West Irian’s Future

Press, Volume CIX, Issue 31985, 12 May 1969, Page 12

West Irian’s Future

Rumblings of discontent in West Irian about the territory’s future have been heard for some time; the issue is whether the people should be allowed to choose, through a satisfactory voting system, to remain part of Indonesia or become independent. In the view of the Indonesian Government, voting by consultation is the only practicable plan. It would be impossible, it is heid in Djakarta, to organise polling on the basis of an individual vote. The lack of communications, especially in the interior where most of the people live, is said to make a one-man, one-vote plebiscite out of the question. The Government is therefore pressing ahead with a form of self-determination by the traditional Indonesian method of consultation, whereby representatives on a little more than 1000 district councils will decide the future of the territory’s 800,000 inhabitants. Inevitably there has been protest among the tribesmen, thought to have been provoked mainly by agitators. There has even been talk of the existence of Communist cells, associated with the creation of an independence movement Such revolt as has occurred, however, seems to have been on a relatively small scale, and the Indonesian Government appears to have acted with moderation in trying to suppress it There have been border incidents, and refugees have been crossing into Papua-New Guinea. Some apparently were allowed to stay. Others were sent back, leading to a demand in Australia for a clear outline of the principles on which refugee cases were being decided. The attitude of the Australian Government on the border question appears to be curiously muddled. When police pursued a group of refugees into a New Guinea border post and some shots were fired, the Minister for External Territories, Mr Barnes, said the strongest protest had been made to the Indonesian Government His colleague, Mr Freeth, the Minister for External Affairs, denied that any formal protest had been or would be made. He had discussed the incident in Djakarta, he said, with the Indonesian Foreign Minister, Mr Malik, who gave an assurance that there would be no further acts of trespass. Mr Freeth seemed to be completely at odds with Mr Barnes about border policy, although the administration of Papua-New Guinea is the latter’s responsibility. Mr Freeth also went out of his way to endorse the system of decision by consultation, as being the only means of discovering the wishes of the West Irianese concerning their future status, and was told sharply by the “ Sydney Morning Herald ” that an oninion of that kind was indiscreet, in view of opnosition to the method in West Irian itself. Mr Freeth, the newspaoer suggested, had no need —at a news conference in Djakarta—to add anything to his statement that Australia would have no grounds for criticism if Indonesia carried out the act of free choice honourably.

The outcome of this restricted method of voting will not be known until later in the year—possibly in August It is clear, however, that the United Nations observer. Dr Ortiz Sans, is determined to make his supervision of the consultation between the Indonesian Government and the West Irian councils as effective as possible, tn ensure that the rights of the peonle receive maximum protection. Indonesian

resnonsihilitv for the processes of determination derives from an agreement with the Dutch Government when the territory was taken over by Indoesl’ In 19«2. The Government in Djakarta will no ami t see the wisdom of acting with restraint to quell such resistance to consultation as may appear.