downbeat Issue Papua Merdeka, third part with the title Ibrahim Peyon: The root of the Papua Problem is in the UN and the fourth part, Ibrahim Peyon: Referendum Issues Papua should not be considered Taboo.

Here is the first interview with Ibrahim Peyon.

Satuharapan.com: We are interested in interviewing you as one of the Papuan scholars after reading your writings on social media and other media, which many voiced the alignment of Papuan history. Likewise with the books you have written, it appears that your understanding is very broad about the historical roots of Papua. We think your views should also be displayed to build a more substantive academic conversation around the issue of Papua. Hopefully you are willing.

A. Ibrahim Peyon: Thank you for contacting me for this interview. First I want to emphasize that, I am personally not an activist or a Papuan warrior. I am also not involved in any organization including organization of struggle. But my position as an academician is to convey information on the basis of truth. I am also not an accommodation academic to serve the power and support lies. Because I was educated in a simple family and in a church education that emphasizes discipline, morality, honesty and truth. With that capital, I answer these questions with my personal opinion as an academician.

What do you think of RI's efforts to continue approaching the Pacific countries with economic assistance, when it is linked to the support of 7 Pacific countries that had previously incessantly raised the issue of Papua at the UN?

Firstly, the issue of Papua's support in the Pacific is very complex and communities and governments in the Pacific countries already know exactly what Papua is going on since Trikora in 1963. Trikora is academically an invasion form for occupation of West Papua. Because Papua has no historical relationship and culture with Indonesia.

Secondly, the 1969 Pepera process was clearly legally and morally flawed for not committing a one-person one-vote principle under the New York treaty, where every adult over 17 was required to make their choice. But Indonesia chose 1,025 people under military threat.

Thirdly, the tremendous human rights violations since Papua were annexed to this day, and perpetrators have never been tried in Indonesian courts. Including massive migration programs (migration and spontaneous migrants), land grabs, forests, and bureaucratic domination, dominance of economic centers, poor education, poor health. The last case of malnutrition in Asmat and all this is the process of omission of the Indonesian government for 50 years more occupy Papua and this process of genocide slowly is happening in Papua.

So the Pacific countries already know exactly the situation. They are all newly independent after Papua is occupied by Indonesia. But they are aware and know all that is happening in Papua. Therefore, they encourage the Papuan people to unite and result in the birth of United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP). Thus, the birth of ULMWP is not only the will of the Papuan people but also the encouragement of the Melanesian and Pacific nations. After ULMWP was established, the support of Pacific countries flourished and the result was the 7 Pacific countries that raised the issue of Papua at the UN.

It is often said that these Pacific countries are only small countries, have no influence in the international world. What is your opinion?

So far the Indonesian government has always said that the Pacific countries are small countries and have no strong influence to influence the world over the issue of Papua. For the past two years Indonesian diplomats at the UN have always denied the Pacific states' statements on the Papua issue in unethical and dignified ways. The Indonesian government has also rejected the offer of dialogue from last year's MSG chairman, Manasseh Sogavare and declined his offer to visit Indonesia. The Indonesian government also rejected the fact-finding delegation from the Pacific Islands Forum (PIF) who was going to Papua in 2015.

In addition, Luhut Binsar Pandjaitan (Menkopolhukam at that time) formed an integrated fact-finding team in Papua, to collect data on human rights violations and wanted the perpetrators to be brought to justice. But so far there has been no follow-up from the team, and it is just a ploy to close the door of the PIF delegation to Papua.

Luhut Binsar Pandjaitan also told the Papuan church leaders at the Synod GKI TP office in Jayapura that the bloody Paniai case was soon resolved by the government in the near future. 2014 President Jokowi in Mandala Square Jayapura said it will complete human rights abuses in Papua. But there is no follow-up of these promises. Looking at all those empty promises, Papuans always say that the Indonesian government is led by a group of people who do not say the truth, they are saying untrue to the people of Papua and also saying it is not true to the Pacific countries and the UN.

The people in the Ministry of Foreign Affairs have said many times untrue to the world including the UN forum for example in the periodic review last year by the Minister of Retno for the Papua issue. So, imagine these Indonesian leaders say it is not true to the people of Papua and the world for the Papua case. However, many Indonesians are not aware that they are being given untrue information by the organizers of this country.


Indonesia uses economic diplomacy against Pacific countries that are apparently intended to reduce their critical attitude to the Papuan issue. How is your view?

The problem of this economic approach is not new to the Papua case. Since Papua was occupied Indonesia has started with that approach, the agreement between Indonesia and America for Freeport in 1967, the Tangguh LNG project in Bintuni with the United Kingdom in the 2000s, and many other economic cooperation, including Australia and New Zealand. The last two years have sold some plane cheaply to the Senegalese government, exports of rice in South Africa. So, economic diplomacy with Pacific countries is a part of that strategy. Because politics can change at any time and it is possible, the seven Pacific countries can and may also support Indonesia because of its economic interests.

In the view of Indonesia, the economy is everything to solve all problems related to Papua. This view is also seen in various programs in Papua. UTS OTSUS and UP4B, for example, where Indonesia sent trillions of rupiah to Papua. With the money it is considered that all problems will be settled. But other facts speak, the struggle of Papua still exist and has developed into an international problem today.

Indonesia itself has made two approaches in the Pacific countries the past three years. Firstly, Indonesia's direct intervention in Pacific countries advocates for Papua in particular. Where the Indonesian government is funding opposition groups to overthrow the government there, for example some cases in Vanuatu, Tonga and Salomon Islands.

Secondly, the Indonesian government made a subtle approach with leaders in Pacific countries including Nauru and Marshall Islands, with offers of economy, trade, tourism and defense and security, as well as bidding direct money support, for example in the visit of the MSG delegation two years ago to Papua . Where they themselves admit that, they have received some money in a hotel in Jakarta. The news has been published in several media in the Pacific.

It means that the cost of maintaining Papua is huge and I am convinced that the Indonesian government continues to incur substantial additional costs every year to pay for the independent Papuan supporters. Not only in the Pacific countries but also countries in other parts of the world. Because the problems of Papua will continue to grow according to the dynamics of today. Not including the routine government fee for two Provinces in Papua.

Faced with this massive economic diplomacy, to what extent do you see the solidarity of Melanesian nations in the Pacific?

I think the solidarity of the Melanesian peoples at the grassroots is very strong, and their solidarity is built on the basis of Wantok. Wantok it is a term of solidarity that has a broad psychological, social and cultural significance. Wantok is a family, relatives, relatives, acquaintances, a village, a country, one soul and one spirit. Wantok is built on blood, physical character and land and soul. Melanesia is melanesia, Melanesia is not Indonesia, Melanesia is not Asia and Melanesia is not Europe. Because of Wantok's, Melanesian solidarity at the grassroots is very strong, they consider the Papuan problem is their own problem, the problem that exists within the Melanesian family's home.

Just look at the attitude of the PNG and Fijian governments in the MSG Summit in Port Moresby last month. They treat delegates and ULMWP leaders together with other delegations of countries including the Indonesian delegation. ULMWP as an observer but got the same position and delivered a speech at every level of the meeting, the senior meeting level represented by Dr. Rumaikek, the foreign minister's level was presented by ULMWP deputy chairman, Mr. Octo Mote and at the leader level, was delivered by ULMWP chairman, Mr. Benny Wenda. Similarly, the Indonesian delegation got the same opportunity. It shows Wantok's meaning as a Melanesian fellow and sees that the economic relationship of the Indonesian government has not been able to dampen the Papuan problem in Wantok's solidarity in Melanesia.

I think the Melanesian and Pacific nations are also studying the Indonesian government's behavior over Papua, on the history of Papua, the human rights abuses are remarkable, the attitude of Indonesia's rejection of the desire for dialogue by MSG, the fact-finding delegation of the Pacific island forum, the prohibition and deportation foreign journalists in Papua, the rejection of several UN commissions, including Indonesia's reaction to the emotional and deceitful UN General Assembly. These things will be their important record in the Pacific and I think it will weaken Indonesia's approach in Melanesia and the Pacific.