Max Lane, Sydney – The arrival of 43 Papuan refugees in Australia followed soon after by the violent dispersal of otherwise peaceful student demonstrations in Papua has resulted in two weeks of sustained media coverage of the situation in Papua and its implications for Australia.

The demonstrations in Papua were organized by a coalition of student and activists groups, the most significant of which are the Parliament of the Streets of West Papua (Parjal), the Papuan Students Association (AMP) and the Papuan National Students Front (FMNP).

The demonstrations were demanding the closure of Freeport and a full audit of the ecological and human rights impact of the huge foreign owned mine as well as an assessment of its actual contribution to economic welfare in Papua.

After a peaceful day of demonstrations outside the University of Cendrawasih on March 15 and a peaceful morning of demonstrating on March 16, the police, and then later reinforced my army units, attacked the students.

There was fighting on the campus and 5 police were killed and almost 30 students wounded, including some shot. Another demonstration took place in the town of Timika with more injuries. Since then there has been a police hunt for student activists. Many are still in hiding.

During these demonstrations and in many statements since then, several very clear demands have emerged from these student and community groups.

First, there is the demand for the closure and full audit of Freeport. Second, there is a demand for all Indonesian Armed Forces to withdraw from Papua. Third, there is a demand for a democratic, free and open national and international dialog, involving Papuans, the Indonesians and the "international community". The Papuan groups calling for this dialog are asking for an international presence pointing to the big role foreign interests already play in Papua, through the Freeport mine.

The call for a democratic national and international dialog to discuss how to resolve the Papuan issue represents also a call for the end of repression of Papuans, or anybody else in Papua or Indonesia, who do call for secession.

There can be no democratic dialog without the full range of opinion being able to participate, including from the 35-45 percent of the people in Papua who are not indigenous Papuans.

Clearly this democracy will be impossible while the army remains a significant presence in Papua, with its own agenda. Since it has been forced into the background, first in Indonesia as a whole after the fall of Soeharto, and then more recently in Aceh, Papua remains its last remaining "sphere of influence".

This demand for a free, open dialog should be supported even though it goes further than some of the calls from more moderate sections of Papuan society who are concentrating on trying to get a renegotiation with Jakarta on the Special Autonomy Law, an end to Jakarta's efforts to divide Papua into three provinces and more economic benefits for Papua.

A democratic atmosphere free of all repression will be the best way to allow Papuans to debate out and form a clear vision of what they want and is a fundamental necessity for the conduct of the kind of dialog that they are demanding.

In relation to this, some recent announcements by the Australian government are totally counter-productive. The majority of Indonesian and Papuan opinion has consistently identified the enemy of democracy in Papua and as the "security approach".

This is the attempt to try to control and resolve political issues through the use of the security apparatus – the police and army. Australian Minister of Defense, Brendon Nelson's suggestion of joint naval patrols and PM John Howard's suggestion that refugee visa processes be revised for Papuan refugees both reinforce this "security approach" strengthening military and bureaucratic control rather than democratic political struggle.

If Papuans try to come to Australia by boat, it will be above all a political statement they are making about the lack of freedom in Papua. Capturing them with naval patrol boats when they are simply using their right to leave their country just compounds this lack of freedom.

Of course, nobody can predict absolutely what the outcome of dialog between Papuans, Indonesians and international representatives will be if carried out in genuine free and democratic atmosphere. Whatever path it leads to: An autonomous province, self-government within Indonesia, some other similar formula, or a referendum and independence, the fundamentally decisive factor will be the opinions of the people for whom Papua is home.

[The writer is lecturer in Indonesian Studies, University of Sydney.]