Defending the BARA NKRI in Papua

A Papuan traditional leader from Lapago area made a statement suggesting that his society opposes any organisation demanding the freedom of Papua. He further said that currently, all traditional leaders of Lapago has warned the free Papua organization to not exaggerate their aspiration because such action will only disturb the society.

I believe, this statement is right because in the era of democracy and transparency, aspirations must be delivered in an elegant manner and without violating the Law and the Indonesian constitution. The statement, basically, also shows that the traditional leader indirectly rejects the existence of Free Papua Organization (OPM), West Papua National Committee (KNPB), and United Liberation Movement for West Papua (ULMWP) because the demonstrations they used to conduct most likely are not in accordance with Indonesian constitution.

The Lapago traditional leader also emphasize, anyone comes to Papua, they must respect the Papuan by not disturbing the people. Although this statement is quite primordial, on the other side, this shows that the Papuan does not want their problems to be politicized by any party.

An example of good demonstration is the rally by Barisan Rakyat Pembela (BARA) NKRI. This represented democracy and was legal because they had reported their plan to the police in advance. Besides, the purpose of the rally is very noble, that is to remind the necessity of love for the homeland and countering the independence demand. This demonstration was also intended to counter the previous demonstration by KNPB.

Seeing this reciprocal actions, it will be better if KNPB channels its aspiration to the West Papua House of Representative (DPRD) or the Papuan government, so it does not trigger any exaggerated reciprocal action like what BARA NKRI did. Also, BARA NKRI actually does not need to force the people to join their rally because it only shows their limitation and disturbs the people. Any groups willing to conduct a protest must not be anarchist and must respect the local values.

It is recommended that KNPB and the traditional leaders of Lapago sit together with the West Papua DPRD to formulate a proposal and recommendation for the central government to improve the welfare of the local and original people of Papua. It is such an irony that Papua is very rich in natural resources, yet it does not benefit the people.

Meanwhile, one of DPRD Papua commission I member stated that KNPB is different from OPM as it is not a separatist movement. This statement was a response towards BARA NKRI's statement rejecting the existence of KNPB in Papua. He believes that KNPB opposes the government because they feel that the government does not care about the indigenous people of Papua (OAP).

However, I think this statement is not true. KNPB is not the mediator of people that keeps fighting the government so that they can get equal treatments as others. I believe that the poverty in Papua is not only the fault of the central government per se. The central government has managed to build Papua by giving special autonomy (Otsus) fund both for Papua and West Papua respectively. Yet, the central government also the Corruption Eradication Commission (KPK) cannot fully monitor the use of the fund. On the other side, the government and DPRD of Papua are also not serious in using the fund so that the fruit of development cannot be shared with the people of Papua in general.

The KNPB might have been well informed about the fact regarding the misuse of the Otsus fund. Nevertheless, this organization might be used by certain group as their "political tools" so it never raises the issue of Otsus fund misuse, instead, they divert the issue by demanding the independence of Papua due to the ubiquitous poverty.

The existence of KNPB will worth more if they can also raise the corruption issues in Papua. For instance, KNPB together with Forum Peduli Pembangunan Jayawijaya (FPPMJ) can question the follow up of the audit result from the representative of Indonesian Supreme Audit Agency (BPK) in Papua regarding the embezzlement of the "Rice for the Poor (Raskin)" as much as 18 tons, the purchase of Walesi Air's aircraft, and the business trip of Jayawijaya Government Tourism Office to Germany.

Considering all these, the statement made by that one of DPRD Papua commission I member is absurd. Therefore, the Honorable Board of DPRD Papua and related stakeholders must warn the individual so that he will not make any provocative statements that can trigger conflict in society in the future.

Responding to the issues in Papua, another DPRD Papua commission I member hoped that the people of Papua will be more mature and aware in responding any issues. They must realize that there are some groups in Papua that want to disturb the harmony by spreading separatist provocation. Moreover, should there be any group opposing NKRI, the people of Papua must be aware and refrain from joining the groups nor being exploited even if they offer some money in return. There will be more groups, particularly the political ones that want to create disruption to trigger conflict in Papua prior to regional election.

These statements could likely created negative stigma that will lead to disharmony between the executive and legislative and with the society. It is also possible that such statement will grow the seeds of hostility amongst them. Considering that most of DPRD members are Papua origin, a technical training regarding the understanding on defending the country or national awareness is required so that they will have the feeling of love towards their homeland.

Meanwhile, the existence of BARA NKRI is quite representative in guarding the political development in Papua. As a civil organization, it can voice out the nationalism especially prior to 2017 election, a safe and conducive situation is needed. The people of Papua should be sharp in seeing the development of issues and situation in Papua as well as refrain themselves from getting easily provoked by certain group of people.

Notwithstanding, all groups in Papua, either traditional organizations, youth organizations, religion-based organizations, political parties, NGO, or mass media need to realize that the integration of Papua to NKRI was final since the Pepera of 1969. This historical record will never change. Therefore, for the goodness of Papua, all stakeholders must cooperate to improve the welfare of Papuan because doing so is what is needed instead of holding protest demanding for referendum or discussing the decolonization. There will never ever be any referendum in Papua. That is this state's promise!.

*) The author is a political and terrorism researcher in Lembaga Analisa Politik dan Demokrasi. Resided in Batam, Kepri.