Neles Tebay, Rome – The International Crisis Group (ICG) published early this month its report on Papua titled Papua: Answers to Frequently Asked Questions.

The Brussels-based institute examines several topics, such as: Who governs Papua? What substance is there to the claim of historical injustice? How strong is the independence movement? What about the allegation of genocide? Are there Muslim militias in Papua? Is Papua closed, and if so, why?

The report, however, raises some disturbing questions.

First, the ICG denies Papua is a place of persecution and oppression. It says "implicit in the image of Papua as a place of persecution and oppression is the idea that non-Papuan Indonesians are in control. This is simply not true." For Papua is governed by Papuans. The governors and the heads of all 29 districts are Papuans.

The question is, since when have indigenous Papuans assumed the executive posts in regional and provincial administrations? Since Indonesia took over the territory on 1 May, 1963, since the enactment of Law no 21/2001 on special autonomy for Papua, or since Susilo Bambang Yudhoyono was elected President?

Due to its denial, the ICG needs to prove that Papuans have never been persecuted by the state apparatus. The ICG denies Papua is a place of oppression, but it provides no proof that the government has never oppressed the Papuans through the denial of their rights to participation, of freedom of expression and of assembly, and of cultural identity and expression.

The ICG needs to demonstrate that the Papuans have never been victimized by oppression committed by non-Papuans through psychological repression, social domination, unfair exploitation of natural resources, stigmatization, the imposition of government policy, military operations, extrajudicial killings, torture, arbitrary detention and sexual harassment.

So, some more facts are needed to show that the Papuans have never suffered from persecution and oppression under Indonesian rule.

Second, Papua is not governed by the Indonesian Military (TNI). Indeed, as reported by the ICG, the TNI still exercises its power to exploit economic resources. The TNI has a primary responsibility to conduct counterinsurgency actions against a small armed rebel group known as the Free Papua Movement (OPM).

Yet, the TNI officers "do not govern Papua." They do not determine local policies. Most local security problems are left to the police, not the military.

The next question, then, is since when has the TNI given up its power to determine policies on and in Papua? Is it since May 1, 1963, since the special autonomy for Papua took effect in 2001 or since the first democratic presidential election took place in 2004?

Third, the ICG has no evidence to dismiss allegations that troops pulled out of Aceh are being systematically redeployed in Papua.

Yet, the ICG recognizes that the number of troops has increased in Papua. The TNI has over 12,000 troops in Papua, in addition to between 2,000 and 2,500 police. The size of the three infantry battalions permanently stationed in Papua has risen from 650 to 1,050 soldiers each.

Here, the ICG needs to prove that the reinforcement troops sent to Papua do not belong to battalions pulled out of Aceh. The ICG has also to explain where the troops withdrawn from Aceh are being redeployed, or where the troops deployed in Papua come from.

Fourth, the ICG denies genocide in Papua without verification. The denial of genocide is made in response to two reports titled Indonesian Human Rights Abuses in West Papua: Application of the Law of Genocide to the History of Indonesian Control issued by a group of students at Yale Law School in New Haven, and Genocide in West Papua? The role of the Indonesian State apparatus and a current needs assessment of the Papuan people written by John Wing and Peter King of Sydney University, Australia.

Genocide is defined in the 1948 International Convention as a pattern of acts "committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial, or religious group as such".

The two reports in the eyes of the ICG do not "provide evidence of intent on the part of the Indonesian government or military to destroy the ethnic Papuan populations as such in whole or in part."

Military operations in the 1970s that left thousands of Papuans dead, for example, "could conceivably fit the definition of a war crime or crime against humanity, but not genocide." However, the ICG provides no evidence to explain that the military operations were conducted without an intent to destroy the indigenous Papuans as such in whole or in part.

What was or were the true intent(s) of the military operations conducted against the Papuans then, if not to wipe out the people as such in whole or in part?

Fifth, the ICG finds little evidence of the hard-line Muslim militias working with the Army in Papua. The militia group Laskar Jihad had a few hundred men in Sorong in 2001. But the organization was dissolved in October 2002. So "there is a little reason to believe it survived in Papua when it collapsed everywhere else".

The ICG forgets that Laskar Jihad, according to its leader, was established also in Manokwari, Fakfak, Nabire, Jayapura, and Timika to assist the Army in fighting Papuan separatists.

Did all members of the group leave Papua after their organization was dissolved? If yes, then, where do they live now?

The answers to the above questions would be helpful in addressing the distorted reporting on Papua.

[The writer is a Catholic priest who has recently finished his doctoral degree at the Pontifical University of Urbaniana in Rome. He can be reached at nelestebay@hotmail.com.]