Debating culture in the equation of Papua's conflict resolution

 https://www.thejakartapost.com/paper/2023/03/13/debating-culture-in-the-equation-of-papuas-conflict-resolution.html?fbclid=IwAR1CC3AocKRXukl1twom-mn--S21IY4bmL6VbDGx0xxcd4JzxfNM1maNWpE

Debating culture in the equation of Papua's conflict resolution

The Jakarta Post – 13 March 2023

The security situation in Papua has been heating up as efforts continue to release Susi Air pilot Philips Mehrtens, captured by the West Papuan Liberation Army (TPNPB) over month one ago. Tensions have become even tighter due to the recent Wamena riots, which stemmed from fake news about an incident of child abduction.

Security forces have come under the spotlight yet again, accused of involvement in the Wamena violence that claimed 10 civilian lives. Amid this worrying state, talks are rising about paying compensation, also known as “head pay”, for those killed and injured in Wamena on Feb. 23. Payment of compensation for casualties of the bloody Wamena tragedy follows the custom of communities in the Papuan Highlands.

However, not all victims agree with this rule. Interestingly this custom, which usually occurs as payment in goods or livestock, only applies to horizontal conflicts, such as tribal wars, and not vertical disputes involving security forces. This cultural negotiation is quite interesting. So far, culture tends to have no place in policy discourse for resolving the complex problems in Papua.

This happens because of the narrative of primitiveness and cultural backwardness that stigmatize indigenous Papuan people (OAP). The inclusion of culture as part of conflict resolution in Papua invites us to contemplate other cultures and their approaches through an “elicitive” approach in which we are engaged as active and nonjudgmental learners. Contextualizing the resolution of the cultural conflict resulting from the Wamena case has the potential to carry multiple interpretations in termes of meaning and polemic.

On the one hand is an interpretation that compensation is seen as a form of “pardon” for the perpetrators of the murders, or as a symbol of peace. One dead victim is valued at Rp 5 billion (US$322,527), one injured victim at Rp 1 billion, and there are also demands for several pigs as payment. Legally, this form of compensation appears to be valid because the 1945 Constitution recognizes customary values and traditions in Indonesian society as a legitimate source of unwritten laws.

This legal aspect is similar to the Constitutional Court’s recognition of preserving the system of noken (traditional woven bag) as an electoral system. On the other hand, even though there is a legal basis, the practice of paying cash and livestock as “fines” for fatal and injured victims nullifies the intrinsic value of the function of law, namely justice, protection, humanity, legal certainty and respect for human rights (Tabuni, 2023). Under the law, punishment is given to perpetrators of crimes. The irony is that in the Wamena case, the perpetrators of the crimes were members of the security forces whose duty is to protect civilians.

At the macro level, the involvement of local administrations as representing the “state” in culturally based conflict resolution is considered wrong. The state should protect all its citizens across tribes, ethnicities and religions. But what is happening here is the state is fighting its citizens and taking the wrong side of through the effort to issue fines (Lagowan, 2023). If this “fining system” is “agreed” according to normative law, a person who has been punished once for his mistakes by paying a fine will not or cannot be punished a second time for the same crime, as in the double jeopardy rule.

In addition, paying these fines does not produce a deterrent effect for criminals. A massive polemic, essentially against this action, ensued after the discourse on paying fines. 

The Papua administration, which was present at the payment negotiation, explained that paying a fine was not an attempt to eliminate the punitive aspect of the violation, but was intended more as a bereavement fund that was provided voluntarily for the victims.

The source of this funding comes from social assistance. Until today at least, there has been confusion about the function of the “head pay” fund in the culturally based conflict resolution process in Papua amid solid demands for law enforcement, as stated in 15 position statements from the families of the Wamena riot victims. As a closing note, caution is needed in intruding on cultural values as an element of conflict resolution, especially in vertical conflicts. 

The preconditions have so far ensnared or discredited the value of “humanism” that must be considered as regards indigenous Papuans, who personify multidimensional marginalization, oppression, human rights violations, violence, injustice and racism.

There is also a statement that “life is so cheap” in Papua that indigenous Papuans easily fall victim to violence. The Papuan people are also often characterized as backward, drunk, unable to plan for the future and like to live extravagantly. This “head pay” has the potential to perpetuate this stigmatization. All forms of culturally based conflict resolution must therefore be able to raise humanitarian aspects of indigenous Papuans that are based on justice. There are aspects of self-recognition and self-esteem among Papuan people, wherein neither money nor goods can compensate for the lives lost.

In addition, there must be guarantees in terms of law enforcement and legal certainty. In this case, the “head pay” compensation scheme cannot, in absolute terms, be used as part of this culturally based conflict resolution and must always be rejected. However, despite the controversy, the “head pay” compensation can be used as an entry point in how important it is to consider culture in formulating conflict resolution such as in Papua, where it is still a work in progress. In this case, culture acts as a lens to shape perception or a vernacular for producing and structuring meaningful action in conflict settings.

Understanding the behavior of the parties to a conflict depends upon understanding the “language” they use to render that behavior meaningful (Avruch and Black, 2001). 

Therefore, it is useful to attend to the indigenous understandings of being and action that people use to produce and interpret social action in the context of the Papuan conflict, which needs to involve various stakeholders for the sake of a peaceful and just Papuan society.

-----------------------------------