Indonesian-based Australian journalist John Martinkus explores the fine line between journalism and activism. John Martinkus has at times being accused of being an activist in his reports on the independence movement in East Timor, and more recently the Free Papua Movement (OPM) in the Indonesian province of Papua.

Now, he finds himself being criticised by activists for his recent article in the Australian publication, Quarterly Essay. He says it is not impossible that a group of the OPM could have been responsible for the killings of three employees of the Freeport mine, in August this year.

He explores the fine line between journalism and activism in this opinion piece first broadcast on Radio National's Perspective.

Early this year I was sitting in a hut talking to one of the OPM commanders on the PNG/West Papua border. He insisted on talking about guns.

That I had bothered to come to his camp suggested to him, that I was sympathetic with his struggle. And what he and his men needed above all else was guns. The idea that I was there simply report what was happening to their people, not actively help them, was to him ridiculous.

It would make no difference what I wrote in some report he would never see, because the outcome for his people unless they got weapons would be the same, they would be at worst wiped out, or at best they would have to flee further in to the jungle once an operation was launched against them.

They see us as representatives of the outside world that is conspiring to rob them of their land and subject them to domination from another country and culture.

None of the visits of journalists in the past has ever led to any benefit for the people in the jungle and on some occasions has led only to Indonesian military operations against them. They have no reason to trust westerners.

The irony is when you return to Australia and publish articles about what is happening to those people who have effectively been abandoned many years ago by Western governments and the UN, you are perceived as having some kind of bias towards those people and are accused of being partisan.

Both in East Timor a few years ago, before the referendum, and now in West Papua, almost every piece of reporting quotes or refers to the official Indonesian line or version of events.

By going and talking to, for example, Falintil in East Timor or the OPM in the bush in West Papua, I am simply trying to redress that inequality. I'm attempting bring some balance back into the reporting of these conflicts.

I'm clearly not without a view on these things, and any journalist who claims otherwise, is most likely fooling themselves or you. But whose side I'm on is not really the point. The point is being able to hear the view of more than just the pro-Jakarta lobby.

In the past other people in the media have accused me of simply being a spokesman or conduit for the propaganda of these pro-independence movements in Indonesia, but if you look at the level of routine misinformation that comes out of the official sources – both diplomatic and Indonesian, I am simply providing a counter-point to that.

Accusations of activist or partisan reporting can be just as easily levelled at those reporters who give space to the official Jakarta or Canberra line, which is why to someone like that OPM commander in the bush, journalists are seen as part of the problem for his people not part of a solution.

Now I find myself in the rather curious position of being attacked by the same activists that I am supposedly in cahoots with.

In my Quarterly Essay I have said its not impossible that a group of the OPM, albeit one paid off or infiltrated by the Indonesian military could have been responsible for the killings of three employees of the Freeport mine, in August this year.

The point I'm making is the destabilization program of the Indonesian military, currently being run in West Papua, has gone so far this scenario is not inconceivable.

However unpalatable some of these reports are to independence and Indonesian authorities, it is still the job of the reporter to tell the story. Other wise the charges of activism and partiality are true.

But more importantly, in a situation like West Papua, an incorrect report can easily cost people lives. The decision to comment on recent events cannot be taken lightly in these situations. It can seriously jeopardise the safety of those we are reporting about, and as a journalist I must make a decision to voice such speculation or remain silent.

The challenge is to tell the story, in all its complexity. It is also important to tell these stories of struggle, and making them matter for the people both in the hills of Papua and those in Australia.

But more importantly, we must attempt to counter the versions of events pushed upon us by the vested interests and governments. In this case, Indonesia and Australia.