Article Review: “Mutual Respect, Friendship and Co-operation? The Indonesia-Papua New Guinea Border and Its Effects on Relations between Papua New Guinea and Indonesia

 This paper is an analysis of the relations between PNG and its closest neighbor, Indonesia. It explores the border between these states, and based on the assessment of activities along the borderline, it evaluates the nature of their tie. This paper acts as an intermediary, shedding light on significant determining factors that affect relations between PNG and Indonesia. On one side, the PNG government pushed for greater border relations; on the other, the opposition gravely criticizes this move and refers to it as naive and sinister. Henceforth, the aim of this paper as a middleman is to set the record straight and reveal all the facts that were necessary, not only for the parties mentioned but, most importantly, for the people.

The title of this paper points out various important aspects. Paramount of all, the title reveals that the article has questioned the integrity of the agreement between the two states. Also, it points out that the paper will assess border issues, whether the treaty has been observed, and its effect on the present relationship and cooperation between the neighbors.

Image source: Wikipedia

 

The article was published in 1987 by Routledge. The author, Ronald J. May, is presently an emeritus fellow at the Australian National University (ANU). Formerly, he was a senior economist with the Reserve Bank of Australia and a Field Director for ANU New Guinea Research. While serving as Field Director, he contributed profoundly to the establishment of the present-day PNG National Research Institute (NRI). He still acts as a research advisor to NRI after leaving the institute. His research interests revolve around comparative government and politics, the government and politics of Asia and the Pacific, and race and ethnic relations. As such, in his original paper, he assessed the border issues and evaluated PNG-Indonesia relations.

One of the most significant events between PNG and Indonesia was the signing of the Mutual Respect, Friendship, and Cooperation Agreement sometime around October 1986. Generally, this contract highlighted the border relations aspects and how members of the treaty should treat and view each other as neighbors. Specifically, the agreement declared that there should be no use of force or threat against each other, no member shall cooperate with others to carry out unlawful acts against any member of the treaty, and members of the contract should not allow others to use their territory for the mentioned purposes. "Others" in the contract referred to states, interest groups, and even militant groups. However, this agreement only outlined the administrative facets of the border; the drawing of the border dates back to the Australian colonial period. The present borderline was drawn in 1973, regardless of Grand Chief Sir. Michael Somare leading the first native government after the 1972 House of Assembly Elections; he simply signed the agreement; the groundwork and borderline specifications had been done before his tenure began as Chief Minister. Aside from these agendas, Radio New Zealand (2021) revealed that the treaty also established Indonesian sovereignty over the West Papua (formerly known as Irian Jaya Barat) region, which is now divided into two provinces along the border.

This agreement was considered essential because it was a land border. From PNG’s East Sepik province, the border vertical stretches for approximately 750 kilometers south to the Western province, on the PNG side of the border. "With PNG’s poor attention to border security and infrastructure and Indonesia's advanced border establishments, it is more than obvious that there is a disparity of power between the neighbors through the display of capabilities along the border; this has caused a lot of issues along the border" (2020, 2021, 2022).

Ronald May’s article highlighted administrative and border management issues and their four main sources. The first source is border crossers; these were mainly villagers along the border. The agreement makes provision for these traditional border crossers to freely move between the borders, as they have for years. In most cases, these border crossers go to and from as traditional custodians of the land for the purpose of visiting kin or simply for gardening and hunting on either side of the border. However, as the national border laws of the two countries sharpen, these people are no longer considered lawbreakers or simply referred to as "border problems"

The second source of friction between the neighbors is the Organisasi Papua Merdeka (OPM). Renowned for their longstanding aggression against Indonesia, OPM is a guerilla group of Irianese nationalists fighting to free West Papua, or Irian Jaya, from Indonesian control. The group occasionally crosses the border into PNG for rest and recreation (R&R) or to escape Indonesian army patrols along the border. Their crossing has been dubbed irresponsible and unconscious towards the issues of border security. As such, it is argued that PNG is not effectively meeting the terms of the 1986 agreement by strengthening its border control to prevent OPM from freely passing through.

The third source of border issues is border violations, most especially by the Indonesian military. Indonesian troops or aircraft have, on several occasions since the 1960s, violated PNG’s territorial sovereignty by crossing into the PNG side either intentionally or unintentionally. These violations began in the 1960s and continued until mid-1982, and later there were several border intrusions in 1984. And although these violations can be covered with the argument that the border demarcations are poorly outlined, one thing that stands out is the grave denial by the Indonesian government, even after an official request for an explanation was sent by the PNG government. These activities have further dampened the ties and general cooperation between the two states. As such, a proposal by the Indonesian government to form a joint border patrol agency along the border was declined by the PNG government.

The fourth source of border tension is issues relating to border development. Border development programs and infrastructure on the Indonesian side have been more advanced compared to PNG's since 1984. This is a reflection of the PNG government’s focus on sustaining and getting rid of border crossers rather than improving conditions in terms of border infrastructure along the PNG side of the border.

These four sources mentioned were and are still the border crossing issues that the PNG-Indonesia border continues to be disturbed by.

With these existing border issues, the paper evaluates the relations between the neighbors in three broad areas and what may arise as a result of the border issues. First, the author assesses expansionist ambitions to point out whether Indonesia may possibly threaten or even actually want to expand onto the PNG side of the island. The author highlighted many critics concerns about the defense and security aspects of both countries' relations. Therefore, the article stated that Indonesia does not have an expansionist ambition toward PNG. The political difference was the second item on the agenda in PNG-India relations. Indonesia's political system is communism, which is different from PNG's political system, which is democracy. Military capability was the third agenda item stemming from PNG-India relations. In terms of military capability, Indonesia is more advanced in manpower, armory, and intelligence compared to PNG.

The argument and analysis of the paper are strongly supported in the paper, which states that the PNG-Indonesia relationship is not symmetrical. That is supported by five reasons discussed in the article. The first reason was that PNG's border has been violated on various occasions. The second reason was that the internal rebel movements happening in Indonesia were affecting PNG when the rebels crossed the border. Imbalance in cultural attitudes was the third reason. The fourth reason highlighted in the paper was Somare versus Wingti, both in their leadership style and attitude towards the issue of border crossing based on the signed treaty. The fifth reason was that the treaty signed between PNG and Indonesia was dubbed by critics in PNG as "bilas tasol" (just ornament). This meant that the treaty was just a decoration of the relationship between PNG and Indonesia, which had no effect.

In conclusion, expansionist arguments have been brushed aside, and more concern is diverted to collaboration in border administration and the maintenance of good relations. However, with the history of cooperation between the two states, there is little to show in terms of cooperation, with Joint Border Committees being ineffective when needed, Indonesian governments denying border violations, and the existence of rival conflicts. It can be assessed that the relations between PNG and Indonesia are not symmetrical, as argued by critics. PNG is at a disadvantage because it is pushed towards border administration duties. Indonesia has clearly factors pointing to it as the main culprit of border tensions. To date, many border violations occur on a daily basis, and cooperation between the neighbors remains fragile and immature.

 This paper was co-authored by Vanessa Bulu. She is a final year student at Divine Word University.