There was an interesting discussion yesterday in the House of Lords about the West Papuan problem, specifically the genocidal Indonesian occupation of West Papua which has thus far enjoyed the full support of the British government. The exchange, between several Lords and Foreign Office Minister Lord Malloch-Brown, reveals a lot about the sincerity of Britain’s purported commitment to human rights, democracy and freedom.

Asked by Lord Harries of Pentregarth “[w]hether the United Kingdom has a responsibility to raise the case of West Papua in the United Nations Security Council”, Malloch-Brown replied,

“My Lords, we do not plan to raise Papua in the United Nations Security Council. We respect Indonesia’s territorial integrity and do not support Papuan independence. We believe that full implementation of existing special autonomy legislation is the best way to proceed towards a sustainable resolution to the internal differences and the long-term stability of Papua. The best way to resolve the complex issues in Papua is through promoting peaceful dialogue between Papuan groups and the Indonesian Government.”

The exchange continued:

“Lord Harries of Pentregarth : My Lords, I thank the Minister for his reply. However, does he agree that the British Government’s attitude in 1968-69, as now revealed under the 30-year rule through the Foreign and Commonwealth Office telegrams, could only be described as brutal realism? Commercial links with Indonesia were allowed to stifle totally the legitimate claims of the indigenous West Papuan people to independence. We therefore have a particular responsibility to let the voice of these people, who are suffering massive human rights abuses, at least be heard in the councils of the UN.

Lord Malloch-Brown : My Lords, the noble Lord refers to the time of the so-called Act of Free Choice when 1,000 pre-designated or selected Papuan representatives made a decision on behalf of the Papuan people. There has subsequently been much dispute whether they made that decision objectively and freely of their own will. Nevertheless, it was endorsed by the United Nations at the time and since then there has been no international doubt that Papua is part of Indonesia.

Lord Archer of Sandwell: My Lords, there is no legal or procedural impediment to raising the question either at the General Assembly or in the Security Council under Article 35 of the charter. Is it the Government’s position that genocide should continue while the international community looks on? If so, what has become of the ethical foreign policy?

Lord Malloch-Brown : My Lords, the noble and learned Lord raises two separate points. First, while we are concerned by continuing human rights abuses in Papua—we have highlighted them in this year’s Foreign Office and government human rights report and raised them through our embassy in Jakarta—we nevertheless believe that they are of a relatively small kind and do not in any way constitute the level of gravity that has just been implied. Secondly, because we do not accept that Papua should be independent, we would not consider it appropriate to raise the issue in the Security Council or General Assembly.

Lord Avebury : My Lords, does the Minister agree that the so-called Act of Free Choice was nothing of the kind? If that is so, is it not at least worth asking the Indonesians to consider the similar case of Aceh, where there has been a free election for an autonomous government of the territory? Might that not be the best way forward, rather than total independence?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, the noble Lord makes a very good point. Aceh offers us hope that Indonesia is now trying to deal with these issues within a framework of autonomy and self-government within that. Indeed, the Act of 2001 offers such arrangements for Papua. We are disappointed that, due to political disputes between the Government and local Papuan groups, the implementation of that special autonomy arrangement has not gone further at this stage.

Lord Campbell of Alloway: My Lords, is the noble Lord aware that, sitting here, it is very difficult to discern from the answers that have been given what is the attitude of Her Majesty’s Government?

Lord Malloch-Brown: My Lords, I think that the noble Lord misunderstands. I look at this as one of the clearest answers by a Minister: that the Government do not accept that Papua has a claim to independence and believe that it is part of Indonesia. The noble Lord will accept that that is an unusually clear statement by a government Minister…” [my emph.]

This is a disgraceful performance. Referring to the 1969 “Act of Free Choice”, Malloch-Brown describes how there “has subsequently been much dispute whether they made that decision objectively and freely of their own will”. These weasel words are sheer fabrication – whatever “dispute” that has existed has been totally contrived. There was never any doubt about the fraudulence of the “referendum” in 1969 – even the British government recently conceded that in 1969 “a thousand hand-picked Papuans were largely coerced into declaring for Indonesia”. This was hardly a recent revelation – as the Foreign Office noted at the time,

“Privately, however, we recognise that the people of West Irian (West Papua) have no desire to be ruled by the Indonesians who are of an alien (Javanese) race, and that the process of consultation did not allow a genuinely free choice to be made”. (PRO: FCO 24/449 (FWD1/4). FCO briefing on West Irian prepared for the UK delegation to the UNGA, 10 September 1969)

George Monbiot describes what happened in blunter terms:

“1,022 men [or a fraction of 1% of West Papua’s population of 800,000] were selected by Indonesian soldiers, taught the words “I want Indonesia”, then lined up at gunpoint. One man who refused to say his lines was shot. Others were threatened with being dropped out of helicopters. This rigorous democratic exercise resulted in a unanimous vote for Indonesian rule”.

Certainly, it was a far cry from the act of self-determination involving all adult West Papuan men and women promised in the 1962 ‘New York Agreement‘, that ‘temporarily’ handed control of West Papua to Indonesia. After raping and torturing its way through the West Papuan population, killing an estimated 30,000 people in six years, Indonesia finally got round to organising the farcical “act of self-determination” described above in 1969.

Despite the obviously fraudulent process (one U.S. embassy telegram (.pdf) described it as “unfolding like a Greek tragedy, the conclusion preordained”), the international community – including Britain – accepted the Indonesian conquest of West Papua as legitimate. The reasons why were explained accurately in an internal 1968 Foreign Office memo:

“The strength of the Indonesian position lies in the fact that…they must know that, even if there are protests about the way they go through the motions of consultation, no other power is likely to conceive it as being in their interests to intervene…I cannot imagine the US, Japanese, Dutch, or Australian Governments putting at risk their economic and political relations with Indonesia on a matter of principle involving a relatively small number of very primitive people.”

Or, as Lord Harries put it last year,

“A number of powerful countries have strong economic ties to Indonesia, not least in the arms trade, and will be only too anxious not to make a fuss about this matter, as they were anxious not to make a fuss about it at the time of the so-called “Act of Free Choice” in 1969. We are, of course, one of those countries.”

Since then, an estimated 100,000 West Papuans have been killed in what a Yale Law School study (.pdf) describes as a genocide. The British government has continued to sell arms to Indonesia – over £393 million worth between 1997 and 2005 alone. Noam Chomsky often quotes Thomas Carothers, director of the Carnegie Endowment Program on Law and Democracy and a former official in the Reagan administration, to the effect that there exists a “strong line of continuity” in U.S. foreign policy, specifically that:

“Where democracy appears to fit in well with US security and economic interests, the United States promotes democracy. Where democracy clashes with other significant interests, it is downplayed or even ignored.”

The British government’s continued support for Indonesian oppression in West Papua demonstrates that the principle is equally applicable over here.