Webdiary - Independent, Ethical, Accountable and Transparent
header_02 home about login header_06
sidebar-top content-top

Papuan self-determination - historical roots I

Arie Brand was born in Holland and was in West Papua when the country was turned over to the Indonesians in 1962. I hope that this is the first of many articles about that part of the World.

Both West Papua and Papua New Guinea are, with different political circumstances, in the beginnings of what I believe will become a rapid and devastating resource push. They are massively rich in minerals and timber, at a time when the World is very hungry for the same. My own sources tell me that both Chinese and Western interests are increasingly mobilising capital to extract this wealth, and that cultural and environmental sensitivity are not priorities. The region is also the World's richest region in language groups - arguably in culture - and possibly hundreds of these are going to be threatened, if they're not already. It is my opinion that here, on Australia's very doorstep, we are witnessing a tragic confluence of the past century's major corporate misdirections, a last fatal hurrah perhaps. Will the world's corporate forces be any different this time? Will the world's consumers give a toss? My hope is that Webdiary, collectively, at least does the job of telling it straight, without fear or favour. Between us, let's get to the truth of the matter and, if we can, act on it as informed, ethical creatures.

Thankyou Arie for this beginning. Hamish Alcorn.

by Arie Brand

Dr George Aditjondro's critical introduction to P Schoorl (ed), Belanda di Irian Jaya : amtenar di masa penuh gejolak (Holland in Irian Jaya - Civil servant in troubled times, 1945-1962 - the Indonesian translation of an original Dutch work to which I contributed a chapter) provides me here with a convenient point of departure.

Aditjondro argues that the Dutch motivation for hanging on to the territory and excluding it from the transfer of sovereignty in 1949 had to do with Holland's economic and strategic interests, plus the desire to create a homeland for Dutch Eurasians. He sees Dutch insistence on Papuan self-determination as no more than a last minute ploy designed to keep Indonesia out of the region.

I will argue that these notions are almost entirely wrong and that, contrary to what Aditjondro seems to believe, emotional factors have played a far greater role than economic and 'strategic' calculations in the Dutch decision to exclude Papua from the transfer of sovereignty.

I will, finally, contend that the idea of self-determination played from the start of negotiations about independence an important role in Dutch ideas about the future of an independent Indonesia. The Dutch envisaged a federal structure for Indonesia and believed that the various territories should have the right to join or not join this federal structure (external self-determination) or to join it as a separate state rather than as part of the 'core'state in Java and Sumatra (internal self-determination). However, the population of Papua was deemed unable as yet to exercise this right. So, ironically, when the federal structure was speedily demolished by Jakarta within about half a year after it had consented to it, this territory was the only one to retain a concrete right to self-determination albeit a postponed right.

Economically "worthless"

I will first discuss here whether Holland was swayed by economic considerations in its decision to exclude Papua from the transfer of sovereignty.

It is well known that presently the region with its rich mineral resources is one of the most important income spinners for the Indonesian government (and the Indonesian army). That was entirely different in Dutch times. The scanty knowledge about mineral resources then encouraged virtually no one to invest in a region the future of which was so uncertain.

There was some exploitation of oil but that was entirely insignificant. In its top year (1954) the exploration company concerned, the Nederlands Nieuw Guinea Petroleum Maatschappij produced 500,000 tons (Van ‘t Veer (1960), Nieuw Guinea tegen wil en dank, Querido, Amsterdam - New Guinea, whether we want it or not). At first sight this seems very impressive but by world standards it was really a pitiful amount. If we convert those 500,000 by the factor 7 to 3,500,000 barrels we can have a look at international comparisons. Australia, which is not exactly known as an oil rich country, produces, according to figures given in the US Geological Survey and Oil and Gas Journal, something like 190 million barrels a year, or, in other words, about sixty times as much (this figure dates from a few years back). And for an even more amazing figure: Holland has hardly any oil at all yet, in that same top year, it produced twice as much oil as the NNGPM did in West Papua (Van ‘t Veer, 1960: p35). And yet, even this minimal production went in the ensuing years down to about half that amount and in 1960 the company handed its concessions back – only in the “Bird’s Head’ could production be continued for a few more years until that field too was exhausted. All in all the whole enterprise was a failure. According to Van ‘t Veer the company invested since 1935 400 million guilders and gained in total, until 1960, 120 million (1960: p.36). It is true that there were some powerful companies behind this enterprise (Shell and Standard Oil) but these wouldn't have worried much about an entirely negligible part of their activities.

Seeing the lack of any large scale gainful economic activity in the area then it is no wonder that its most effective Dutch governor, Dr Jan van Baal (later professor of anthropology at the University of Utrecht), conceived of the economic future of the territory mainly in terms of small scale indigenous agriculture.

Dutch entrepreneurs - The Bilderberg group

Dutch industrial groups were hardly more sanguine.

One of the most important Anglo-Dutch enterprises in Holland was and is Unilever. The man who was the Dutch President-Director of this firm in the fifties, Mr P Rijkens, lobbied furiously for handing over West Papua to Indonesia, for the obvious reason that business possibilities in Indonesia seemed then infinitely larger than those in West Papua. Rijkens was very well connected. He was an important figure in the Bilderberg Group, a well-known group of leading figures in the international financial and political world, that had originally been brought together by the Dutch Prince-Consort, the late Prince Bernhard and met on an annual basis (and is, it seems, still doing so). Apparently this group as a whole was interested in the speedy transfer of the region to Indonesia. Prince Bernhard, transgressing his constitutional position in the process, worked for it behind the screens. He fully shared the views of Rijkens and Konijnenburg (president-director of KLM) in this matter.

The position of the Bilderberg group was so clear on this point that it was joined for a while by an outsider with a similar interest, the Dutch maverick-journalist Willem Oltmans, who prided himself on being a personal friend of the fanatical activist for an Indonesian Papua, President Sukarno (he published a book with the title My friend Sukarno in which the man is apparently depicted as a latter day saint). Oltmans claims (he can be checked out on the internet) that he left this group when he found out that a Dutch CIA-agent was a member of it.

The historian Arjen Taselaar, in his study of the activities of the Dutch economic colonial lobby, sees in the very fact that it didn’t get its way as far as the transfer of West Papua was concerned, clear evidence for the decline of its political clout. He wrote:

In the Netherlands in the same period the relation between the Association of Entrepreneurs (Ondernemersraad) and the Government worsened because of the New Guinea policy. New Guinea was still economically as worthless as it was before the Second World War but the stubbornness with which the Netherlands held on to the island now threatened the interests of Dutch entrepreneurs in Indonesia... The Dutch government knew of course that the entrepreneurs didn’t agree with its New Guinea policy but it took that for granted. The group Rijkens (named after the President-Director of Unilever, P Rijkens), of which Van Oldenborgh and some other members of the executive of the Association of Entrepreneurs were members, was equally not able to make the Minister of Foreign Affairs, JMAH Luns, and some other members of the cabinet change their minds (Taselaar (1998), De Nederlandse koloniale lobby - Ondernemers en de Indische Politiek, Leiden - The Dutch colonial lobby - Entrepreneurs and policy on the Indies; the translation of the quote is mine, AB).


Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

National day of action

I just received a press release from the Refugee Action Collective. Rather a coincidence given that this was the last article I published today, so for the information of Webdiarists:

National rallies to Welcome West Papuan refugees and to support self-determination for West Papua. The government is hypocritical on West Papua say refugee supporters.

A national day of action to welcome West Papuan refugees and support self-determination in West Papua will be held in capital cities across Australia, this Sunday, 2 April.

In Brisbane, refugee and West Papua supporters, will rally in King George Square, at 12.30pm, Sunday, 2 April.

Speakers at the rally include; Jason McLeod, West Papua Association; Andrew Bartlett, Democrat Senator, Juanita Wheeler, Queensland Greens, Cnr Kerry Rae (Labor For Refugees and chair Community Services Cmtee, BCC), and Nel Barkmeyer, from West Papuan community.

‘We welcome the release of 42 of the 43 West Papuans and the fact that they have been granted protection visas. It is an indication of the repression of the West Papuan people and the suffering inflicted on them at the hands of the Indonesian army. We look forward to the release of the remaining West Papuan asylum seeker on Christmas Island,” said Ian Rintoul, spokesperson for the Refugee Action Collective.

“While we welcome the recognition of the West Papuan as refugees, the government has adopted a hypocritical attitude to West Papua. Activists for self-determination face on-going repression. Just raising the Morning Star flag results in lengthy jail terms.

“We are calling for the Australian government to back the international calls for a genuine act of self-determination in West Papua. A Liberal government was complicit in the phony act of free choice in 1969 that resulted in Indonesia annexing West Papua. The government has an historic debt to the people fighting for self-determination. Will the Australia government support human rights or is it more interested in the profits for Australian companies exploiting the resources of West Papua?

“We are very concerned at statements from the Prime Minster concerning future arrivals of asylum seekers. The government has said that naval patrols around West Papua will be increased. This is the same One Nation policy adopted in 2001 that saw boats of asylum seekers towed back to Indonesia. There are still Afghans and Iraqi asylum seekers on Lombok Island taken there after the Tampa incident. The return of West Papuan asylum seeker to Indonesia would almost certainly mean imprisonment and death to those returned.

“Indonesia should stop warehousing refugees for Australia,” said Ian Rintoul.

“The speedy processing is also a welcome change from the treatment that Afghans and Iraqis have received in the past. But the issue of temporary visas and the question of Christmas Island itself remain unresolved issues. It is now obvious that there was no reason for these asylum seekers to be taken to Christmas Island in the first place. We are calling for Christmas Island to be closed. Despite the talk of culture change, Christmas Island is a central plank in the government’s Indian Ocean solution.

“We want the West Papuans refugees to know that they are welcome here and that we will welcome any future boats of asylum seekers. Papua Medeka!”

For more information contact: Ian Rintoul 0417 275 713.

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.
© 2005-2011, Webdiary Pty Ltd
Disclaimer: This site is home to many debates, and the views expressed on this site are not necessarily those of the site editors.
Contributors submit comments on their own responsibility: if you believe that a comment is incorrect or offensive in any way,
please submit a comment to that effect and we will make corrections or deletions as necessary.
Margo Kingston Photo © Elaine Campaner

Recent Comments

David Roffey: {whimper} in Not with a bang ... 12 weeks 6 days ago
Jenny Hume: So long mate in Not with a bang ... 12 weeks 6 days ago
Fiona Reynolds: Reds (under beds?) in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 1 day ago
Justin Obodie: Why not, with a bang? in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 1 day ago
Fiona Reynolds: Dear Albatross in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 1 day ago
Michael Talbot-Wilson: Good luck in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 1 day ago
Fiona Reynolds: Goodnight and good luck in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 3 days ago
Margo Kingston: bye, babe in Not with a bang ... 13 weeks 6 days ago