Jill Jolliffe, Dili – A bid by East Timor's President Xanana Gusmao to further his campaign for reconciliation with Indonesia came apart yesterday when Jakarta's former foreign minister, Ali Alatas, was criticised during a visit to Dili by Bishop Carlos Belo and subjected to hostile questioning by the local press.

The 70-year-old diplomat's first visit to independent East Timor began triumphantly. He was embraced by both Mr Gusmao and the Foreign Minister, Jose Ramos Horta, while dodging questions on human rights violations during Indonesia's occupation from 1975 until 1999.

There was mutual agreement the subject would not be raised, though, in an interview with the Herald, he admitted there had been violations. "It was a nasty little war ... There were acts committed by either side," he said.

Now an adviser to President Megawati Soekarnoputri, Mr Alatas was keynote speaker at a seminar organised by Mr Gusmao's office. In chairing the meeting, Mr Gusmao disallowed any questions referring to past Indonesian behaviour.central government and various community groups in Papua and it concluded that Special Autonomy has only been 10 per cent implemented – and this is over 18 months after Special Autonomy became valid law of Indonesia.

MacLellan: The Autonomy Law proposed the establishment of a Papuan People's Assembly. Has this body been established?

Sullivan: No, that body has not yet been established and the non-existence of the Papuan People's Assembly is one of the core problems with the Special Autonomy Law.

The Special Autonomy Law quite clearly states that the province would make a proposal to establish this Assembly, and then the Government would have to issue a regulation to establish the Assembly within one month of receiving the proposal.

Papua Province submitted the proposal to Jakarta in July 2002, and the government has still not yet completed the regulation and issued it. So the regulation is now one year late and this is clearly in violation of Indonesia's own Special Autonomy Law.

MacLellan: Indonesia's President Megawati Sukarnoputri has also proposed dividing the province of Papua into three separate provinces. Has this affected the way the law would be implemented?

Sullivan: Yes it has. The issuing of the Presidential Instruction in January of this year was most unexpected in Papua and it is not clear what effect the Presidential Instruction and the fragmentation of Papua will have on Special Autonomy.

The government says that it will implement the three provinces plan, and then it will implement Special Autonomy. But seven months after the issuing the presidential instruction, the government has still not give a coherent detailed explanation of how these two apparently contradictory policies will be compatible.

MacLellan: Indonesia goes into national elections in 2004. Do you think the election period will provide a context where this law can proceed?

Sullivan: I'm not sure if the election period will assist the process, but I would hope that in the aftermath of the general elections next year that significant players in Jakarta will be able to have a fresh look at Indonesia's Papua policy and revert to the autonomy strategy that is clearly laid out in the Special Autonomy Law of giving Papua autonomy to satisfy its legitimate grievances, while maintaining the territorial integrity of Indonesia.

MacLellan: As well as those that support greater autonomy for Papua, there's also a strong independence movement. Do you think Jakarta's stand has strengthened or weakened supporters of autonomy?

Sullivan: I think the government's actions in the past year and a half have undermined those Papuans who are involved in the Special Autonomy process and were prepared to work with Jakarta.

As you said, many components of the community in Papua were never that keen on Special Autonomy and one of there arguments was that Jakarta would never implement a meaningful level of autonomy to Papua, and up to now that argument has been proven correct.

This is one of the main problems I think: the non-implementation of special autonomy is bad for Papua but it's also bad for Indonesia, and it would appear to me that Jakarta does not yet fully understand how an autonomous system of governance works.

The idea that to keep the country together, you have to let go and you have to let the Papuans express their identity and culture and give them self-government within the country and then they will be happier to stay within the country.

I think it's ironic that certain elements in Jakarta who claim to be defending the territorial integrity of the state, but by their actions they are actually strengthening the independence movement and undermining Indonesia.