Preventing Communal Conflict in Jayapura, Papua, Indonesia: An Early Warning System Approach

Individual Conflict Analysis (Not to be quoted) Preventing Communal Conflict in Jayapura, Papua, Indonesia: An Early Warning System (FAST) Approach1

By Ridwan al-Makassary Abstract This policy brief tries to comprehensively explain the potential communal conflict in Jayapura and how to prevent it by utilizing an early warning system (FAST) approach. In practice, it will start by describing the background of this paper, and depicting short profile of Jayapura. Then, the brief will be followed up by comprehensively analyzing the root causes, proximate causes, positive intervening factors, negative intervening factors and policy options in order to prevent the potentiality of a communal conflict. I conclude that as long as that negative intervening factors are dominant, as well as there is a trigger so that the communal conflict will occur. Although religion is not the main driver of the conflict, it is sometimes misused as vehicle to activate and translate it to an “ethno-religious conflict”. Otherwise, if all stakeholders can enlarge the positive intervening factors and diminish the negative intervening factors, Jayapura will not be trapped in a communal conflict.

Keywords: Communal conflict, root causes, proximate causes, negative factors, positive factors

Background Generally speaking, there are four types of conflict in Papua. First, armed conflict occurs between the Free Papuan Movement and the military of Indonesia. Second, state violence, meaning the state violence towards civilians related to the armed group of Free Papuan Movement as reaction or vengeance; Third, Structural violence meaning the state of Indonesia has enacted policies that make many Papuan people marginalized and stuck in terms of economic and standard living. Fourth, communal conflict based on religion, ethnic, sub-ethnic identities or mix of them. This writing focuses to the latter, namely, communal conflict or popular as “EthnoReligious Conflict”. To date, Jayapura has witnessed the growing prejudices between Christians and Muslims. One such example is the suspiciousness of Christians about the

1

This writing basically was my Individual Conflict Analysis in Class 18 of Rotary Peace Chula, Thailand, 2015. I am grateful to Erick Melander who introduced me with the early warning system, FAST, and Jenn Weidmann for her critical comments to this paper, as well as Elma Demir, for editing of the paper to make it concise and readable.

growing Islamic radical groups, such as Jemaah Tabligh and Salafy-Wahaby in the city. At the same time, Muslims are suspicious about the growing Christianization and Christian radical groups such as the Charismatic Church (see ICG Report). In addition, there is mistrust between ethnic and even sub-ethnic groups regarding economics and politics, in particular the transmigrants from outside Papua have dominated economic sector. However, in political sector especially the local leader of the government goes to Indigenous Papuan people since the province introduced special autonomy in 2001. In the long term, violent communal conflict will occur if all stakeholders in the city does not consider risks of their prejudices based on religion and ethnicity. In addition, the local government does not apply policy options to prevent the potential communal conflict. In this context, however, the religion is not the main driving force. Yet, when a conflict occurs, religion can be misused as a deadly weapon to activate brutal communal conflict as we have bitterly witnessed in Indonesia during the early Reformation Era 1999-2002. Overall, the potential communal conflict might occur which is usually triggered by economic and political factors. Such the communal conflict had occurred in Ambon (Moluccas) and Poso (Central Sulawesi) between Christians and Muslims; in Sambas and Sampit (Borneo Island) between Dayak and Maduruses. In this regard, those conflicts, initially, were not based on religion, but those can be easily translated to conflict based on religion and ethnicity or called ethno-religious conflict. So, this paper comprehensively analyzes the complexities of the potential communal conflict in Jayapura.

Profile of Jayapura: The Main City in Papua Jayapura city is the main city in Papua. It can be reached five hours by direct flight from Jakarta, or six till seven hours with one transit in Makassar or other city. Geographically,

Jayapura is nearer to Melanesian world, or even to Australia. To date, Jayapura is the barometer of politics, economics, cultural life, and socio-economics in general in Papua. Jayapura has large 940 km2 with population about 280,000 citizens, that is considered as crowded city with the level of density about 339 souls / km2 (John Rahail, 24/11/2014). The city is famous with Base-G Beach icon consisting of 5 districts, namely Abepura (87.280 souls), Heram (44.244 souls), Jayapura Utara (77. 594 souls), Jayapura Selatan (73.243 souls) and Muara Tami (13.649 souls). (See Kota Jayapura Dalam Angka Data BPS, 10/11/2014) Some of the inhabitants are transmigrants coming from all over Indonesia, especially Jawa and Sulawesi, that have moved to this city for better life. Overall, the transmigrants have dominated the economic sector in the city. According to John Rahail (24/11/12014), 125.213 people moved to Papua during the last five years (5%). Meanwhile, the most favorite city is Sarmi City (14,5%) and Jayapura City (12,87%). Here, Jayapura is still one of the favorite cities mainly for the economic development, center of banks, shopping malls, entertainments cub, so on and so forth. Most of the inhabitants arethe middle class workers, as well as those who work in informal sectors and providing services. Nevertheless, the number of unemployment is quite high, namely, unemployed man achieved 9,036 souls and unemployed women achieved 5,748 souls. (http://papua.bps.go.id/index.php?hal=subject&id=9) Like many transmigrants cities in the country, the presence of multiethnicity here is reflected by formation of community associations based on ethnicity, including Kerukunan Keluarga Sulawesi Selatan (KKSS), Ikatan Keluarga Flobomora, Kerukunan Jawa-Madura (HKJM), to mention few of them. Jayapura is religiously plural city, based on data of the ministry of religious affairs in Jayapura 2012 the followers of Protestantism: 41.285 souls, Catholic: 21.155 souls, Islam: 29.111 souls, Hindu: 457 souls and Buddha: 685 souls.

The plurality of ethnicity and religion by no doubt makes this city as “small Indonesia” and demands proper management in order to avoid urban problems, namely criminality and communal conflict.

The Analytical Framework

Positive Intervening factors 1.

2. 3.

4.

Proximate causes:

5. 6.



7.

Root causes: 







Unclear political status of the Papua Integration to Indonesia Marginalization of Indegenous Papua, especially in ecomics sector Ethnic and religion diversity Transmigrants to the Papua

  

   

Tensions and prejudice between ethnic and religious communities Papuan people life in poverty The growing criminality The constant resistance of Free Papuan movement Transmigrants live in fear and unsecure Unemployment of the youth Growing radical groups Drugs

Peace activities by Interfaithorganisation, such as FKPPA, FKUB (Religious Leaders Forum). Good policies by the Local government The careness of Traditional leaders and Academics The role of organisation based on ethnic groups and civil society organisation Special autonomy New President that pro people Ethnic and religious intermarriage

Events /Principle that raise social cohesion of people toward peace: -Papua Land of Peace as vision and common dream. -Celebration Religious Holiday, such as Chritsmas and -Celebration of Papua Peace day (5 February) -Celebrating International Peace day -Natural Disasters, Earthquake, lanslide, flooding, etc. -Local soccer team (Persipura)

C N F L I C T

Negative Intervening Factors 1.

2.

3. 4. 5.

6. 7.

Growing radical groups rethoric/sermons Police doe not take action to radical groups Anti-peace media and social media Corruption Declining of traditional law and ineffective judicial system Papuan Diaspora Melanesian Countries

C O m m M M U N A L

Triggers for Conflict: 1.Direct Election of the leader of the municipality 2. Criminal Action, such as killing or rape of a person of specific ethnic or religion 3. Celeberation Papua Independence day in 1 December

Analysis By using early warning system, namely FAST, I argue that the root causes of potential communal conflict are (1) unclear political status of the Papuan integration in Indonesia; (2) relative deprivation and marginalization of Indigenous Papuan people in many sector, especially in economics, politics and cultural life. To certain degree, this is caused by policy of transmigrants in Papua; (3) the diversity of religion and ethnicity in Jayapura, as showed above in the profile of Jayapura. From the historical perspective, Papua has witnessed the proctracted social conflict since the beginning of the Integration of Papua in the Republic Indonesia in 1963. However, the open armed conflict has occurred since 1965 between small group of the Free Papuan Movement and the central Indonesian Government. Basically, the Free Papuan Movement is lying their struggle on standpoint that Papua got independence from the Dutch on 1 December 1961 and followed by the Indonesia Military Operation on 9 December 1961 to “return” Papua to the Indonesian Republic. Since then, they were fighting until the referendum in 1969 where many Papuan gave their support for the Indonesian Integration. In the eye of Free Papuan Movement this referendum was illegitimate, and are opposing its results. Thus, the different perception of the Papuan political status becomes is one of the main roots of protracted social conflict. Unfortunately, implemented policies of Indonesia under the leadership of Sukarno until 1967 and followed up by Suharto regime were not pro to Papuan development. In response to the movement, the Indonesian Government utilized the military approach that’s vulnerable to threat of human rights abuses. Here, both state violence and structural violence, to certain degree, took place and many civilians and soldiers died. Since ’60, the condition of Papua has been fluctuating between peace and violence.

One of Suharto regime policies was the transmigrant policy, namely, moving people from Jawa to other provinces in Indonesia, such Sumatra, Sulawesi and Papua. In Papua, many transmigrants came in 1980s searching for a better life. Soon, the transmigrants dominated the economic sector. Meanwhile, Indigenous Papuan people have been marginalized. In addition, to certain degree, the underdevelopment of Papua compared with other provinces in Indonesia makes discontents among the Papuan people, in particular the Free Papuan Movement has expressed discontent, that already wanted to govern themselves in the first place. When the Reformation era begun in 1998, the Free Papuan Movement attempts to get independence from Indonesia were violent and non-violent. In response, the Indonesian government granted Special Autonomy (Otonomi Khusus/Otsus in Bahasa) to Papua in 2001. This was a win-win solution to overcome the conflict in Papua. To certain degree, the policy has brought many changes in terms of development compared to the time under the Suharto regime. But, rampant corruption of several Papuan local leaders makes the special autonomy ineffective. In addition, the Free Papuan Movement and its factions are still fighting in their own way, either violence or in diplomatic way and using culture and art. In fact, situation is now more stable than before and also when we compare with other parts of Indonesia that faced vertical conflict such as in Aceh. To date, Papua faces the threat of tensions in short term period, as well as communal (ethno-religious) conflict in the future. We still remember the bitter story when a small conflict occurred between Muslims and Christians in Manokwari and Kaimana in 2006 (See ICG report). Last year (2014), Papua witnessed several incidents that were ethno-religions conflicts on a small scale: in Sorong one Muslim religious leader was attacked by a Christian and made the tensions amongst religious communities grow. In Arso, Keerom, there was a tension between ethnic group of the highland people of Papua, Wamena , and transmigrants

of Jawa because of the trial of rape of one women from Jawa, which was followed by burning of 21 houses of Wamena. Fortunately, the tension was managed by the local government and civil society organization, including religious leaders forum from Jayapura. Today, Jayapura is quite safe from communal conflict, such that happened in Kaimana and Manokwari in 2006 (See ICG). All of the root causes have raised constant resistance of the Free Papuan Movement in Jayapura. But, the case of violence by Free Papuan Movement is very rare now in Jayapura. Usually it takes place in the highland, namely Puncak Jaya region, in form of shooting civilian or military Indonesian personnel. In particular, marginalization makes majority of Papuan people live in poverty, unemployment of the youth if quite high, there are drugs and the criminality is growing. Then, ethnic and religion diversity and transmigrants to Papua drive tensions and prejudices between ethnic and religious communities. At the same time, because of the transmigrant policy, growth of Islamic radical groups in Jayapura is evident. Meanwhile, the radical group of Christians are forming as a response to the movement of radical Islam. Overall, we can say that Jayapura has experienced negative peace, if refers to Galtung’s terminology, in the absence of war of conflict. With the current situation, I have seen negative intervening factors play, and once there is a trigger communal conflict cannot be avoided. Here, I argue that if there are more negative factors at play than positive factors, Jayapura is in danger. The negative factor can come from macro perspective such as Papuan Diasporas and support of Melanesian countries, such as Vanuatu, Fiji, etc. That support to the Free Papuan movement exacerbates the current situation in Papua, in particular Jayapura. When the incidents of separatist group occur, local media compete to report it. Here, the local media and social media, to some degree do not apply practices of peace journalism.

Also, there is a growing radical groups rhetoric/sermons from both Muslim and Christians that hate each other. Sometimes radical groups conduct their activities, such as Hizbut Tahrir preach about Islamic Chalipate but there is no law enforcement from the police to ban this radical group. It might be because the group does not use physical violence. But, the ideas are dangerous because they reject democracy and promote Islamic caliphate. In addition, the judicial system is ineffective to provide justice to people and traditional law is declining because problems are not regulated by the Indonesian law, as they should be. With all of these negative factors, we have to bear in mind if there is a trigger, a potential communal conflict might occur. There are several triggers that should be taken into account: First, the direct elections of the local leader sometimes can become a trigger because the party that lost elections and its supporters cannot accept the defeat. According to the SNPK (National violence report) in Jakarta, Papua is vulnerable to conflict because of these kind of elections. Second, the crime activity also can be a trigger. Cases in Arso and Sorong recently, as mentioned above, showed the potentiality of a communal conflict. Lastly, the event of celebration of Papua independence on 1 December each year can be one trigger. Fortunately, Jayapura has many positive intervening factors that can be preventing the communal conflict. From macro perspective we can note that the New President of Indonesia, Joko Widodo brought new hope for Indonesia, including Papua. The local issues, such as special autonomy, have been to a certain degree successful and are empowering indigenous Papuans in education, health and economic sectors. Regardless of rampant corruption, this good result of the special autonomy followed up by good policies of local head of Jayapura, such as applying local wisdom in his leadership are a positive sign. The most important thing that makes Jayapura safe and secure from communal conflict are peace activities done by local religious groups called FKPPA and FKUB. In addition, the care of traditional leaders and academics, as well as initiatives of civil society organizations either local or outside

Papua, including churches, mosques, and universities can strengthen pluralism spirit in the garden city. Ethnic and interreligious marriages have become another social cohesion factor amongst different ethnicities and religions. Moreover, there are several events that bind people together in Jayapura: First, celebration of religious holiday, such as Christmas is like “social cement” for ethnic and religious diversity. The latest Christmas last year was conducted in 1 December 2014 by many activities so people can celebrate it in the city without worrying about incidents from the Free Papuan Movement. Second, celebrating International Peace day, 21 September is a good event for peace. People in Jayapura have realized that they want to live peacefully. Third, natural calamities/disasters, such as earthquake, famine, landslide, and floods can bind people together in Jayapura regardless of their ethnicity and religion, including supporters of the Free Papuan Movement. Fourth, the local soccer team of Jayapura, called Persipura also binds people together, including the Free Papuan Movement supporters. If soccer players from Papua become national players of the Indonesian national team, it seems all of Papuan people will support the national team and vice versa. Lastly, a vision of the Papua Land of Peace is for Papuan people to live in harmony. It was declared on 5 February in 2002 by religious leaders in Papua to response towards the denial of civil and political rights/CPR and economic, cultural and social rights/ESCR, dominant of security approach by Indonesian military, welfare gap/marginalization and the phenomenon of destruction of religious places, in particular churches in Jawa island, after the demise of Suharto regime 1998. To conclude, as long as the positive intervening factors as well as events and principles binds all Papuan and non-Papuan people together in Jayapura, the potential communal conflict can be avoided.

Policy Options: 1. The Local Government should empower economically the Indigenous Papua people in Jayapura. 2. The Local Government should monitor and regulate transmigrants that come to the city. 3. The Local Government, including police, has to stop the activities of radical groups. Hate speech and hate actions should be banned. 4. The Local Government should conduct regular meeting with all stakeholders, including religious leaders to discuss the problems of interfaith. 5. The Local Government should be enacting a law that regulates activities of religious groups, such as building a church and mosque. 6. Local media should be trained in peace journalism and apply it in their media. 7. Peace activities, including seminar, trainings, workshop, publications that promote peace and tolerance should be supported.

Action Plan: As a lecturer in International Relations Department in University of Sciences and Technology Jayapura (USTJ), Papua, I will teach conflict resolution and run my peace local NGO for peace activities, as well as a member of interreligious leaders forums (FKPPA/PKUB Papua) I will continue to promoto Papua Land of Peace in Papua, in particular in Jayapura. Thats my vision working for peace in Papua.